Hall and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

[2021] AATA 416

Hall and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements) [2021] AATA 416 (8 March 2021)

Division:VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

File Number:          2020/5195          

Re:Robert Hall

APPLICANT

AndRepatriation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member D Mitchell

Date:8 March 2021

Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal varies the decision under review to the extent that the total travelling expenses payable to the Veteran is $1,033.00.

...............[SGD]......................................................

Member D Mitchell

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – claim for travel expenses – veteran admitted to hospital – accommodation costs incurred by attendant during veteran’s admission – costs of housing pets – decision under review varied

LEGISLATION

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)

Veterans’ Entitlements Regulations 1986 (Cth)

CASES

Germain and Repatriation Commission [2015] AATA 473

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member D Mitchell

8 March 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. Mr Robert Hall (the Veteran) is seeking review of a reconsideration decision made by the Respondent on 22 June 2020.[1]

   [1]     Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1-8, Application for Review.

2. The reviewable decision affirmed a decision[2] to decline in part the Veteran’s claim for travelling expenses relating to his hospital admission in April 2020, pursuant to section 110(2) of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) (VE Act) and regulation 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Regulations 1986 (Cth) (VE Regulations).[3]

   [2]     Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 14-15, Determination.

   [3]     Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, pages 18-19, Reviewable Decision.

   BACKGROUND

3. The Veteran has been granted a Repatriation Health Card – For All Conditions (Gold Card) in connection with his service in the Royal Australian Navy from 9 July 1961 to 8 July 1981.[4]

   [4]     Exhibit 2, Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Respondent, page 1, paragraph 3.

4. On 22 April 2020, the Veteran travelled from his home to the Townsville Mater Hospital (the Hospital) to undergo lung surgery.  He was admitted to the Hospital on 23 April 2020 and discharged on 13 May 2020. [5]  The Veteran was accompanied by his wife who stayed in paid accommodation for the duration of the Veteran’s time in Hospital.

   [5]     Exhibit 2, Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Respondent, page 1, paragraph 4.

5. The treatment received by the Veteran was of a kind prescribed by the VE Act.[6]

   [6]     Exhibit 2, Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Respondent, page 1, paragraph 4.

6. On 22 May 2020, the Veteran submitted a claim for the following travel related expenses:[7]

   (a)970 kilometres travelled by private motor vehicle which included travel to and from Townsville as well as daily mileage for his wife to visit him while in hospital;

   (b)dog kennel costs in the amount of $1,420.00 for two dogs from 22 April 2020 to       14 May 2020; and

   (c)accommodation costs in the amount of $2,402.90 for 23 nights commercial accommodation, of which two of those nights the Veteran stayed in that accommodation with his wife and for the remaining nights he was admitted into hospital.

   [7]     Exhibit 1, T Documents, T3, pages 12-13, Travel Claim.

7. On 22 May 2020 a delegate of the Respondent notified the Veteran that his claim had been accepted and that a payment had been made in the amount of $876.90.[8] This amount included:[9]

   ·$122.40 for travel of 340kms to Townsville on 22 April 2020.

   ·$92.80 for accommodation costs on 22 April 2020.

   ·$237.60 for travel of 660kms in relation to the Veteran’s wife travel costs as an attendant.

   ·$241.70 for accommodation on 13 May 2020.

   ·$122.40 for travel of 340 kilometres for the trip home made on 14 May 2020.

   ·$60 for meals on 14 May 2020.

   [8]     Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 14-15, Determination.

   [9]     Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 14-15, Determination.

8. The Veteran sought review of that decision[10] and on 22 June 2020 a reconsideration delegate affirmed the decision specifically providing that reimbursement of an additional 21 nights’ accommodation in relation to his wife’s accommodation as his attendant was refused while he was an inpatient at the Hospital.[11]

   [10]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 16, Request for reconsideration.

   [11]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, pages 18-19, Reviewable Decision.

9. The Veteran sought review of the matter by this Tribunal by way of an application dated       8 August 2020.[12]

   [12]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1-8, Application for Review.

10. On 20 January 2021, a Hearing was conducted in relation to this matter.  At Hearing the Veteran was self-represented, appeared by telephone and gave evidence under affirmation.

