Yeats and Comcare (Practice and procedure) - [2025] ARTA 1115

Yeats and Comcare (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1115 (23 July 2025)
Applicant/s:  Jean Yeats
Respondent:  Comcare
Tribunal Number:                2024/6035
Tribunal:General Member F Eylward
Place:Canberra
Date:23 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal ORDERS that:
1. The Respondent has leave to inspect the documents produced under summons in the proceedings by:
(a) Bodysystem; and
(b) Grosvenor Street General Practice.

2.The Applicant’s objection to the Respondent’s inspection of the documents produced under summons by the entities above is disallowed.

..................[SGD]......................................................
General Member F Eylward
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summons – objection to inspection of summons material – medical records produced – compensation claim for medical expenses – relevance of summonsed medical records – non-appearance at directions hearing for summons
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024
Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988
CASES
Martinovic and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2021] AATA 3435
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Limited and Others (No. 2) (1989) 88 ALR 90
Woodhouse v Comcare [2021] FCAFC 95
Krampe v Comcare (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 689
Panagiotou and TNT Australia Pty Ltd [2011] AATA 565
Re Cavanaugh and Comcare [2005] AATA 297
Comcare v Maganga [2008] FAC 285; (2008) 47 AAR 487
ZFCC and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 1358
Husar and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] ARTA 4
Nikaghanrin and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] AATA 3311
Statement of Reasons

This interlocutory decision relates to the Applicant’s objection of 8 December 2024, expanded upon on 20 December 2024, to the inspection of summonsed documents produced to the Tribunal by physiotherapists, Bodysystem, and general practitioners, Grosvenor Street General Practice, as part of the current proceedings, primarily on the basis of relevance and privacy (the objection),[1] in accordance with section 78(5) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act).
[1] Applicant’s Emails to the Tribunal dated 8 December 2024 and 20 December 2024
The Respondent filed written submissions on 19 March 2025 responding to the Applicant’s objection and pressing the inspection. The Respondent submitted the summonsed documents of Bodysystem and Grosvenor Street General Practice (summons documents) were of ‘apparent relevance’ to the issues in dispute and there was ‘no reason why in its discretion the Tribunal should not allow inspection’ having regard to the applicable case law on inspection of summons documents.[2]
[2] Respondent’s Written Submissions filed 19 March 2025
The substantive proceedings in this matter arise from an Application for Review lodged with the Tribunal on 17 August 2024 seeking review of a decision by the Respondent dated 21 June 2024 (Reviewable Decision), which affirmed an earlier decision denying liability for physiotherapy treatment under section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).[3]
[3] T-Documents 1.1
The Applicant has an accepted claim for ‘occupational overuse injury to the common extensor of both elbows, and bilateral trapezius muscle strain in the upper shoulder region’ (compensable conditions), deemed to have occurred during her employment with Services Australia on 23 January 1995…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Yeats and Comcare (Practice and procedure)

Details

AGLC: Yeats and Comcare (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1115
Case: [2025] ARTA 1115
Decision Date: 23 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yeats lodged an application for review against Comcare, seeking to overturn a decision that denied liability for physiotherapy treatment under section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988. Yeats has an accepted claim for occupational overuse injuries, and the primary issues for the Tribunal to determine include whether physiotherapy treatment qualifies as medical treatment for the purposes of the Act, whether the treatment is related to the accepted compensable conditions, and whether the treatment is reasonable. Comcare has also argued that the Tribunal should consider whether the compensable conditions still have a requisite connection to Yeats’ employment given the nature of the symptoms. An interlocutory issue arose concerning whether the complete medical records of Yeats' treating physiotherapist and general practitioner are relevant to the substantive issues or could provide additional insight.

The central legal issue was whether the medical records in question were of ‘apparent or adjectival relevance’ to the substantive issues or if they could ‘throw light’ on any of those issues. This question required the Tribunal to assess the relevance of the records in the context of the broader dispute. Yeats had objected to the inspection of her medical records, arguing that they were irrelevant to the issues at hand. Comcare argued that the records were necessary to understand the nature and extent of the physiotherapy treatment and its connection to the compensable conditions.

The Tribunal found that the medical records were indeed of apparent or adjectival relevance to the substantive issues and likely to throw light on some of those issues. The Tribunal concluded that the records could provide insight into the nature and extent of the physiotherapy treatment, its connection to the compensable conditions, and the reasonableness of the treatment. The Tribunal also considered Yeats’ non-appearance at the directions hearing for the summons, which further supported Comcare's position. Given the relevance of the medical records and Yeats’ absence, the Tribunal overruled the objection and allowed the inspection of the records.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The substantive proceedings in this matter arise from an Application for Review lodged with the Tribunal on 17 August 2024 seeking review of a decision by the Respondent dated 21 June 2024 (Reviewable Decision), which affirmed an earlier decision denying liability for physiotherapy treatment under section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).[3] [3] T-Documents 1.1 The Applicant has an accepted claim for ‘occupational overuse injury to the common extensor of both elbows, and bilateral trapezius muscle strain in the upper shoulder region’ (compensable conditions), deemed to have occurred during her employment with Services Australia on 23 January 1995 due to repetitive movement using keyboards. The substantive issues to be determined by the Tribunal are, in brief:(i)whether physiotherapy treatment is a medical treatment for the purposes of section 16 of the SRC Act;(ii)whether the ongoing physiotherapy treatment is obtained in relation to the accepted compensable conditions; and(iii)whether physiotherapy treatment is reasonable for the Applicant to obtain in the circumstances. The Respondent has also submitted that, given the more recent medical evidence now available that suggests the symptoms may now be degenerative in nature,[4] noting the Applicant ceased employment with Services Australia in 2005, the Tribunal must also consider whether the compensable conditions maintain the requisite connection to that employment to be entitled to medical treatment.[4] Ibid 2 The question for interlocutory determination is whether complete medical records of a treating physiotherapist and/or the general practitioner referring the Applicant for physiotherapy treatment are of ‘apparent or adjectival relevance’ to the issues to be determined[5] or likely to ‘throw light’ on some of those issues.[6][5] Martinovic and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2021] AATA 3435 [14][6] Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Limited and Others (No.2) (1989) 88 ALR 90DIRECTIONS HEARING The Applicant’s objection was initially listed for determination at a telephone directions hearing on 19 March 2025 in accordance with the general procedure and for the purpose of section 78(6) of the ART Act.[7] This date was vacated at the Applicant’s request due to needing to attend hospital with her husband (as his full-time carer) for specialist appointments on the same day. She also noted that she had limited availability due to caring responsibilities for her husband, various medical appointments for each of them, and that they would be travelling interstate from 28 March 2025 – 25 April 2025 for a holiday.[7] S78(6) ART Act ‘If a notice is given under subsection (4) [objection to inspection] the Tribunal must decide whether the document or thing may be inspected or copied by a party to the proceeding. The matter was relisted to 21 March 2025 after seeking the parties’ unavailability in the immediate future, having regard to the Applicant’s pending travel and the need to progress the matter efficiently.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.