Can Medicinal Cannabis Costs Be Claimed After an Injury in Queensland?

Medicinal cannabis is now prescribed in Australia for some patients dealing with chronic pain, sleep disturbance, spasm and other ongoing symptoms. For an injured worker or motor vehicle accident claimant, the practical question is often not only whether the treatment may help, but whether WorkCover, a CTP insurer or a defendant will pay for it.

The answer is that prescribed medicinal cannabis can potentially be funded or recovered in a Queensland compensation claim. It isn’t automatically accepted, but there is no general rule excluding cannabis-derived medicines simply because they contain CBD or THC.

A prescription is only the starting point. The claimant will usually need evidence connecting the treatment to the compensable injury, explaining why it is clinically appropriate, demonstrating a real benefit and supporting the amount claimed.

Can medicinal cannabis be covered in a compensation claim?

Yes, depending on the circumstances.

Medicinal cannabis costs in compensation claims may arise in two different ways. 

First, a claimant may ask an insurer to fund the treatment while the statutory claim is still open. This may occur in a WorkCover claim or through the rehabilitation provisions applying to a Queensland CTP claim.

Second, the claimant may seek recovery of past and future medicinal cannabis expenses as part of a common law damages claim.

The legal wording varies between schemes. Workers’ compensation may involve questions of whether treatment is reasonable and necessary. CTP rehabilitation involves whether services are reasonable and appropriate. At common law, the question is usually whether the expense was reasonably incurred, or is reasonably likely to be incurred, because of the injury.

In practice, each pathway involves similar underlying questions about causation, clinical justification, effectiveness, safety and cost.

What must a claimant prove?

Connection to the compensable injury

The product must be prescribed for symptoms caused or materially contributed to by the injury covered by the claim.

For example, a worker may have an accepted lumbar spine injury and later be prescribed cannabis oil for chronic neuropathic pain and disrupted sleep. Medical evidence should expressly connect those symptoms and the prescription to the accepted injury.

The issue can be more difficult where the person had pre-existing chronic pain, insomnia, anxiety, depression or cannabis use before the accident. The evidence may need to distinguish between the pre-existing condition and the additional need for treatment caused by the injury.

A prescription that refers only to “pain” or “sleep” without identifying the relevant injury may not adequately establish that connection.

Clinical justification

An insurer or court may consider:

• the diagnosis being treated
• the particular product and cannabinoid concentration
• the dosage and method of administration
• why medicinal cannabis was chosen
• conventional medications and therapies already tried
• side effects, contraindications or dependency concerns
• the qualifications and involvement of the prescriber
• arrangements for ongoing review

A prescription from a cannabis clinic isn’t necessarily insufficient. However, a brief telehealth consultation may carry less weight if the prescriber hasn’t reviewed the claimant’s medical history or communicated with the broader treating team.

Support from a pain physician, rehabilitation physician, psychiatrist, neurologist or occupational physician may strengthen the claim, depending on the condition being treated.

Evidence of benefit

The claimant should document what the treatment has actually changed.

Useful evidence may include:

• lower pain levels
• improved sleep
• reduced opioid or benzodiazepine use
• fewer side effects than previous medication
• improved mobility
• increased daily activity
• better participation in rehabilitation
• improved mood or concentration
• increased ability to perform suitable duties

A general statement that the product “helps” may be given less weight than records showing identifiable changes over time.

Reasonable cost and duration

The amount claimed must be supported.

Past expenses should ordinarily be proved through prescriptions, invoices, pharmacy receipts and dispensing histories. A future claim should identify the current product, dosage, unit price, expected frequency, review costs and likely duration.

An insurer or court may be cautious about an assumption that treatment will continue for life where the medical evidence doesn’t address duration. In some cases, a shorter allowance or a monitored trial may be more supportable.

Medicinal cannabis in Queensland WorkCover claims

The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 provides for treatment associated with a workplace injury. The concept of medical treatment is broad and isn’t subject to an express exclusion for cannabis-derived medicines.

A WorkCover medicinal cannabis request is likely to involve consideration of:

• whether the injury has been accepted
• whether the prescription relates to that injury
• whether the treatment is reasonable and necessary
• whether conventional options have been attempted
• the prescribing and monitoring arrangements
• evidence of therapeutic benefit
• the cost of treatment
• return-to-work and safety issues

WorkCover Queensland may take a strict approach to requests of this kind. That practical position isn’t the same as a statutory prohibition. The individual facts and evidence still need to be considered.

A refusal to fund treatment during the statutory claim also doesn’t necessarily prevent the cost from being claimed later in common law damages. The tests and evidence may overlap, but the insurer’s initial administrative decision isn’t necessarily the final word on common law recoverability.

Medicinal cannabis in Queensland CTP claims

A person injured in a Queensland motor vehicle accident may seek funding for reasonable and appropriate rehabilitation where the requirements of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 are met.

Prescribed medication may form part of rehabilitation where it is directed to the accident-related injury and assists with function, symptom management or quality of life.

Medicinal cannabis expenses may also be claimed later as part of damages. This could include:

• treatment expenses already incurred
• ongoing pharmaceutical costs
• medical review expenses
• reasonably anticipated future treatment costs

The claimant still needs to prove that the product was prescribed because of the accident injury. A lawful prescription for unrelated insomnia, anxiety or chronic pain won’t ordinarily become recoverable simply because the person also has a CTP claim.

Public liability and other personal injury claims

A medicinal cannabis personal injury claim may also arise following an injury in a public place, commercial premises or another negligence context.

The Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 doesn’t create a separate test for cannabis products. They are approached as medical or pharmaceutical expenses in the same way as other treatment costs.

