Garrett and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Garrett for workers' compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) following a stroke he suffered in 2010 while on a work-related trip. Comcare initially denied liability but later accepted that Mr Garrett's condition arose out of or in the course of his employment. Subsequent determinations by Comcare addressed compensation for household and attendant care services provided by Mr Garrett's wife, Mrs Garrett. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine several issues, including the reasonable hourly rate for Mrs Garrett's services, the necessity of additional gardening hours, and compensation for Mrs Garrett's assistance with medical appointments.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining a reasonable hourly rate for household and attendant care services provided by Mrs Garrett, whether Mr Garrett reasonably required an additional two hours per week for gardening, and if Mrs Garrett could be compensated for gardening services and for her time assisting Mr Garrett to attend medical appointments. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to ascertain whether compensation was payable under section 16 or section 29A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) for these services. Comcare contended that the hourly rate for Mrs Garrett should be $57.10, that Mr Garrett did not reasonably require additional gardening hours, and that Mrs Garrett should not be compensated for gardening. Comcare also argued that Mr Garrett did not require attendant care for the entire duration of medical appointments but proposed compensation for up to 90 minutes per appointment when a support worker was unavailable.

The Tribunal considered the reasonableness of the hourly rate for Mrs Garrett's services, noting that Mr Garrett sought compensation based on commercial rates charged by a care service provider, DUO. While Comcare initially proposed a lower average rate, it was found to have omitted certain higher weekday evening rates. However, the Tribunal determined that the commercial rates charged by DUO included overheads such as insurance and marketing, which were not costs borne by Mrs Garrett. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these commercial rates, even when reduced by GST, were "reasonable in the circumstances" for payment to Mrs Garrett under section 29A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The Tribunal also found that, based on the evidence, Mr Garrett did not reasonably require additional gardening services, and it was not reasonable to compensate Mrs Garrett for providing them. Regarding medical appointments, the Tribunal determined that while attendant care was not required for the entire duration, Mrs Garrett could be compensated for up to 90 minutes per appointment when a support worker was unavailable. Compensation for travel to medical appointments was limited under subsection 16(7) of the Act, with Mr Garrett only entitled to compensation for one specific journey exceeding 50 kilometres.