Monk and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Carmel Monk for a review of a decision by Comcare. Comcare had refused to purchase a new modified van for Ms Monk and had also refused to pay for repairs to her existing van. Ms Monk, who was injured in 1988 and confined to a wheelchair, required a modified van to enable her to enter, drive, and exit a vehicle unaided. The hearing was before N A Manetta SM.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a new modified van constituted an "aid" or "appliance" under section 39(1)(e) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) that it was reasonable for Ms Monk to have, and whether Comcare was liable to pay for repairs to her existing 21-year-old modified van. The court also considered whether the purchase of a vehicle could, in certain circumstances, amount to "medical treatment" under section 4(1) of the Act, although the parties submitted that a previous decision on this point was incorrect.

The court affirmed Comcare's decision to refuse the purchase of a new van, finding that while the van was an aid or appliance, the purchase of a *new* van was not reasonable in the circumstances. However, the court set aside Comcare's decision to refuse payment for repairs to Ms Monk's existing van. The court reasoned that Comcare should be given the option to either repair the current van or purchase a second-hand vehicle and modify it to meet Ms Monk's needs, with the expectation that Comcare would make a sensible choice in consultation with Ms Monk.