Dalgleish and Comcare (Compensation)
Case
•
[2017] AATA 1325
•15 August 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dalgleish and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 1325
[2017] AATA 1325
15 August 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Dalgleish against a decision of a Review Officer of Comcare. The dispute centred on Comcare's liability to pay for cushioning runners required by Mr Dalgleish to be used in conjunction with orthoses prescribed by his podiatrist, Dr Samaras. The decision was made by Senior Member Egon Fice of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Dalgleish had an entitlement to have the cost of the cushioning runners provided by Comcare, and whether this entitlement, which arose under the *National Health Act 1971* (Cth) (the 1971 Act), continued under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act).
Senior Member Fice reasoned that the statements made by Dr Samaras clearly indicated that the cushioning runners were an aid reasonably required by Mr Dalgleish as a result of his injury. The fact that Comcare had previously met the cost of these shoes, without any explanation for the cessation of payment, supported this conclusion. The Tribunal found that Mr Dalgleish's entitlement arose under section 37 of the 1971 Act and, by virtue of the transitional provisions in section 124 of the SRC Act, this entitlement remained.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the Review Officer's decision and substituted a determination that Comcare is liable to pay for the cost of Mr Dalgleish obtaining the specified cushioning runners and their future replacements as reasonably required.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Dalgleish had an entitlement to have the cost of the cushioning runners provided by Comcare, and whether this entitlement, which arose under the *National Health Act 1971* (Cth) (the 1971 Act), continued under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act).
Senior Member Fice reasoned that the statements made by Dr Samaras clearly indicated that the cushioning runners were an aid reasonably required by Mr Dalgleish as a result of his injury. The fact that Comcare had previously met the cost of these shoes, without any explanation for the cessation of payment, supported this conclusion. The Tribunal found that Mr Dalgleish's entitlement arose under section 37 of the 1971 Act and, by virtue of the transitional provisions in section 124 of the SRC Act, this entitlement remained.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the Review Officer's decision and substituted a determination that Comcare is liable to pay for the cost of Mr Dalgleish obtaining the specified cushioning runners and their future replacements as reasonably required.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Causation
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Comcare Australia v McGuire, Alexander Kyle [1996] FCA 683
Cases Citing This Decision
18
MZWW and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)
[2022] AATA 2284
MZWW and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)
[2022] AATA 2284
Steins and Comcare (Compensation)
[2019] AATA 803
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Heffernan v Comcare
[2014] FCAFC 2
Heffernan v Comcare
[2014] FCAFC 2