    THE LAW

11. For this matter, essentially section 110 of the VE Act provides entitlement for payments for travelling expenses incurred by the Veteran and his wife as his attendant in relation to the procurement of his medical treatment. Regulation 9 of the VE Regulations then sets out how the amounts of any entitlement to travelling expenses that may be payable are calculated.

12. As far as the Tribunal is aware no regulations have been made for the purposes of section 110(1A) of the VE Act.[13] As such this decision will not consider whether the calculation of travelling costs attributed to the Veteran’s wife should have been considered under section 110(1A) of the VE Act rather than section 110(2) of the VE Act.[14]

    [13]    This understanding was also shared by the Respondent.

    [14]    Noting the decision in Germain and Repatriation Commission [2015] AATA 473 where the Tribunal found that in the absence of such regulations there was no basis on which to assess whether the partner of the veteran was participating in the treatment as no applicable treatment type had been prescribed.

13. In this matter the main dispute lies around the entitlement for travelling expenses as they relate to the Veteran’s wife once he was admitted into hospital. Regulation 9(18) of the VE Regulations essentially provides that if an attendant accompanies the veteran to the hospital and they are admitted, the attendant is entitled in addition to the expenses payable for the journey to and from the hospital with the veteran to the lesser of the travel cost to return to their home and back to pick up the veteran (using the same method of transport used to accompany the veteran) and the accommodation and meals cost according to the prescribed formula.

14. For completeness the Tribunal considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant parts of section 110 of the VE Act and regulation 9 of the VE Regulations and has done so in Annexure A which is found at the end of this decision.  The examples that follow regulation 9(18) of the VE Regulations, whilst lengthy, are of assistance.

    ISSUES

15. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the Veteran is entitled to reimbursement of $4,179.86, being the total travelling expenses incurred.

    EVIDENCE

16. In the Veteran’s letter to the Tribunal seeking review of the Respondent’s decision he outlined that:[15]

    -He was advised on 1 April 2020 that he would need lung surgery which could be performed in either Townsville or Brisbane and that his wife would need to accompany him as his carer.

    -His surgery was scheduled to occur on 24 April 2020 with him being required to be admitted to Hospital at 10 am on 23 April 2020.

    -His wife had called DVA asking whether they would need to go through the Patient Transit Scheme and was informed they needed to submit all paperwork for travel and accommodation on their return home.

    [15]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1-3, Application for Review.

17. In an email dated 28 May 2020 requesting review of the initial decision in relation to his claim for travelling expenses the Veteran wrote that he was advised by his Cardiothoracic Surgeon[16] that he needed the support of his carer/wife on a daily basis and due to the distance between their home and the Hospital his wife remained in Townville. Further he said his two dogs required care in kennels while he was away, costing $1,420.[17]

    [16]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 16, Email from the Applicant to the Respondent requesting a review of the original determination and T6, page 17, Letter from Dr Neil Bretz, Respiratory Physician.

    [17]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 16, Request for reconsideration.

18. At Hearing the Veteran appeared by telephone and gave evidence under affirmation. The Veteran told the Tribunal that:

    ·He travelled from his home to Townsville on 22 April 2020, was admitted to hospital on 23 April 2020 for pre-op x-rays and preparation and his scheduled surgery occurred on 24 April 2020.

    ·He was meant to be discharged on 31 April 2020, however he ended up being there for 23 days.

    ·He was discharged from hospital on 14 May 2020 in the afternoon and that is why he stayed the night with his wife in paid accommodation and they drove home the next morning.

    ·On ANZAC day he was laying in ICU with a poppy on his chest watching the service in Canberra.

    ·His wife is his carer and she travelled from Cairns to Townsville with him. They stayed in paid accommodation the night they arrived and their plans were that she would stay a couple of days and then return home however the surgeon asked that she stay and that she attend the Hospital each day for two hours.  It was too far for her to drive home and back every day.

    ·He is 75 years old and has PTSD, having his wife there was very calming for him.

    ·He was only meant to be in hospital for 7 days, however he spent the first two days after surgery in ICU, complications arose on day 10 and on day 14 he was rushed back into surgery.  He did not know the nursing staff and, with the uncertainty of what was happening, having his wife who is also a trained nurse present made a big difference to him.

    ·Due to COVID-19 the only mode of transport available to him and his wife was private motor vehicle. 

