Comcare v O'Brien, Nikki [1997] FCA 1283

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Appeal

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the expenses incurred for Dr Corry\'s consultation and reports were for "medical treatment" recoverable from Comcare under s16(1) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law by inferring that the report was obtained for medical treatment purposes despite direct evidence that it was obtained to assess whether a permanent impairment claim could be made.' "Whether the Tribunal's decision could be upheld on the alternative basis that Comcare was obliged to reimburse the expenses connected with Part C of the permanent injury claim form."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to take account of the direct evidence from Ms O'Brien's solicitor that Dr Corry's report was obtained solely to assess whether she had the requisite permanent impairment to make a s24 claim, not for medical treatment. The expenses were not recoverable as "medical treatment" under s16(1). Any obligation to meet the reasonable cost of a Part C consultation and report arose from Comcare's claim form and was supported by s70 in connection with Comcare's s24 functions, not by treating those costs as medical treatment expenses.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter adjourned for submissions as to orders.

Orders

• ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The matter be adjourned for submissions as to orders.']