YNCJ and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a dispute between YNCJ (the Applicant) and Comcare (the Respondent) concerning the Applicant's entitlement to compensation for travel expenses. The Applicant had lodged a claim for workers' compensation following a physical injury in 2016, and subsequently for a secondary psychological condition. The core of the dispute revolved around whether attendance at a medical practitioner for the assessment of permanent impairment and completion of claim forms constituted "medical treatment" under section 16 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), and alternatively, whether the Applicant's travel expenses to attend these consultations were "reasonably incurred" for a "necessary journey."

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold. Firstly, it had to determine if the Applicant's consultations with her General Practitioner, Dr. M, for the purpose of assessing permanent impairment and completing the relevant claim forms qualified as "medical treatment" as defined by section 16 of the SRC Act. Secondly, if such attendance was not considered medical treatment, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the Applicant's travel to these consultations was "reasonably incurred" and constituted a "necessary journey" under subsections 16(6), 16(7), and 16(8) of the SRC Act, considering factors such as the availability of alternative medical practitioners and the reasonableness of the travel undertaken.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the interpretation of "medical treatment" and the reasonableness of the travel. It noted that attendance for the sole purpose of completing permanent impairment claim forms, as opposed to receiving direct medical care, was generally not considered "medical treatment" under section 16 of the SRC Act, citing precedent. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the Applicant's travel to Dr. M, who had relocated significantly further from her residence. Despite the Applicant's arguments regarding her long-standing relationship with Dr. M, his familiarity with her complex medical history, and the potential for increased anxiety if she had to retell her story to a new GP, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was unreasonable to seek treatment from other GPs located closer to her home. The Tribunal highlighted that the Applicant resided in a metropolitan area with numerous GP practices available, and the decision to continue travelling a considerable distance to Dr. M appeared to be based on personal preference rather than absolute necessity, especially given the availability of alternative practitioners.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision to deny liability for the Applicant's claimed travel expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the attendance for the purpose of completing permanent impairment claim forms did not constitute "medical treatment" under section 16 of the SRC Act. Moreover, it found that the Applicant's travel to Dr. M was not reasonably incurred for a necessary journey, as there were readily available alternative medical practitioners closer to her residence, and the Applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that continuing to consult Dr. M was a necessity rather than a personal choice.