    ·He had the understanding that DVA looks after veterans and their attendants where they have to travel more than 300kms away from their home. He feels that DVA has shown a lack of respect and compassion.  He feels on the outer with the  VE Regulations.

    ·He needed his wife while he was in hospital and his surgeon went to the director of nursing at the Hospital and demanded that she be allowed to visit him for two hours a day. Queensland Health had determined Cairns to be a hotspot, although the Queensland Government had not, so she had to wear a mask and sign in and out.  So even if his wife could have travelled backwards and forwards from their home she would not have been allowed in to see him.

    ·He agrees that the accommodation in question was commercial accommodation as they had to pay for it.

    ·He agrees that the distance between his home and Townsville is 340 kilometres each way.

    ·In relation to the costs involved in having his two dogs in a kennel, that they had made arrangements for someone to come and stay at their house to look after them however that did not end up happening, so they had no choice but to book them into a kennel.  His initial booking was for 7 days, extended to 10 days and eventually for the whole period.

    ·He realises now that there is nothing in the VE Regulations that allow him to claim for accommodation costs for pets when you are away and cannot look after them.

    ·He understands the Tribunal has to follow the law that is in place.

    CONTENTIONS

19. At Hearing the Respondent advised the Tribunal that they agreed that the Veteran’s wife was his attendant and that the accommodation in question was commercial accommodation for the purposes of the VE Act and VE Regulations. The Respondent contended that there is no discretion in how the VE Regulations are applied.

20. In the lead up to the Hearing the Respondent provided a Statement of Issues dated                  7 October 2020[18] and an Amended Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions provided on 14 January 2021[19] outlining their contentions in relation to how the VE Act and VE Regulations applied to the claim made by the Veteran.  The Respondent in these documents identified that there was a further amount that they considered was payable to the Veteran. 

    [18]    Exhibit 3, Statement of Issues of the Respondent.

    [19]    Exhibit 2, Amended Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Respondent.

21. At Hearing, the Respondent advised the Tribunal that this had not occurred as they had identified a calculation issue in that the incorrect rates were used and sought the opportunity to provide submissions after the Hearing in relation to their contentions in relation to the travelling expenses that should be paid to the Veteran.

22. The Tribunal put in place a direction providing the Respondent with two weeks to provide such further submissions and allowed a further week for the Veteran to make any submissions in reply if he wanted to.

23. The Respondent contended that the VE Regulations do not provide for the Veteran to be reimbursed for the cost of kennelling his dogs.[20]

    [20]    Exhibit 2, Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Respondent, page 4, paragraph 20.

24. The Respondent provided updated contentions in relation to the amounts payable to the Veteran in relation to both his and his wife’s (as his attendant) travelling expenses with reference to the prescribed rates effective between 1 July 2019 and 20 June 2020.[21]

    [21]    Respondent’s Submissions, pages 1-4, paragraphs 4-12.

25. In relation to the travelling expenses payable to the Veteran under section 110(1) of the VE Act the Respondent contended that the Veteran is entitled to $758.20, calculated as follows:[22]

    [22]    Respondent’s Submissions, pages 2-3, paragraph 8 and Appendix 1.

Entitlement	Regulation (all references to                VE Regulations)	Amount
One 680 kilometre round trip by private vehicle between the Veteran’s home and the Hospital (being on 22 April 2020 and 14 May 2020)	Regulation 9(2),(3),(5),(6)(a)(i), (11)	$244.80 (680 km x $0.36)
Two nights’ accommodation and meals for the Veteran and his wife’s shared accommodation (being for 22 April 2020 and 13 May 2020)	Regulation 9(13)	$483.40 ($241.70 x 2)
Meal allowance on 14 May 2020	Regulation 9(15)(b)	$30.00
Total:	$758.20

1. The Respondent contended that the Veteran’s wife (as his attendant) is, pursuant to regulation 9(18) of the VE Regulations, entitled to payment of travelling expenses equal to the lesser of either:[23]

   (a)the travelling expenses payable under regulation 9(16) of the VE Regulations excluding amounts for accommodation and meals, being $244.80 in this case; and

   (b)the travelling expenses payable under regulation 9(12) of the VE Regulations for the period from the Veteran’s admission until discharge. In this case that is 21 nights’ commercial accommodation in a non-Capital City at a cost of $148.60 per night, being a total of $3,120.60.

