Insights

« Back to Resources

Search Publications

  • Search by Practice Area

  • Search by Term

No liability to pay for “Ted” (aka psychiatric assistance dog)

September 19, 2019

Brideson by guardian Lynette Brideson and Australian Capital Territory [2019] AATA 2314 (31 July 2019).   Key Points: Mr Brideson sought compensation for the training and upkeep of a psychiatric assistance dog. The Tribunal found that the dog did not fit the definitions of medical treatment or an aid or appliance and, therefore, compensation was […]

Exclusion is not the aim of the game when it comes to considering the reasonableness of ‘aids or appliances’

March 26, 2018

Monk and Comcare [2018] AATA 224 Key Points Does a transporter van qualified as an ‘aid or appliance’, as prescribed by section 39(1)(e) of the SRC Act? The Tribunal applied the principle that an item required to “maintain personal sufficiency as largely as possible in the pursuit of his personal domestic life” is reasonable to […]

Heffernan v Comcare [2015] AATA 655

October 30, 2015

Heffernan v Comcare [2015] AATA 655

WBJM and Comcare [2015] AATA 143

October 2, 2015

WBJM and Comcare [2015] AATA 143