The practical focus remains:

1. Was the treatment required because of the injury?
2. Was it reasonable to undertake the treatment?
3. Did the treatment provide, or is it likely to provide, a benefit?
4. Is the amount claimed reasonable?
5. Is the expected future duration supported by medical evidence?

How are medicinal cannabis expenses assessed at common law?

Common law assessment is distinct from asking an insurer to approve an invoice while a statutory claim remains open.

At common law, damages are intended to compensate the injured person for losses caused by the defendant’s negligence. A claim for medicinal cannabis is therefore part of the broader assessment of past and future medical and rehabilitation expenses.

Past treatment expenses

For past medicinal cannabis expenses, the claimant ordinarily needs to prove:

• the expense was actually incurred
• the amount paid
• the product was lawfully prescribed or supplied
• it was reasonable to undertake the treatment
• the treatment was consequent upon the compensable injury

Receipts prove payment, but payment alone doesn’t prove recoverability. Medical evidence should establish why the treatment was undertaken and how it relates to the injury.

A claimant who began treatment without first obtaining insurer approval may still seek the expense at common law. However, the treatment’s reasonableness and connection to the injury remain open to challenge.

Future treatment expenses

A claim for future costs requires more than multiplying the current weekly expense by life expectancy.

The medical evidence should address:

• the product likely to be used
• expected dosage and frequency
• probable duration
• the need for medical reviews
• likely changes in dose or product
• continuing therapeutic benefit
• alternatives
• potential risks or reasons for discontinuation
• present annual cost

For future medical expenses in Queensland, the court determines the probable cost caused by the injury and then considers normal contingencies. The possibility that the treatment may be stopped, reduced, replaced or become cheaper can justify a discount.

Conversely, a claimant doesn’t necessarily have to prove with certainty that every future purchase will occur. The assessment is based on reasonable probabilities rather than mathematical certainty.

Reasonableness is not simply a search for the cheapest option

A defendant may argue that cheaper conventional medication should be used instead. Cost is relevant, but it isn’t always decisive.

The assessment may also consider the claimant’s circumstances, side effects, functional outcomes, personal autonomy, quality of life and the extent to which alternative medication has failed or created other problems.

A treatment isn’t automatically unreasonable because it is privately prescribed, isn’t PBS subsidised or costs more than another medicine. However, the claimant will usually need evidence explaining why the alternative isn’t equally suitable.

Contingencies and discounts

A court may reduce a future allowance where:

• long-term need is uncertain
• the dosage may change
• the claimant hasn’t yet completed a proper trial
• the treatment produces only limited benefit
• cheaper alternatives may become available
• there are safety or psychiatric risks
• the claimant may cease using the product

This doesn’t mean the whole claim must fail. A court may allow a modest weekly amount, a limited period or a discounted future sum.

What have Queensland courts decided?

Queensland authority remains limited, but the available decisions show that the outcome turns on the evidence.

In Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, the Supreme Court allowed medicinal cannabis oil at $20 per week over a 49-year life expectancy. The decision confirms that a Queensland court may allow an ongoing medicinal cannabis expense where its utility and reasonableness are supported.

In Eden v Jamieson [2023] QSC 240, the expense was refused. The prescription had been obtained by telehealth for psychiatric symptoms, and the relevant psychiatric evidence didn’t support medicinal cannabis as treatment.

In Norman v Hird and Anor [2025] QDC 44, the claim was refused where the medical records indicated that the product had been prescribed for reasons unrelated to the accident injury.

Together, these decisions illustrate that a prescription alone doesn’t establish causation, reasonableness or future need.

What evidence should be collected?

A well-supported claim should usually include:

1. Diagnostic evidence identifying the compensable condition.
2. Causation evidence connecting the symptoms being treated to that condition.
3. Prescription details including product, concentration, dose and frequency.
4. Regulatory information confirming lawful prescribing.
5. Medication history documenting conventional treatments and their outcomes.
6. Specialist support where the condition or treatment is complex.
7. Functional evidence recording changes in pain, sleep, daily activity or medication use.
8. Risk assessment addressing sedation, cognition, dependency and psychiatric concerns.
9. Workplace evidence where driving, machinery or safety-sensitive duties are involved.
10. Cost documents including receipts, pharmacy records and future calculations.
11. A treatment review plan with defined goals and reassessment dates.

The claimant should also be candid about pre-injury or recreational cannabis use. Non-disclosure can undermine both causation and credibility.

THC, driving and workplace safety

THC-containing products create particular issues for driving and safety-sensitive work.

A lawful prescription doesn’t necessarily protect a person who tests positive for THC while driving. This can affect the practicality of the treatment for workers who drive, operate plant or need an unrestricted licence.

An insurer may ask whether:

• a CBD-only product is available
• dosing can occur outside working hours
• the worker can perform alternative duties
• the treatment causes sedation or cognitive impairment
• the prescribing doctor has considered workplace risks

These matters don’t automatically defeat a claim for THC oil compensation, but they should be addressed directly by the prescriber and treating team.

What can be done if funding is refused?

The claimant should first obtain the insurer’s reasons in writing.

The refusal may identify a specific problem, such as:

• no evidence linking the treatment to the accepted injury
• insufficient specialist support
• lack of evidence about conventional treatments
• unclear benefit
• excessive or unexplained cost
• an indefinite treatment proposal
• workplace or driving risks

Depending on the claim, the response may involve obtaining further medical evidence, proposing a time-limited trial, supplying receipts and treatment records, seeking a statutory review or preserving the expense for the common law damages claim.

An initial refusal doesn’t establish that medicinal cannabis costs in compensation claims can never be recovered. It may indicate that the supporting evidence needs to be developed.