The government's workplace insurer has been told to cough up $1,114 for a new recliner lounge chair for a former public servant who was injured in a car crash 27 years ago.

Key points: The then Department of Administrative Services employee hurt her neck in 1992

The then Department of Administrative Services employee hurt her neck in 1992 Comcare accepted liability for her chronic pain and later her major depressive disorder

Comcare accepted liability for her chronic pain and later her major depressive disorder This week they were ordered to finance a new recliner to replace her worn-out chair

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard Comcare first paid compensation to the then Department of Administrative Services employee when she hurt her neck in the 1992 accident, while she was on study leave.

Comcare was later found liable for a further claim for headaches caused by the incident.

After leaving Commonwealth employment in 2000 the woman continued to receive benefits from Comcare, including in 2004 when the insurer agreed to purchase a reclining chair for the woman's home.

And in 2010 Comcare accepted liability for the woman's major depressive disorder as a secondary condition to her chronic headaches and neck pain.

But, in 2016, Comcare refused to pay for a replacement recliner after medical opinion found she did not need it as part of her compensable condition.

The woman appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The tribunal heard the former public servant suffered from headaches as well as neck and shoulder pain. ( iStockPhoto - file photo )

Recliner not a treatment, but is 'reasonably required'

At the hearing, Comcare argued the woman was not eligible for the recliner because she had not been assessed by her rehabilitation authority, nor had a rehabilitation program been determined for her at any time.

A medical expert also told the tribunal the recliner was not required, as it was used to relax the woman's neck, which would not help her headaches or pain.

The woman admitted the chair did not help her headaches, but said it eased her neck and shoulder pain, which reduced the need for other treatments, such as from a chiropractor.

Comcare also argued a recliner chair could not be an aid or appliance, and it was not "reasonably required".

But AAT Member Mark Hyman found in favour of the woman, accepting her argument that the chair was useful because it supported her head and neck.

Mr Hyman found she had been assessed as not being capable of undertaking a rehabilitation program, due to the severity of her condition.

"Comcare is liable to pay compensation for aids or appliances reasonably required by her, having regard to her impairments," Mr Hyman wrote in a decision published this week.

"That gives the chair rehabilitative and remedial attributes that were the basis for its provision in the first place at the recommendation of the occupational therapists who came to assess [her] home," he wrote.

"I accept that the chair is clearly also a chair in other ways — an item suitable to sit on in potentially a variety of contexts; but that character is secondary to its primary qualities in the present context.

"In my view, in light of the above considerations, the chair should be considered as an aid."

The tribunal ordered Comcare pay $1,114 to cover the cost of a new chair, which included the removal and disposal of the old worn-out recliner.