Decisions for the week ending 24 July 2009 regarding:
Liability
No decisions.
Exclusions
Failure to obtain a benefit
No decisions.
Reasonable disciplinary action
No decisions.
Section 6A: Unintentional Consequences
No decisions.
Journey Claims
Chalfont and Comcare [2009] AATA 540 (21 July 2009) Brisbane (heard in Ballina)
The Tribunal in this instance was asked to consider whether the Applicant was entitled to receive reimbursement for travel expenses incurred whilst travelling to medical appointments, in accordance with section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).
The Applicant suffered from a number of medical conditions which the Respondent had accepted for. These included a left knee injury, diverticula of the colon and a left shoulder injury. The two central issues involved in this matter were firstly, if the Applicant was required to travel for distances greater than 50 kilometres and secondly if he did, whether those instances constituted a single journey or separate journeys.
It was estimated that the Applicant travelled 38 kilometres to the Princess Alexandra Hospital for treatment and 44 kilometres on each of his visits to Wickham Terrace. However, the Applicant submitted he had to travel over 50 kilometres in each of these visits, as his bowel dysfunction necessitated detours to find public toilets, or on occasion a trip home to shower and redress.
Ultimately, the Tribunal decided that the Applicant was not entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses as his trips to seek medical attention did not exceed 50 kilometres. The Tribunal came to this conclusion on the basis that the evidence of the Applicant was unreliable and his accounts of the situation were ‘inherently improbable.’ As such, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that he travelled more than 50 kilometres for medical treatment. As this was the deciding issue, it was therefore considered unnecessary to consider whether the journeys undertaken by the Applicant could be considered to be a single journey or two separate ones.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
Jurisdiction
No decisions.
Procedure & Costs
No decisions.
Notice provisions & Time limits
No decisions.
Recovery of compensation
No decisions.
Incapacity
Mock and Comcare [2009] AATA 545 (22 July 2009) Sydney
One of the issues for the Tribunal to decide in regard to this matter was whether the Applicant had suffered an aggravation of her condition and as such was entitled to incapacity payments in accordance with section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the 1988 Act’).
The Applicant had a back and upper arm injury which had been accepted whilst she was engaged in her previous employment. At issue for the Tribunal was whether the Applicant had suffered an aggravation whilst in her current employment, as such, entitling the Applicant to the payment of incapacity payments.
Upon consideration of the medical evidence, the Tribunal accepted the medical opinion of an occupational physician and considered that the Applicant’s current employment caused only a temporary exacerbation of her symptoms and as such, the continuing affects of the Applicant’s condition were the result of her previous employment.
As such, there was no entitlement to compensation in accordance with section 19 of the 1988 Act.
Mock and Comcare [2009] AATA 545 (22 July 2009) Sydney
Also at issue for the Tribunal was whether the Applicant was entitled to receive compensation for permanent impairment in accordance with sections 24 and 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the ‘1988 Act’).
The Tribunal considered that as the Applicant was not entitled to the payment of incapacity and medical expenses for her temporary exacerbation it necessarily followed that she was not entitled to the payment of compensation for permanent impairment or non-economic loss.
As such, the Applicant was not considered to be entitled to compensation in accordance with sections 24 and 27 of the 1988 Act.
Mock and Comcare [2009] AATA 545 (22 July 2009) Sydney
The Tribunal in this matter was also convened to decide whether the Applicant was entitled to compensation for medical expenses, in accordance with section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the ‘1988 Act’).
The Tribunal preferred the medical evidence of an occupational physician who indicated that the Applicant had only suffered from a temporary exacerbation of her symptoms, and as such, any current symptomology was attributable to her previous employment.
Based upon this medical opinion, the Respondent incurred no liability to pay medical costs under s16 of the 1988 Act.
No decisions.
No decisions.
No decisions.
The material contained in this publication is no more than general comment. Readers should not act on the basis of the material without taking professional advice relating to their particular circumstances.
The information in this document is provided for general guidance only. It is not legal advice, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional legal or other advisors. No warranty is given to the correctness of the information contained in this document, or its suitability for use by you. To the fullest extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted by DibbsBarker for any statement or opinion, or for an error or omission or for any loss or damage suffered as a result of reliance on or use by any person of any material in the document.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, it may only be reproduced for internal business purposes, and may not otherwise be copied, adapted, amended, published, communicated or otherwise made available to third parties, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent of DibbsBarker.
