Allen and Comcare

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 379

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No D2001/1

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      DEIRDRE ALLEN
  Applicant
           And    COMCARE
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member

Date8 May 2001
PlaceBrisbane

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse reimbursement for travel expenses pursuant to subsection 16(6) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 because subsection 16(6) is subject to subsection 16(7) of the said Act.
  ..............(Signed)................................
  D.W. MULLER
  SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - Travel expenses for medical treatment not compensable unless length of journey exceeds 50 kilometres.
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988: s16(6), 16(7)

REASONS FOR DECISION

8 May 2001 Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member

This is an application to review a decision to refuse reimbursement of travel expenses pursuant to section 16 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act).
The applicant has a work related illness which has required her to consult with her doctor from time to time. Each time she has seen her doctor she has travelled by private car, a return trip of 30 kilometres. Her claim is for six trips between early 1999 and 23 October 2000.
Subsection 16(6) of the said Act provides for compensation in an appropriate case where the employee reasonably incurs expenditure in making a necessary journey for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment.
However, subsection 16(6) is subject to subsection 16(7) which provides that Comcare is not liable to pay compensation under subsection 16(6) unless the reasonable length of such a journey as it was necessary for the employee to make (including the return part of the journey) exceeded 50 kilometres.
The legislation refers to compensation for each specific journey, not the total of the six trips. As each journey was less than 50 kilometres, Comcare is not liable for the travel in this case.
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 6 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member
Signed:         .....................................................................................
           R. Hayes, Associate
Date/s of Hearing  4 May 2001 (Hearing on the papers)
Date of Decision  8 May 2001
Applicant  Ms. Allen
Solicitor for the Respondent    Ms Tyszkiewicz, Phillips Fox

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Allen v Comcare, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered the eligibility of travel expenses for medical treatment under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The appellant, Allen, sought compensation for travel expenses incurred for medical treatment, which Comcare, the respondent, declined to pay. The central dispute revolved around whether the travel expenses were compensable under the provisions of the Act.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of sections 16(6) and 16(7) of the Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the travel expenses were compensable when the distance of the journey did not exceed 50 kilometres. The court needed to examine whether the statutory provisions imposed a distance threshold for the eligibility of travel expenses and, if so, how this threshold applied in the context of the appellant's case.

The court held that travel expenses for medical treatment are only compensable under the Act if the length of the journey exceeds 50 kilometres. The court found that the statutory language clearly established this distance requirement. Since Allen's journey for medical treatment was within the 50-kilometre limit, the travel expenses were not eligible for compensation. The court's interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to limit compensable travel expenses to cases where the journey distance significantly exceeds a certain threshold. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of Comcare not to pay the travel expenses was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established