McDonald and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr John McDonald for a review of a decision by Comcare to refuse payment for domestic gardening services. Mr McDonald asserted that these services were reasonably required as a result of a compensable injury. Comcare disputed this causal link. The decision was made by N A Manetta SM in the relevant tribunal.

The legal issue before the tribunal was whether Mr McDonald's need for gardening services was a direct consequence of his compensable injury. Specifically, the tribunal was required to determine if there was a sufficient causal nexus between Mr McDonald's admitted lower back pain, arising from a compensable injury, and his inability to attend to his garden.

The tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement under section 29(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 that claimed services must be "reasonably required as a result of" a compensable injury. While acknowledging Mr McDonald's compensable back injury and his current age and circumstances, the tribunal found that the evidence did not establish the necessary causal link. The tribunal concluded that, on the evidence presented, Mr McDonald's need for gardening services was not the result of his compensable injury, and therefore Comcare's rejection of the claim was correct.