A former Canberra firefighter who was denied compensation for the upkeep of a pet he keeps as a psychiatric assistance dog has had his appeal denied.

Key points: A former Canberra firefighter who failed to gain compensation for his assistance dog has lost his appeal

A former Canberra firefighter who failed to gain compensation for his assistance dog has lost his appeal The man developed PTSD as a result of fighting the Mitchell factory fire in 2011

The man developed PTSD as a result of fighting the Mitchell factory fire in 2011 In denying the appeal, one ACAT member questioned whether the law should be changed

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld a decision by Comcare made in 2016 to deny the man compensation for the care, upkeep and training of the dog.

The tribunal found the government workplace insurer was not liable to cover the costs of keeping psychiatric assistance animals to help its injured workers.

But tribunal member Gary Humphries said it was "strange" the laws did not include the provision of assistance animals to treat, support and rehabilitate injured workers.

Relief from trauma offered by pet, couple claims

The man suffered post-traumatic stress disorder in 2011 while working for the ACT Fire Brigade when a large factory fire broke out in Mitchell in the city's north.

Five years later, he made a claim to Comcare for the cost of his pet dog, which he said he had come to rely on for psychiatric support.

The expenses included insurance premiums, animal registration, dog training, dietary food, grooming, veterinary costs, de-sexing and vaccination.

Comcare denied the claim, stating that the dog was not obtained because of his PTSD.

It also found that even if it was, it would not be considered reasonable medical treatment in the circumstances.

The man and his wife tried to appeal, but Comcare affirmed its earlier decision, stating: "an aid must be something artificial in nature, not a dog or other animal."

The case was taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the couple argued that while the dog was not originally bought for mental health purposes, it had soon developed a bond with the man.

They said the dog would sense when he was upset or anxious and would become agitated if it wasn't close by to provide comfort.

After the dog was trained as a psychiatric assistance animal — or mind dog — the man's wife said he was able to go to public places that he had previously avoided, "because doing so previously had brought on a panic attack or further stress".

Doctors disagree about role of assistance animal

One psychiatrist who assessed the man said he did meet the definition of a disabled person as per the Disability Discrimination Act, noting that a dog "would be helpful with PTSD-related hyperarousal in shopping centres and crowds of people".

However, another doctor questioned the evidence regarding the psychiatric effectiveness of assistance dogs.

"There are certain lifestyle benefits, but no resolution of the illness," that doctor stated.

Another doctor said the dog was not directly therapeutic, but rather helped him with the process of his therapy.

ACAT deputy president and former ACT chief minister Gary Humphries ruled against the man on the basis that Parliament has not intended to offer injured workers compensation for the cost of assistance animals.

However, in making his decision, Mr Humphries criticised that law.

"It may seem strange that the Parliament has not seen fit to make provision in the parts of this act dealing with the treatment, support and rehabilitation of injured workers, for assistance animals," Mr Humphries said.

"But noting that omission is not a licence for the tribunal to change the intent of the law."