Webeck and Comcare (Compensation)

Mr Webeck applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a ruling on whether he was entitled to a statement of reasons from Comcare regarding a reconsideration decision. Comcare had previously refused Mr Webeck's claim for compensation in respect of lace-less shoes. Mr Webeck contended that he was entitled to a statement of reasons under section 28(1) of the AAT Act, while Comcare argued he was not.

The AAT was required to determine whether Mr Webeck was entitled to request a statement of reasons under section 28(1) of the AAT Act, and if so, whether his request was made within the prescribed timeframes. Section 28(4) of the AAT Act outlines circumstances where an applicant is not entitled to request a statement of reasons. The central question was whether Comcare's reconsideration decision, dated 19 January 2023, set out findings on material questions of fact and referred to the material on which those findings were based, as required by section 28(4)(a).

The AAT Member considered the contents of Comcare's reconsideration decision, which addressed two key issues: whether the shoes were a medical or rehabilitation aid, and whether they were reasonably required. The decision detailed the distinction between medical and rehabilitation aids and found that while the shoes might be considered a medical aid if custom-made or paired with orthotics, this was not the case for Mr Webeck, who purchased them off the shelf to assist with doing up shoelaces. The decision also noted that while medical practitioners had acknowledged Mr Webeck's difficulty with shoelaces, there was no specific medical recommendation for the particular shoes purchased. The AAT Member concluded that the reconsideration decision did set out findings on material questions of fact and referred to the material on which those findings were based.

Consequently, the AAT Member found that Mr Webeck was not entitled to request a statement of reasons under section 28(1) of the AAT Act, as the conditions in section 28(4)(a) were met. The application was therefore refused.