A NSW regulator’s decision to remove a Central Coast physiotherapist from the state’s personal injury schemes raises a question brokers and employers in the workers compensation system should be able to answer: when did you last check the public list of barred providers?
The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) announced on September 15 that directions have been issued against physiotherapist Didier Regis Brunet (provider No. PHY0001152634) and his business, Gorokan Physio Pty Ltd (ABN 45 125 974 861), barring both from providing physiotherapy or related administrative services under the workers compensation and motor accident legislation. The directions took effect August 14, 2026, and remain in force unless SIRA revokes them.
Physiotherapists working in the NSW workers compensation scheme must hold prior SIRA approval. That approval is the legal basis for treatment costs to be recoverable.
Under section 60(2A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, an employer is not liable for treatment costs provided by a person who is not appropriately qualified. The Act specifies that a person is not appropriately qualified unless approved by SIRA. A direction under section 26D of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 removes that approval.
The practical result: any treatment delivered by Brunet or through Gorokan Physio Pty Ltd on or after August 14 falls outside the scheme and is not recoverable, regardless of when invoices are submitted.
The direction against Brunet also covers more than clinical work. SIRA’s Register of Directed Service Providers shows he is barred from any involvement in the management, governance, or operations of any organisation providing physiotherapy or related services.
SIRA Bulletin Issue 73 flagged delayed billing as a scheme-wide concern, noting the regulator had identified increasing risks with delayed invoicing for health services and reminding providers of their obligation to submit invoices within 30 days of delivering a service.
For services delivered before August 14 and invoiced within that 30-day window, standard processing applies. For anything delivered on or after August 14, no scheme recovery is available.
Brokers should confirm with their client’s insurer or scheme agent whether any outstanding invoices from this practice are in the processing pipeline, and whether alternative treating practitioners have been arranged for any workers whose care was interrupted.
The purpose of the register, according to SIRA, is to inform scheme participants like insurers and injured people, as well as the public, about the fact that relevant service providers have been issued with a direction about the services they provide.
The register currently lists only four entries – a small number reflecting how infrequently SIRA uses this power. The regulator’s own supervision guidance notes its activity will in general be most focussed on relevant service providers with a pattern of non-compliance rather than one-offs. A listing signals sustained concern.
When SIRA released its regulatory priorities for 2025-26, then-chief executive Mandy Young said: “Publishing our regulatory priorities for the year ahead sets a clear signal to regulated entities and service providers of where our efforts will be concentrated, and how they can align with our expectations.” Those priorities included strong, intelligence-led, risk-based regulatory action – the framework under which the directed provider register operates.
In a May 2025 submission to the NSW Legislative Council’s Public Accountability and Works Committee, the National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA) described the broker role in workers compensation as including “liaising with insurers, Claims Service Providers, allied health professionals, and other service providers to facilitate timely and fair claims outcomes.”
Checking that treating practitioners hold current SIRA approval – and have not been directed to cease operating – fits within that function. The register is publicly accessible on SIRA’s website and updated when directions are issued or revoked.
SIRA referred relevant concerns and evidence to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and the Health Professionals Council Authority (HPCA) for action under the national health practitioner regulatory framework. The HPCA subsequently placed conditions on Brunet’s practice.
That dual-track response reflects a model SIRA is now formalising. An independent strategic review led by Sue Dawson, completed in early 2026, found the annual cost of health services within the NSW personal injury schemes is above $1.8 billion. The review identified four structural problems: unclear regulatory boundaries, complex and fragmented rules, limited risk-based tools, and inconsistent engagement with providers and insurers.
SIRA accepted the findings and committed to a two-year implementation roadmap. Under that model, health profession regulators retain responsibility for clinical conduct, while SIRA focuses on scheme-specific matters – billing, overservicing, and administrative compliance. The Brunet case is a practical illustration of that division already operating.