   [23]    Respondent’s Submissions, page 3, paragraph 9

2. The lesser of the two amounts is the travelling expenses payable under regulation 9(16) of the VE Regulations. As such the Respondent contended that in relation to the Veteran’s attendant entitlements for travelling expenses under section 110(2) of the VE Act the Veteran is entitled to $274.80, calculated as follows:[24]

   [24]    Respondent’s Submissions, pages 3-4, paragraphs 10-11.

Entitlement	Regulation (all references to VE Regulations)	Amount
Expenses payable to return to the Veteran’s wife’s residence at the time of the Veteran’s admission, and to return to the Hospital when the Veteran was discharged (one round trip of 680 kilometres between Mount Peter and the Hospital)	Regulation 9(18)(a) as it applies 9(16)	$244.80 (680 km x $0.36)
Meal allowance on 14 May 2020	Regulation 9(15)(b)	$30.00
Total:	$274.80

1. The Respondent contended that given the above calculations the Tribunal should vary the reviewable decision of 22 June 2020 such that the Veteran’s entitlements under section 110(1) and (2) of the VE Act are $1,033.00 (being $758.20 plus $274.80).[25]

   [25]    Respondent’s Submissions, page 4, paragraph 12.

2. In response to the Respondent’s written submissions the Veteran via email dated  8 February 2021 expressed his continued confusion over the operation of regulation 9 of the VE Regulations and stated he had nothing further to add.

   CONSIDERATION

3. In looking at this matter the Tribunal appreciates the concerns raised by the Veteran in relation to his expectation that travelling expense entitlements would be available in relation to the accommodation costs for his wife as his attendant given the nature of the distance between their home and the Hospital and his doctor’s advice that his wife visit him each day in the Hospital and the COVID-19 situation. It does seem peculiar that the contribution to any associated cost is limited in such a significant way in circumstances where it is not reasonable for a veteran’s attendant to travel home each day, particularly where the treating doctor indicates their presence each day is required. However, the VE Act and VE Regulations make it very clear that this is the case.  

4. There is no discretion within the VE Act or VE Regulations for the Tribunal to provide for any form of travelling expense payments or reimbursements outside of the statutory formula set out in regulation 9 of the VE Regulations.

5. As such, in accepting that the Veteran’s wife was his approved attendant and that the accommodation in question was commercial accommodation, the Tribunal finds that in relation to the claimed travelling expenses relating to his wife the Veteran is entitled to payment in accordance with regulation 9(18) of the VE Regulations for the lesser of the travelling expenses payable under regulation 9(16) or 9(12) of the VE Regulations.

6. The Tribunal has reviewed the travelling expenses payable calculations and rates contended by the Respondent and finds that those amounts correctly reflect the Veteran’s entitlements in this matter.

7. In accordance with those calculations the Tribunal finds that the Veteran is not entitled to be reimbursed for the full cost of his wife’s travelling expenses of $2,402.90, his entitlement by virtue of regulation 9(18) of the VE Regulations is capped at $274.80.

8. Further, in accordance with those calculations the Tribunal finds that the Veteran’s personal travelling expenses is correctly calculated to be $758.20.

9. There is no scope within the VE Act or VE Regulations for any contribution for costs associated with the caring of pets where the veteran is unable to care for them during a period where they are seeking medical attention.  Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Veteran is not entitled to any reimbursement for the claimed kennel costs of $1,420.00.

   DECISION

10. The Tribunal varies the decision under review to the extent that the total amount payable to the Veteran in relation to his claim for travelling expenses made on 22 May 2020 is $1,033.00. The Tribunal notes that the Veteran has previously been paid an amount of $876,90 in relation to this claim.

I certify that the preceding 37 (thirty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D Mitchell

................[SGD]..............................................

