Cruise and Comcare - [2006] AATA 263

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 263
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) No. N2005/574
) No. N2005/861

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re PATRICIA CRUISE

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal R Hunt, Senior Member
Dr J Campbell, Member
Date20 March 2006
PlaceSydney

Decision The decisions before the Tribunal are affirmed.
[Sgd] Ms Robin Hunt
Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION – Claims for injury at work – Extensive physiotherapy treatments - No present condition arising out of or in the course of employment – No entitlement to medical expenses – No incapacity – Ergonomic chair for home use not legitimate claim – Decisions affirmed.
legislation
Comcare Table 9.6
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 4, 16, 19, 39.
cases
Bradford and Comcare Australia (1994) 37 ALD 187
Chowdhury v Comcare, (AAT 13003, 22 June 1988)
Comcare v Watson (1997) 73 FCR 273
Re Jorgenson and Commonwealth (1990) 23 ALD 321
Popovic and Compare [2000] AATA 264
Thiele v Commonwealth (1990) 95 ALR 172
REASONS FOR DECISION
20 March 2006
SUMMARY
1. The applicant, Ms Patricia Cruise, sought review of decisions concerning her claims in respect of back and neck pain for which she had undergone extensive physiotherapy. Ms Cruise and Comcare in 1999 agreed to settlement of Ms Cruise’s claim for a neck injury. Ms Cruise subsequently made two further claims against Comcare and Comcare denied liability for those claims. The first reviewable decision of which Ms Cruise sought Tribunal review concerned the cost of physiotherapy after Comcare decided to stop paying for further treatment as at 3 December 2004. The second claim was in relation to Comcare’s refusal to pay for an ergonomic chair for Ms Cruise’s use at home. The tribunal decided that Ms Cruise currently does not suffer from any condition that is work related and is therefore not entitled to payment of further medical expenses. The tribunal also decided Ms Cruise is not entitled to payment for the ergonomic chair which she uses at home. This means Ms Cruise has been unsuccessful. The reasons for the tribunal’s decision are set out below.
BACKGROUND
2. In matter number N2005/574, Ms Cruise sought review of a decision rejecting her claim for re-imbursement of the cost of an ergonomic chair for her use at home. By reviewable decision dated 16 March 2005, a determination of 26 August 2004 was affirmed, disallowing the claim for the chair under both ss 16 and 39 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act).
3. In matter number N2005/861, Ms Cruise sought review of the decision to reject her claim for the cost of medical treatment, specifically physiotherapy, and to reject her claim for compensation for “incapacity benefits”. The reviewable decision of 26 April 2005 determined that, as at 3 December 2004, Ms Cruise no longer was entitled under s 16 to compensation, being physiotherapy treatment, nor to incapacity benefits under s 19 for the claimed injury.
ISSUES
4. In respect to the physiotherapy…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cruise and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Cruise and Comcare [2006] AATA 263
Case: [2006] AATA 263
Decision Date: 20 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the tribunal involved an employee, Cruise, who sought compensation from Comcare for injuries sustained at work. Cruise argued that he was entitled to compensation for extensive physiotherapy treatments, as well as for an ergonomic chair for home use, following injuries sustained at work. Comcare, on the other hand, argued that Cruise was not entitled to compensation for the treatments or for the chair, as there was no present condition arising from his employment. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether Cruise was entitled to compensation for the treatments and the chair, and whether he had suffered any incapacity as a result of his injuries. The tribunal found that Cruise was not entitled to compensation for the treatments or the chair, as there was no present condition arising from his employment. The tribunal also found that Cruise had not suffered any incapacity as a result of his injuries. The tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles.

The tribunal considered the legal issues in relation to the claim for compensation, focusing on whether the treatments and chair constituted a present condition arising out of or in the course of employment. The tribunal examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. The tribunal found that there was no present condition arising from Cruise's employment, and therefore, he was not entitled to compensation for the treatments or the chair. The tribunal also considered whether Cruise had suffered any incapacity as a result of his injuries, and found that there was no evidence of incapacity. The tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decisions before the Tribunal are affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		PATRICIA CRUISE