FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Comcare v Heffernan [2013] FCA 299
Citation: Comcare v Heffernan [2013] FCA 299 Appeal from: [2012] AATA 581 Parties: COMCARE v DANIEL HEFFERNAN File number: NSD 1455 of 2012 Judge: EDMONDS J Date of judgment: 8 April 2013 Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – whether provision of modified motor vehicle qualifies as “medical treatment” for the purposes of s 16(1) of Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – whether “curative apparatus” within para (h); whether ”other similar aid or appliance” within para (f) of definition of “medical treatment” in s 4 Legislation: Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4(1), 16, 36, 37, 39
Workers Compensation Act 1926 (NSW)Cases cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27 applied
Austin v Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department (1986) 12 FCR 22 cited
Bresmac Pty Ltd v Starr (1992) 29 NSWLR 318 discussed
G C Wood and Son (Australia) Pty Ltd v Cullen [1991] 2 VR 214 discussed
Hart v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2006) 92 ALD 678 discussed
Morales v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 60 FCR 550 cited
Re Monk and Comcare (1996) 43 ALD 677 discussed
Re Townley v Comcare [2004] AATA 252 discussed
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Collector of Customs (1991) 33 FCR 211 cited
Thiele v The Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 22 FCR 345 referred to
Thomas v Ferguson Transformers Pty Ltd [1979] 1 NSWLR 216 discussed
W Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1982) 41 ALR 315 citedDate of hearing: 12 February 2013 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 28 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr D O’Donovan of Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Mr BG McManamey Solicitor for the Respondent: Turner Freeman
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1455 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: COMCARE
ApplicantAND: DANIEL HEFFERNAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 APRIL 2013
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 30 August 2012 be set aside and the decision made by Comcare on 19 October 2010 be affirmed.
3.The respondent’s notice of contention dated 23 January 2013 be dismissed.
4.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1455 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: COMCARE
ApplicantAND: DANIEL HEFFERNAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
EDMONDS J
DATE:
8 APRIL 2013
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) given on 30 August 2012 ([2012] AATA 581) setting aside the decision made by the applicant (“Comcare”) on 19 October 2010 and in lieu…
Continue reading Comcare v Heffernan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Comcare v Heffernan [2013] FCA 299
- Case
- [2013] FCA 299
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Comcare v Heffernan involved a dispute between Comcare, the employer's compensator, and Mr. Heffernan, a former employee. The central issue was whether the provision of a modified motor vehicle constituted "medical treatment" under section 16(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the modified vehicle qualified as a "curative apparatus" or "other similar aid or appliance" within the definition of "medical treatment" in section 4 of the Act.
The legal issues before the court centered on interpreting the definition of "medical treatment" and applying it to the facts of the case. The court needed to assess whether the modified vehicle Mr. Heffernan sought to acquire, a Toyota Land Cruiser, qualified as a form of medical treatment that Comcare was obligated to fund under the Act. This required a detailed examination of the statutory language and the circumstances of Mr. Heffernan's condition and proposed vehicle modifications.
The court's reasoning focused on the statutory interpretation of the term "medical treatment" and its definitions in section 4. The court held that the modified vehicle did not fall under the definition of "medical treatment" as it did not qualify as a "curative apparatus" or "other similar aid or appliance." The court emphasized that "medical treatment" in the context of the Act refers to services and interventions that directly address a person's medical condition, such as surgeries, therapies, or prescribed medications. The court concluded that while the modified vehicle might alleviate some discomfort, it did not constitute a medical treatment within the statutory definition.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and affirmed Comcare's decision not to fund the new vehicle. The court also ordered Mr. Heffernan to pay Comcare's costs of the appeal.
The legal issues before the court centered on interpreting the definition of "medical treatment" and applying it to the facts of the case. The court needed to assess whether the modified vehicle Mr. Heffernan sought to acquire, a Toyota Land Cruiser, qualified as a form of medical treatment that Comcare was obligated to fund under the Act. This required a detailed examination of the statutory language and the circumstances of Mr. Heffernan's condition and proposed vehicle modifications.
