Publications

The recent decision in Ganeson v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 55 has clarified the circumstances under which nutritional supplements can be considered “medical treatment” under section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA). This case reinforces the principle that the definition of “treatment and care” is not rigid but must be interpreted considering the specific needs of an individual claimant. It also highlights the potential financial and health implications for injured individuals who require non-traditional medical treatments.

The legal framework

Section 1.4 of MAIA defines “treatment and care” to include a range of services such as medical treatment, rehabilitation, aids and appliances, and home modifications. Relevant to this case, the key provision was:

(a) medical treatment (including pharmaceuticals).

The issue before the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) was whether nutritional supplements such as Up & Go and Sustagen could be classified as “medical treatment” within this definition. The insurer argued that because these products are available over the counter without a prescription, they should not qualify as compensable medical treatment under the scheme.

Background

The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 13 December 2023, sustaining injuries to his foot and hand.

As part of his pre and postsurgical care, his treating doctors recommended he consume Up & Go and Sustagen to improve his nutritional status and facilitate his recovery. The claimant sought approval for the supplements as a compensable “treatment and care” expense under the MAIA.

The insurer denied the request, arguing that such supplements, widely available in supermarkets without a prescription, do not qualify as “medical treatment.” This led to the matter being referred to the PIC for determination.

The Decision

The PIC found in favour of the claimant, ruling that the nutritional supplements fell within the meaning of “medical treatment (including pharmaceuticals)” in this specific case. The key factors influencing the decision included:

• Context-specific interpretation – the term “medical treatment” should be interpreted flexibly, considering the claimant’s individual needs and the purpose of the treatment.
• Professional recommendation – two health practitioners supported the necessity of the supplements in the claimant’s pre-surgical period.
• Temporary and specific use – the supplements were prescribed for a defined three-week period before surgery, not as a long-term dietary supplement.
• Precedent consideration – the decision referenced Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA v Scott [2016] NSWCA 138, which supported a broad interpretation of “treatment,” including non-professionally provided interventions.

The PIC distinguished between consumable products like nutritional supplements and “aids and appliances,” which are external in nature, reinforcing that treatment can include orally ingested products if prescribed in a medical context.

Impact on claimants

This decision has significant implications for claimants who require non-traditional forms of treatment as part of their recovery. Many injured individuals face barriers when insurers strictly interpret medical treatment as being limited to services provided by doctors or hospitals. However, as Ganeson demonstrates, the need for treatment varies based on individual circumstances, and medical interventions can extend to nutritional support when it is a necessary component of pre or post operative care.

For claimants, this decision will assist for:

• Access to necessary treatment – individuals who require nutritional support for recovery may now have a stronger basis for seeking funding under the MAIA.
• Reduced out-of-pocket costs – previously, claimants may have had to pay for such supplements themselves. This decision sets a precedent for including them as a legitimate medical expense, reducing financial strain.
• Recognition of holistic recovery needs – the ruling reinforces the idea that treatment extends beyond traditional medical procedures and includes supportive care that enhances recovery.

Implications for legal practitioners and insurers

For legal practitioners, this case provides a precedent to argue for a broader interpretation of “medical treatment” in claims where supplementary nutrition, non-prescription medications, or other forms of care are essential for recovery. Lawyers representing injured clients should consider whether medical evidence supports the necessity of a particular treatment, even if it is not traditionally classified as medical intervention.

For insurers, this decision serves as a reminder that rigid interpretations of “treatment and care” may not withstand legal scrutiny. The case highlights the importance of assessing claims based on medical necessity rather than the availability of a product in retail stores.

This decision reinforces that the interpretation of “medical treatment” under the MAIA is context-dependent. While not all nutritional supplements will qualify as treatment, their use may be compensable when supported by medical advice in direct connection with injuries sustained in a motor accident. This case sets a precedent for broader recognition of non-traditional treatments in the compensation framework, ensuring that claimants receive the support they need for a full and effective recovery.

This article was published on 26 September by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 334 614 or via the Contact Us page on our website. If you or a loved one have been injured, use our Personal Injury Claim Check now.

Disclosure and important note: This article is based on our own legal research and thinking. Some of its content has been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The authors have checked and approved this article, including the AI generated content, for publication.