Associate

Dated: 8 March 2021

Date of Hearing:	20 January 2021
Applicant:	By phone
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Lindsay Cooper
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitors

ANNEXURE 1 - LEGISLATION

1. Section 110 of the VE Act deals with entitlement to payments for travelling expenses in relation to medical treatment. Section 110 relevantly provides:

   110  Travelling expenses

   (1)  Where a veteran, or a dependant of a deceased veteran, travels, with the approval of the Commission, for the purpose of:

   (a) obtaining treatment;

   (b)  restoration of his or her health; or

   (c)  being fitted with surgical aids or appliances or artificial replacements;

   the veteran, or the dependant, as the case may be, is, subject to this section and to such conditions as are prescribed, entitled to be paid such travelling expenses, in connection with that travel, as are prescribed.

   (1A)  If:

   (a)a veteran travels, with the approval of the Commission under subsection (1), for the purpose of obtaining treatment; and

   (b)  the treatment is of a kind prescribed in an instrument under subsection (6); and

   (c)  the veteran’s partner travels for the purpose of participating in that treatment;

   the veteran’s partner is, subject to this section and to such conditions as are prescribed by the regulations, entitled to be paid such travelling expenses, in connection with that travel, as are prescribed by the regulations.

   Note:  For treatment see section 94 and Part V.

   (2)  Subject to such conditions as are prescribed, where:

   (a)  a veteran, or a dependant of a deceased veteran, travels, with the approval of the Commission, as described in subsection (1); and

   (b)  the Commission authorises a person to accompany the veteran or dependant as his or her attendant;

   the attendant is, subject to this section, entitled to be paid such travelling expenses, in connection with that travel, as are prescribed.

   (2A)  An approval under subsection (1) or an authorisation under paragraph (2)(b) may be given before or after the travel is completed.

   ……...

   (6)  The Commission may, by legislative instrument, prescribe kinds of treatment for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b).

1. Regulation 9 of the VE Regulations sets out the way in which travelling expenses are to be calculated.  Relevantly, regulation 9 provides:

   9  Travelling expenses

   Definitions

   (1) In this regulation:

   attendant means:

   (a)     a person who is authorised by the Commission under section 110 of the Act to accompany a veteran or a dependant of a deceased veteran as his or her attendant; or

   (b)     a person who accompanies a person mentioned in subsection 132(1),  (3), (5) or (7) of the Act; or

   (c)  if the Commission is of the view that it is reasonable for an applicant   under section 170B, 196ZO or 196ZQ of the Act to be accompanied by an attendant—a person who accompanies the applicant.

   commercial accommodation means accommodation provided by a commercial establishment such as a hotel or motel.

   entitled person means a person who is entitled to be paid travelling expenses under section 110, 132, 170B, 196ZO or 196ZQ of the Act.

   private accommodation means accommodation that is not commercial accommodation or subsidised accommodation.

   residence, for a person at a time, means the permanent or temporary place of residence of that person at that time.

   subsidised accommodation means accommodation provided on a cost‑recovery basis by an organisation that receives a subsidy for providing the accommodation, such as a hostel.

   travel, for an entitled person, means travel referred to in section 110, 132, 170B, 196ZO or 196ZQ of the Act from his or her residence to his or her destination and return.

   Composition of travel expenses

   (2)  Subject to this regulation, and to regulations 9AD and 9AE, travelling expenses comprise the amount required to reimburse in whole or part expenditure on:

   (a)  transport; or

   (b) accommodation; or

   (c)  meals;

   necessarily incurred by or on behalf of an entitled person in connection with travel mentioned in section 110, 132, 170B, 196ZO or 196ZQ of the Act.

   (3)  Subject to subregulations (4) and (4A), and regulation 9AD, the amount of travelling expenses payable to an entitled person in relation to transport for travel will not exceed an amount calculated by the Commission as the cost of travel by the most appropriate form of transport over the relevant distance.

   Note:For the calculation of the cost of transport, see subregulation (11).

   (4)  Subject to regulation 9AD, if the cost incurred by an entitled person in relation to transport for travel mentioned in subregulation (3) is less than the amount calculated by the Commission under that subregulation, the cost will be the amount of travelling expenses payable to that person for transport.

   (4A)  If an entitled person incurs parking fees at or near 1 or more places to which the person has travelled for a purpose mentioned in section 110, 132, 170B, 196ZO or 196ZQ of the Act, the travelling expenses payable to the person are the costs necessarily incurred.

