OLIVIA WALTON and COMCARE

[2003] AATA 547

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] 547

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2002/381

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		OLIVIA WALTON

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms J Cowdroy, Member

Date13 June 2003

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

(Sgd) J Cowdroy
  Member

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – benefits and entitlements – back condition – whether applicant is entitled to have nursery furniture modified at the Department’s expense – whether claim relates to household services (section 29) or modifications to articles used by the employee (section 39) – whether a connection exists between the compensable injury and the need for the requested modifications – level of impairment

Safety, Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988

Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
Isley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd  (1997) 75 FCR 1

REASONS FOR DECISION

13 June 2003 Ms J Cowdroy, Member    

1.      This hearing relates to a decision made by the delegate of Comcare on 12 March 2002 which affirmed an earlier determination, dated 11 December 2001, that:

(a)Comcare is liable to pay for a freestanding clothes hoist at an approximate cost of $50.00;

(b)that Comcare is not liable to pay for the following items:

§  baby bath and hammock

§  height adjustment of purchased cot and change table

§  nappy service

§  hand held hose for baby bath

2. The decision was made pursuant to section 29 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). 

3. The applicant indicated prior to the hearing that she was no longer seeking the provision of a nappy service. A hearing before the Tribunal occurred on 26 March 2003. The applicant appeared and gave evidence. She called Mrs K Cheesman to give evidence. Mr C Clark of counsel appeared for the respondent. The T-documents, lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, were admitted into evidence as Exhibit E1, along with the following exhibits:

E2      Letter from Assoc Professor  McPhee dated 22 October 2002

E3      Letter from Assoc Professor  McPhee dated 4 December 2002

E4      Submission by the Applicant

4.      The matter was decided on the oral evidence of the witnesses, the material in the T-documents and the exhibits, as well as the oral and written submissions of the parties.

Evidence

5.      Mrs Cheesman, a friend of the applicant, gave evidence.  Mrs Cheesman has a son, who was born on 7 January 2002.  A range of baby equipment was either purchased or borrowed.  None of the equipment required height modification.  When the child was a newborn, she used a baby bath, which she filled by the use of a jug.  The process necessitated the lifting of the bath for filling and emptying the bath.   Mrs Cheesman only used a bath hammock when the family were away from home.  She did not need or buy any special equipment to assist her with caring for her child. 

6.      Mrs Walton referred to her written submission…