Gardner and Comcare

Case [2004] AATA 584


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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

Details
AGLC
Gardner and Comcare [2004] AATA 584
Case
[2004] AATA 584
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Gardner and Comcare was heard. The dispute centred on the level of home help services that the plaintiff, Ms Gardner, was entitled to receive from the defendant, Comcare. Ms Gardner, who had undergone knee replacement surgery and suffered from back pain, sought additional home assistance. Comcare, however, had reduced the hours of home help provided to Ms Gardner, leading to this legal challenge. The court was tasked with determining whether Comcare's decision to reduce the hours of home help was justified and whether Ms Gardner's condition warranted the provision of more assistance.

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

Ms Carolee Patricia Peace gave sworn telephone evidence. Mr Kelly's instructing solicitor, Sparke Helmore, prepared the following outline of the evidence of Ms Peace dated 23 June 2003 (Exhibit R4). Prior to giving evidence Ms Peace read the outline prepared by Sparke Helmore and said that its content was true and correct.OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE OF CAROLEE PATRICIA PEACEDate of document: 23 June 2003Filed on behalf of: The Respondent Date of filing: 23 June 2003Prepared by:Sparke Helmore Telephone: (08) 9288 8000Solicitors Reference:ijm:COM131/90712th Floor, The Quadrant Email: ijm@sparke.com.au1 William StreetPERTH WA 6000Carolee Patricia Peace, Care Aid/Home Help Provider, Silver Chain (Lancelin), will give oral evidence in respect of the following matters, which to the best of her knowledge and understanding are true and correct;1I have been employed with Silver Chain for approximately eighteen months, prior to which, I was employed with Western Health for four years.2I first met Ms Gardner at the end of 1999.3I have known Ms Gardner for approximately three and a half years, being the end of 1999 to the present date.Home Help4I was Ms Gardner's home help assistant for approximately three years.5As best as I can recall, when I first assisted Ms Gardner I was required to provide 4½ hours per week of home help. This was later reduced to 3 hours per week.6As Ms Gardner's home help assistant, I was required to perform the following:· Vacuum ironing room.· Clean laundry.· Vacuum fourth bedroom including walk in robe.· Vacuum third bedroom including walk in robe.· Clean toilet and vacuum floor.· Clean shower bath vanity in main bedroom.· Vacuum hallway including linen press.· Vacuum master bedroom including walk in robe.· Clean ensuite shower and 2 vanity basins.· Clean ensuite toilet and basin.· Vacuum computer room.· Vacuum hall and entry.· Vacuum formal lounge room.· Vacuum formal dining area.· Vacuum games area.· Vacuum kitchen including pantry.· Vacuum informal dining area. · Vacuum TV room.· Wash all floors.· Ironing (time permitting)7It is my opinion that Ms Gardner was able to perform many of the duties I was being requested to perform. Ms Gardner told me that when I am unable to assist her [sic] is able to iron, clean her kitchen, clean her bathrooms and wash her clothes. Ms Gardner also told me that when her house was open for inspection her husband would vacuum the house and she mopped the floors.Ms Gardner's Capacity8I am aware that Ms Gardner did have knee replacement surgery, and that she also complained of back pain.9In the time that I have known Ms Gardner, I have only seen her use a walking stick on two occasions. The first, when I picked her up from St John of God. The second, when she was due to be assessed by an independent medical practitioner.10Ms Gardner use to complain that she could not climb stairs but I have observed her climbing stairs on many occasions.11I have observed Ms Gardner on her treadmill for several hours continuously.12I have observed Ms Gardner using her gopher on only a few occasions (not more than five times).13I am aware that Ms Gardner has a registered photographic business.14Apart from me being Ms Gardner's home help assistant, I also knew her through Weight Watchers ("WW"). Ms Gardner would often join WW members on shopping adventures. On these occasions I cannot recall Ms Gardner having difficulties with her mobility. Ms Gardner and I also occasionally went to the movies together. On one such occasion, I recall that Ms Gardner had driven 70 km to Joondalup, when she got out of the vehicle she demonstrated no restrictions in her movements. She was able to walk to the cinema without any obvious impediments in her mobility. She was then able to sit through an entire movie without any complaint of back pain before driving back home.15Ms Gardner and her husband have driven to NSW on two occasions whilst I have known her. I understand that Ms Gardner did most of the driving as she did not like her husband driving her car. The first trip was in 1999/2000 and the second in May 2001. Ms Gardner and her husband also travelled by plane to Singapore in September 2001 and Queensland in 2003.16Ms Gardner recently relocated to NSW. Ms Gardner drove her own vehicle from Guilderton to NSW (and her husband drove his vehicle). On the day of her move, I observed Ms Gardner bend down to pick up a washing basket full of groceries, carry the basket outside to her husband's car, bend over again and pack the groceries into the vehicle. Ms Gardner did not appear to be restricted in her movements nor did she (in my presence) complain of back pain following the activity.[signed]Date: 23 June 2003SPARKE HELMORESolicitors

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.