   Forms of transport

   (5)  For subregulation (3), the most appropriate form of transport is the form determined by the Commission with reference to:

   (a)  the forms of transport that were reasonably available to the person for the purpose of that travel; and

   (b) the cost of each of those forms of transport, including, if a form of transport was reasonably available in more than 1 class, differences in cost between those classes; and

   (c)  the desirability of using the cheapest form of suitable transport for that travel; and

   (d)  the degree of any mental or physical disablement of the person; and

   (e)  the distance travelled; and

   (f)  whether the route taken in that travel was the most direct, practical route;

   as the most appropriate form of transport for that travel.

   Relevant distance

   (6)  For subregulation (3), the relevant distance for travel by an entitled person under section 110 of the Act is:

   (a)  if the distance from the residence of the entitled person to the treatment location is more than 50 km, the greater of:

   (i)  the distance determined by the Commission to be the distance between the entitled person’s residence and the closest practical treatment location; and

   (ii)  50 km; or

   (b) if the distance from the residence of the entitled person to the treatment location is 50 km or less—that distance.

   ………

   (9)  For subregulation (3), the relevant distance for travel under section 132 or 196ZQ of the Act is the distance that in all the circumstances is reasonable.

   (10)  For subregulation (3), the relevant distance for travel under section 170B or 196ZO of the Act is the distance by the most direct practicable route from the entitled person’s residence to the place attended by that person to obtain relevant documentary medical evidence.

   Cost of transport

   (11)  For this regulation, the cost of transport for travel between 2 places over the most direct route between the places is taken to be the following:

   (a)  for travel by private motor vehicle—26.7 cents per kilometre;

   (b)  if paragraph (a) applies—the costs necessarily incurred by an entitled person for tolls paid in relation to travel by private motor vehicle;

   (c)  for travel by any other means—the costs necessarily incurred by an entitled person.

   Note:Travelling expenses may be payable for travel outside Australia—see paragraph 132(1)(d) of the Act. Travelling expenses outside Australia are not otherwise payable—see subsections 110(3), 170B(3), 196ZO(3) and 196ZQ(3) of the Act.

   Accommodation and meals

   (12)  Subject to subregulations (13), (15) and (18), the amount of travelling expenses payable to an entitled person for each night’s accommodation and meals during travel is the following amount for whichever of the following kinds of accommodation was used on each night:

   (a)  for commercial accommodation that is not in a capital city—$110.10 each night;

   (b)  for commercial accommodation that is in a capital city—$130.80 each night;

   (c)  for subsidised accommodation—$68.80 each night;

   (d)  for private accommodation—$34.40 each night.

   (13)  If an entitled person, not being an attendant, and an attendant share commercial accommodation for a night, the amount of travelling expenses payable to the entitled person for the night’s accommodation and meals for both the person and the attendant is $178.90.

   ………

   (15)  The amount of travelling expenses payable to an entitled person for meals during travel on a day on which overnight accommodation is not required is:

   (a)  if the distance from the residence of the entitled person to the person’s destination exceeds 50 km but does not exceed 200 km—$10.90 each day; or

   (b)  if the distance from the residence of the entitled person to the person’s destination exceeds 200 km—$22.10 each day.

   Attendant entitlements

   (16)  If an attendant accompanies a veteran or a dependant of a deceased veteran to a hospital or other institution to which the veteran or dependant is admitted, the attendant is entitled to payment of travelling expenses in accordance with subregulation (17), in addition to the expenses payable for the journeys to and from the hospital or other institution with the veteran or dependant:

   (a)  to return to his or her residence at the time of the admission; and

   (b)  to return to the hospital or other institution when the veteran or dependant is discharged.

   (17)  The travelling expenses payable to an attendant under subregulation (16):

   (a)  are based on the same mode of transport as was used to accompany the veteran or dependant; and

   (b)  include any applicable amounts for accommodation and meals.

   (18)  If an attendant accompanies a veteran or a dependant of a deceased veteran to a hospital or other institution to which the veteran or dependant is admitted, and the attendant stays in commercial accommodation, subsidised accommodation or private accommodation while the veteran or dependant is in the hospital or other institution, the attendant is entitled to payment of travelling expenses, in addition to the expenses payable for the journeys to and from the hospital or other institution with the veteran or dependant, equal to the lesser of:

   (a)  the travelling expenses that would have been payable under subregulation (16), excluding any amounts for accommodation and meals, if the attendant had returned home and returned to the hospital or other institution using a private motor vehicle; and

   (b)  the travelling expenses payable under subregulation (12) for the period from the admission of the veteran or dependant until his or her discharge.

