Comcare v Heffernan [2013] FCA 299

Comcare v Heffernan [2013] FCA 299

A modified motor vehicle does not fall within the definition of 'medical treatment' in s 4(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) as neither a 'curative apparatus' under paragraph (h), due to insufficient therapeutic or rehabilitative connection, nor as an 'other similar aid or appliance' under paragraph (f), since its inherent characteristics do not correspond to a medical or surgical aid or appliance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Tribunal decision set aside. Original decision of Comcare affirmed. Respondent's notice of contention dismissed. Costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
['medical Treatment Under Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988' 'statutory Interpretation' 'curative Apparatus' 'vehicle Modification as Compensation']
['workers Compensation'] ['medical Treatment Under Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988' 'statutory Interpretation' 'curative Apparatus' 'vehicle Modification as Compensation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether provision of a modified motor vehicle qualifies as 'medical treatment' under s 16(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)" "Whether a modified motor vehicle is a 'curative apparatus' pursuant to paragraph (h) of the definition in s 4" "Whether a modified motor vehicle is an 'other similar aid or appliance' within paragraph (f) of the definition in s 4"]

Ratio Decidendi

A modified motor vehicle does not fall within the definition of 'medical treatment' in s 4(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) as neither a 'curative apparatus' under paragraph (h), due to insufficient therapeutic or rehabilitative connection, nor as an 'other similar aid or appliance' under paragraph (f), since its inherent characteristics do not correspond to a medical or surgical aid or appliance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Tribunal decision set aside. Original decision of Comcare affirmed. Respondent's notice of contention dismissed. Costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 30 August 2012 be set aside and the decision made by Comcare on 19 October 2010 be affirmed.' "The respondent's notice of contention dated 23 January 2013 be dismissed." "The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the appeal."]