The court's reasoning focused on the statutory interpretation of the term "medical treatment" and its definitions in section 4. The court held that the modified vehicle did not fall under the definition of "medical treatment" as it did not qualify as a "curative apparatus" or "other similar aid or appliance." The court emphasized that "medical treatment" in the context of the Act refers to services and interventions that directly address a person's medical condition, such as surgeries, therapies, or prescribed medications. The court concluded that while the modified vehicle might alleviate some discomfort, it did not constitute a medical treatment within the statutory definition.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and affirmed Comcare's decision not to fund the new vehicle. The court also ordered Mr. Heffernan to pay Comcare's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 30 August 2012 be set aside and the decision made by Comcare on 19 October 2010 be affirmed.
3. The respondent’s notice of contention dated 23 January 2013 be dismissed.
4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
An earlier decision of the Tribunal of 20 June 2012 ([2012] AATA 371) inviting the parties to provide brief written submissions on whether a modified vehicle constitutes “medical treatment” within the meaning of para (f) of the definition of that term in s 4(1) of the SRC Act, had concluded (see [24] of its Earlier Reasons (“ER”)) that such a modified motor vehicle was not a “curative apparatus” within the meaning of para (h) of the definition of “medical treatment” in s 4(1) of the SRC Act.FACTUAL BACKGROUND The contextual background is not in dispute and may be summarised as follows:(1)The respondent (“Mr Heffernan”), born 27 September 1976, was employed as a Chemist at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (“ANSTO”).(2)Following an injury in 2005, Comcare accepted liability to pay compensation under s 14 of the SRC Act for a number of conditions at different times over the next 18 months and, in 2006, Comcare accepted liability for the cost of modifying Mr Heffernan’s motor vehicle – a 1996 Toyota Land Cruiser. Those modifications cost about $1,800 and included the installation of a Stratos car seat.(3)Three years later, Mr Heffernan purchased a 2004 Nissan Patrol four-wheel drive for $18,000. He gave as the reason for that decision the prohibitive cost of maintaining the Land Cruiser which was constantly in need of repairs having travelled close to 400,000 kilometres.(4)The Nissan Patrol was assessed by occupational therapists, including Ms Wise, as unsuitable for Mr Heffernan’s use because of, among other things, his back condition. The occupational therapists believed that because of a combination of factors, including limited head clearance (Mr Heffernan is very tall and there is inadequate clearance between his head and the ceiling of the vehicle), the nature of his back condition and the design of the vehicle, it was not possible to modify the vehicle so as to materially reduce the discomfort Mr Heffernan experienced when driving. Two alternative vehicles had been identified as being suitable for Mr Heffernan’s use provided a number of modifications were undertaken.(5)On 6 August 2010, Mr Heffernan submitted a claim to Comcare to cover the cost of “New Vehicle Acquisition and Upgrade” to be considered under ss 4, 16, 36, 37 and 39 of the SRC Act. Mr Heffernan proposed that Comcare pay for the purchase of a new Toyota Land Cruiser with a number of specified models identified.(6)On 26 August 2012, Comcare determined:(i)That it was not liable to pay compensation for the cost of a new Toyota Land Cruiser (including upgrades) pursuant to ss 4, 16, 36, 37 and 39 of the SRC Act;(ii)that it was liable to pay compensation for a Stratos seat (including the fitting) pursuant to s 39 of the SRC Act.(7)Mr Heffernan sought review of that decision.(8)On 19 October 2010, Comcare affirmed the decision under review.(9)Mr Heffernan sought review of that decision in the Tribunal. His primary contention was that Comcare was liable to pay for the vehicle and subsequent modifications pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act. Section 16 renders Comcare liable for the cost of medical treatment.STATUTORY CONTEXT
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.