//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:sa/SAWCRP/1992/216
appellant. The employer's determination dated 27 November 1991 rejecting the claim for reimbursement was confirmed. Costs were certified for the worker's legal counsel for the hearings of 10 February and 28...
A worker who injured her back at work bought a spa-bath attachment to help with her prescribed hot bath and stretching exercises. She claimed the $1,490 cost from her employer under workers compensation. The Review Officer rejected her claim because the medical evidence showed that the therapy came from the heat of the water, not the spa bubbles. Since the same benefit could have been obtained from ordinary hot baths at much less cost, the spa attachment was not a 'therapeutic appliance' under the Workers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The worker's personal belief that the spa helped was not enough to make it a compensable expense. The employer's decision to reject the claim was upheld.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
For the reasons I have set out above I confirm the Determination of the employer, dated 27th November, 1991.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
Any appeal against this determination must be lodged with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal within one month of the receipt of this determination. Enquiries about appeals may be directed to the Registrar of the Tribunal, 4th Floor, Hooker House, 33 King William Street, Adelaide, (phone: 226.9718) and forms for appeal are available from the same address.
Brow
SA Health Commission
See further, Brow v. SA Health Commission [1992] SAWCAT 60 (Parsons DP)
The medical evidence is quite clear in that the therapeutic mechanism in this case was the heat of the hot bath which relaxed the muscles to assist with exercising. While the spa may have assisted in this, so might too have elementary meditation techniques, relaxation tapes or a number of other things. In other words the benefit may well have been reasonably obtained in another and cheaper way. (Metro Meat Ltd v. Banjanovic, [1989] SASC 1868; (1989) 52 5ASR, 102 at 106).
The employer's determination dated 27 November 1991 rejecting the claim for reimbursement was confirmed. Costs were certified for the worker's legal counsel for the hearings of 10 February and 28 April 1992 only (not 10 March 1992).