Wirski and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning Mr. Wirski's applications for orders staying Comcare's decisions to cease payments for various medical treatments and a proposed right knee arthroscopy. Mr. Wirski suffered injuries in 1998 while employed as a veterinary officer, for which Comcare accepted liability for initial injuries and subsequent secondary conditions, including chronic pain syndrome. Comcare later determined, based on medical evidence, that Mr. Wirski was no longer suffering the effects of his compensable conditions, leading to the cessation of payments for treatments such as chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, and colonic hydrotherapy, as well as a claim for a second right knee arthroscopy.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to exercise its discretion under section 41(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* to stay Comcare's decisions. This involved considering whether it was desirable to do so, taking into account the interests of any persons affected, and specifically assessing factors such as the degree of hardship Mr. Wirski might suffer, the likelihood of recovery of any payments made if the review were unsuccessful, and the prospects of success of Mr. Wirski's applications for review. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether granting a stay would be in the public interest and whether the review application would be rendered nugatory without it.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr. Wirski's medical history was extensive and complex, and he raised concerns about Comcare's decision-making process, the evidence did not support the granting of a stay. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence demonstrating significant hardship beyond financial concerns, and crucially, there was no evidence of an urgent medical requirement for the proposed arthroscopy. Furthermore, there was no submission or evidence presented regarding the public interest in granting or refusing the stay. Applying the principles established in previous AAT decisions, the Tribunal concluded that it was not desirable to make an order staying the operation or implementation of Comcare's determinations.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr. Wirski's requests for stay orders in relation to Application No. 2016/1425 and Application No. 2016/1885, finding that the criteria for exercising its discretion under section 41(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* had not been met.