Likely future medical expenses to be incurred denied

Likely future medical expenses to be incurred denied – Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2026] WADC 81.

1. What the case was about

The case concerned an appeal by Stephane Armet against a WorkCover WA arbitrator’s decision refusing his claim for payment of future medical treatment expenses arising from injuries he said he suffered at work in 2015.

Mr Armet had suffered a lumbar-spine injury on 18 March 2015, followed by an aggravation on 4 September 2015. CFC Consolidated had accepted liability for the workers’ compensation injury.

In 2023, Mr Armet applied for payment of anticipated treatment expenses, including physiotherapy, chiropractic, hydrotherapy and psychiatric/psychological treatment sessions.

CFC opposed the application, for reasons that the expenses were not “reasonable expenses” because they were not sufficiently connected with the compensable injuries.

2. What happened before the appeal

The arbitrator dismissed the application in September 2024.

His conclusion was essentially that previous decisions had already dealt with these matters and that the evidence did not establish that the proposed treatment was reasonably connected with the compensable injury.

3. The appeal to the District Court

Mr Armet appealed to the District Court and the Court granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. In coming to its conclusion, the Court reduced Mr Armet’s numerous grounds of appeal into five principal questions:

1. Was he denied procedural fairness because the arbitration was decided on the papers?
2. Were the arbitrator’s reasons inadequate?
3. Was the arbitrator lacking integrity, independence or impartiality?
4. Did the arbitrator apply the wrong law?
5. Did the arbitrator wrongly apply the principles of estoppel/res judicata and therefore fail to properly consider conflicting evidence?

4. The ultimate result

The outcome can be summarised very simply:

Issue	District Court’s finding
Leave to appeal	Granted
Appeal	Dismissed
Hearing on papers	No procedural unfairness
Adequacy of reasons	One aspect inadequate, but not material
Back/foot treatment	Claim still failed because evidence did not establish reasonable/appropriate future treatment
Psychological treatment	Arbitrator was entitled to prefer the recent psychiatric evidence
Bias/impartiality	Not established
International law/Bangalore Principles	Did not provide an applicable independent basis for the appeal
Res judicata/issue estoppel	Properly prevented re-litigation of previously determined non-compensable conditions

The Court’s formal conclusion was that although leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was dismissed.

5. In practical terms

The judgment states that Mr Armet’s case failed not simply because the arbitrator disagreed with his medical evidence, but because:

1. some of his alleged injuries had already been determined in earlier proceedings;
2. for the remaining compensable injuries, the evidence did not sufficiently establish entitlement to the proposed future treatment expenses; and
3. his complaints about the assessment of the medical evidence largely concerned findings of fact, which could not be converted into successful questions of law merely by describing them as legal errors.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.