Mecke and Comcare

[2006] AATA 593

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 593

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No W2005/10

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ROBERT MECKE

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member
Dr P Staer, Member

Date4 July 2006

PlacePerth

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.......[Sgd. Mr A Sweidan]..................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Safety Rehabiliation And Compensation Act 1988 (C’th) ss 16(6)(7) and (8) – necessary journey – similar treatment available.

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 July 2006 Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member
Dr P Staer, Member           

1.      The Applicant, Mr Mecke, has sought a review of a decision of the respondent made by the respondent’s delegate Ms Peers dated 12 October 2004 refusing to pay travel costs involved in Mr Mecke travelling from his home in Mandurah to attend chiropractic treatment in South Fremantle.

2.      Mr Mecke was represented by Mr D Lyall and the respondent was represented by Mr B Dube instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor.  The Tribunal had before it the “T” documents and various other exhibits.

Background And Legislation

3.      Mr Mecke, whose date of birth is 13 January 1934, joined the Maritime Service as a seaman on the motor vessel Cape Don in 1971.

4.      Over the years he sustained a number of injuries for which he received compensation until his back condition became so disabling that he ceased work, on compensation, in 1994, and remained on compensation until his 65^th birthday when he became an age pensioner.

5.      From 1979 until the present he has been receiving treatment from Chris Martinovich, a Registered Chiropractor, in South Fremantle and after Mr Mecke moved from Rockingham to Mandurah he has been travelling in excess of 120kms per round trip to receive treatment from Martinovich. Comcare had paid both for the cost of the treatment and for the travelling expenses for the visits to Martinovich.

6.      On 25 August 2004 a determination was made by the respondent’s delegate Ms Bristow that Comcare was no longer liable to pay for travelling expenses for Mr Mecke to visit Martinovich.

7.      Mr Mecke asked for this decision to be reconsidered and the reconsideration by Ms Peers a delegate of the respondent took place on the 12 October 2004 and confirmed the previous decision that Comcare was not liable for travel expenses.

8.      Under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”) the relevant subsections are 16(6), (7) and (8) which relevantly provide;

(6)Subject to subsection (7), if:

(a)compensation in respect of the cost of medical treatment is payable; and

(b)the employee reasonably incurs expenditure in doing either or both of the following:

(i)making a necessary journey for the purpose of obtaining that medical treatment;

(ii)remaining, for the purpose of obtaining that medical treatment, at a place to which the employee has made a journey for that purpose;

(7)Comcare is liable to pay compensation to the employee:

(a)in respect of…