What's News in Commonwealth Compensation

 

 

 

Morison and Comcare [2008] AATA 292 (11 April 2008) Brisbane

In addition to considering a reviewable decision relating to medical expenses, the Tribunal was also required to consider a reviewable decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of permanent incapacity pursuant to s19. For the reasons stated above the reviewable decision was affirmed.

 

 

 

Morison and Comcare [2008] AATA 292 (11 April 2008) Brisbane

In addition to considering a reviewable decision relating to medical expenses and permanent impairment, the Tribunal was also required to consider a reviewable decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for household services pursuant to s29. For the reasons stated above the reviewable decision was affirmed.

 

Morison and Comcare [2008] AATA 292 (11 April 2008) Brisbane

The applicant made a claim for compensation as a result of an injury sustained on 9 June 1999. The applicant had previously sustained a neck injury whilst in the Army in 1988, for which the Department of Veterans Affairs had previously accepted liability. Comcare accepted liability for the applicant’s neck pain and headaches as a result of a workplace incident on 9 June 1999, but determined that those conditions were the result of an aggravation of an existing condition. Comcare determined that the aggravation was temporary and had ceased.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the effect of the injury was such that the applicant should be compensated under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) for medical expenses pursuant to s16.

Although there was conflicting medical evidence the Tribunal determined that the applicant’s symptoms from his existing condition were temporarily worsened by his work but that there was no impact on the steadily deteriorating underlying condition. The Tribunal noted that the condition was the real cause of the ongoing problems and the symptoms should have abated. The Tribunal stated that it was not entirely clear why the problems were not resolved but that there was insufficient evidence to support an ongoing connection with the applicant’s workplace.

Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision to reject the applicant’s claim for medical expenses.

Pedder and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2008] AATA 290 (10 April 2008) Melbourne

The applicant injured his back whilst serving in the Australian Army in the 1960s. The applicant claimed compensation and was ultimately successful, however the Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) rejected the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of travel expenses to attend medical consultations with Dr Kouzmin. The Tribunal determined that the MRCC was not liable to reimburse the applicant for travel expense under s16 of the Act for consultations with Dr Kouzmin for the condition ‘aggravation of developmental lumbar scoliosis with mild diffuse lumbar disc degeneration and referred pain to lower limbs.’

It was determined that the applicant may consult any medical practitioner of his choosing or to whom he was referred. The applicant received a medical referral to Dr Kouzim for her expertise in rheumatology in 1999. Dr Kouzmin undertook the management of many medical conditions that were not within the area of rheumatology and were remote from the compensable injury. Dr Kouzmin undertook the role of a general practitioner to the applicant. It was determined that treatment for the applicant’s conditions other than related to the spine and referred pain as advised do not fall within the scope of s16(1) of the Act. As such, travel expenses related to the treatment of conditions which were not spine related or referred pain, were not compensable. It was also noted that appropriate medical treatment for the compensable injury was available within a 50 kilometre return trip to the Applicant’s residence.