   Examples

   …..

   2   A veteran and attendant drive by private motor vehicle to an appointment in a capital city 300 km from home, stay overnight in non‑shared commercial accommodation, and return the next day. The travelling expenses are:

Veteran:	accommodation and meals (1st day)	$130.80	paragraph 9(12)(b)
meals (2nd day)	$22.10	paragraph 9(15)(b)
transport	$160.20 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees	subregulation 9(4A) and paragraphs 9(11)(a) and (b) — 600 km @ 26.7c/km plus the cost of tolls and parking fees
Attendant:	accommodation and meals (1st day)	$130.80	paragraph 17(b)
meals (2nd day)	$22.10	paragraph 17(b)
Total:	$466.00 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees

3   A veteran and attendant drive by private motor vehicle to an appointment in a capital city 300 km from home, and stay overnight in non‑shared commercial accommodation. The veteran is admitted to a hospital the next morning. The attendant returns home and comes back to collect the veteran, staying in commercial accommodation the night before the veteran is discharged. The travelling expenses are:

Amount set out in example 2		$466.00
Less (for the veteran’s meals on 2nd day)		$22.10
Subtotal		$443.90
Plus
Veteran:	meals on return journey	$22.10	paragraph 9(15)(b)
Attendant:	transport	$160.20 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees	subregulation 9(4A), paragraphs 9(11)(a) and (b) and subregulation 9(16) — 600 km @ 26.7c/km plus the cost of tolls and parking fees
meals	$22.10	subregulation 9(16)
accommodation and meals	$130.80	subregulation 9(16)
Total:		$779.10 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees

4   The situation is the same as in example 3, except that the attendant stays in commercial accommodation while the veteran is in the hospital (2 nights). The travelling expenses are:

Amount set out in example 2		$466.00
Less (for the veteran’s meals on 2nd day)		$22.10
Subtotal		$443.90
Plus
Veteran:	meals on return journey	$22.10	paragraph 9(15)(b)
Attendant:	The lesser of:
(a)  transport home and back to the hospital; or	$160.20 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees	subregulation 9(4A), paragraphs 9(11)(a) and (b) and 9(18)(a)
(b)  2 nights commercial accommodation	$261.60	paragraph 9(18)(b)
Total:		$626.20 or $727.60 (for both totals: plus the cost of tolls and parking fees)

5   The situation is the same as in example 3 except that the attendant stays in subsidised accommodation and stays in subsidised accommodation while the veteran is in the hospital (2 nights). The travelling expenses are:

Amount set out in example 2 (as if in subsidised accommodation)		$342.00	paragraph 12(c)
Less (for the veteran’s meals on 2nd day)		$22.10
Subtotal		$319.90
Plus
Veteran:	meals on return journey	$22.10	paragraph 9(15)(b)
Attendant:	The lesser of:
(a)   transport home and back to the hospital; or	$160.20 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees	subregulation 9(4A), paragraphs 9(11)(a) and (b) and 9(18)(a)
(b)   2 nights subsidised accommodation	$137.60	paragraph 9(18)(b)
Total:		$502.20 or $479.60 (for both totals: plus the cost of tolls and parking fees)

6   The situation is the same as in example 3 except that the attendant stays in private accommodation and stays in private accommodation while the veteran is in the hospital (2 nights). The travelling expenses are:

Amount set out in example 2 (as if in private accommodation)		$273.20	paragraph 12(d)
Less (for the veteran’s meals on 2nd day)		$22.10
Subtotal		$251.10
Plus
Veteran:	meals on return journey	$22.10	paragraph 9(15)(b)
Attendant:	The lesser of:
(a)   transport home and back to the hospital; or	$160.20 plus the cost of tolls and parking fees	subregulation 9(4A), paragraphs 9(11)(a), 9(11)(b) and 9(18)(a)
(b)   2 nights private accommodation	$68.80	paragraph 9(18)(b)
Total:		$433.40 or $342.00 (for both totals: plus the cost of tolls and parking fees)