Pratt and Comcare

[2004] AATA 1281

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1281

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   A2002/374

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		PETER PRATT

Applicant

And   COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal   Mr J.W. Constance, Senior Member
  Dr M.D. Miller, Member

Date  2 December 2004

Place  Canberra

Decision   The reviewable decision made 2 September 2002 is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Pratt for the cost of the surgery performed on him on 4 February 2002.

..............................................

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – liability for medical treatment – meaning of “in relation to” – whether stenting procedure several months after heart attack “in relation to” heart attack – decision set aside

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – s 16

Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 164 CLR 513 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Maritime Union of Australia (2001) 114 FCR 472

O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co. Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356

PMT Partners Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 December 2004               Mr J.W. Constance, Senior Member
  Dr M.M. Miller, Member

1.      Mr Pratt has sought a review of a decision of Comcare to refuse compensation for the cost of a stenting operation carried out approximately 5 months after he suffered a myocardial infarct at work.  Comcare accepted that the infarct was a compensable injury but decided that the stenting was not “medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury” as required by section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

2.      For the reasons set out we have decided that Mr Pratt is entitled to compensation for the claimed expenses.  The reviewable decision will be set aside and a substitute decision will be made allowing the expenses claimed.

FACTS

3.      Unless otherwise stated our findings of fact are based on an agreed statement of facts filed by the parties.  We are satisfied as to the existence of those facts on the balance of probabilities.

4.      Mr Pratt is 63 years old.  In 1986 he commenced employment by the Australian Capital Territory Department of Parks and Wildlife as a truck driver.

5.      Mr Pratt has atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, commonly known as a narrowing of the arteries.  This condition has not been shown to have been contributed to by his employment and is not one for which Comcare has accepted liability to pay compensation.  In 1993 he suffered a myocardial infarction for which Comcare did accept liability.

6.      On 14 September 2001 Mr Pratt was undertaking fitness training as part of his work.  This involved walking 3.2 kilometres within 30 minutes whilst carrying a 11 kilogram backpack.  He began to experience chest pain during the walk and by the time he had completed it he was suffering nausea, breathlessness and chest pain.  He was admitted to Calvary Hospital where he was diagnosed as suffering an acute myocardial infarction.

7.      Mr Pratt was discharged…