Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 584
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL № A2003/189
№ A2003/269
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Re: ELIZABETH GARDNER
Applicant
And:COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal: Mr W.G. McLean, Member
Date: 8 June 2004
Place: Canberra
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review made by the respondent on 4 June 2002 and 30 June 2003.
(sgd) W.M. McLean
Member
COMPENSATION — claims for compensation prior to and after 1 December 1988 – common law claim by applicant for damages in respect of accepted work‑related injuries which was commenced in November 1988, amended in June 1995 and settled in April 1997 – assessment of home help claim – effects of common law settlement upon future claims for compensation – decisions affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 ss 7, 29, 48(4), 114
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 s 99
McIntyre v Comcare (1998) 50 ALD 416
REASONS FOR DECISION
8 June 2004 Mr W.G. McLean, Member
The Tribunal considered an application from Ms Elizabeth Gillian Gardner ("the applicant") for the review of a decision (reference number A2003/189, previously W2002/416) made by Comcare ("the respondent") on 4 June 2002. The respondent decided to approve the applicant’s request for home help at three hours per week for the next three months.
The Tribunal also considered an application from the applicant for the review of a decision (reference number A2003/269) made by the respondent on 30 June 2003. The respondent decided on its own motion to cease the applicant’s compensation entitlements on and from 17 April 1997.
The Tribunal received into evidence the documents (the T‑documents) lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Also received into evidence are exhibits A1 and A2 tendered by the applicant and exhibits R1 to R5 tendered by the respondent.
The applicant was represented by Mr H. Selby of counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr B. Kelly of counsel. Sworn oral evidence was given by the applicant and her husband Mr T. Gardner. Sworn oral telephone evidence was given by telephone Ms Carolee Peace and Dr Alan Home for the respondent.
The applicant commenced employment with the Australian Protective Service ("the APS") on 16 January 1986 as a Protective Services Officer Grade 1. On 27 July 1986 the applicant completed a Report of Injury claiming that she had suffered from bruised knees on 26 July 1986 when she slipped on the kitchen floor of the Immigration Detention Centre at Maribyrnong. On 26 November 1986, the applicant lodged a claim for compensation in respect of right knee injury attributable to the 26 July 1986 incident. The applicant elected to claim compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act1971 ("the 1971 Act") in respect of the injury to her knees.
On 8 December 1986, Dr K. King, an orthopaedic surgeon, reported to the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services ("DLGAS") that the applicant had informed him that she slipped and fell heavily at work on 26 July 1986…
- AGLC
- Gardner and Comcare [2004] AATA 584
- Case
- [2004] AATA 584
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Comcare's decision to reduce Ms Gardner's home help hours was reasonable and supported by evidence. The court needed to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties concerning Ms Gardner's physical capabilities and her need for assistance. This involved assessing Ms Gardner's ability to perform daily tasks independently, the impact of her medical conditions on her capacity to maintain her home, and the extent to which her condition justified the level of assistance provided.
The court examined the evidence provided by Ms Carolee Patricia Peace, a home help provider for Ms Gardner, who testified that Ms Gardner could perform many of the tasks that were previously assigned to her. The court also considered Ms Gardner's own statements and observations of her activities, which suggested that she was capable of managing her home and performing various physical tasks. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that Comcare's decision to reduce the hours of home help was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court found that Ms Gardner's condition, while genuine, did not necessitate the level of assistance she sought.
As a result, the court dismissed Ms Gardner's claim, holding that Comcare had acted within its discretion and that the reduction in home help hours was justified. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.