Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 10/09/08)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
These six appeals all relate to the appellant seeking payment by way of reimbursement for various eye treatment products obtained by her. 
[2]
At the outset it must be noted that the various review decisions which brought about these appeals did not in each case acknowledge that the review application was properly brought and questions of jurisdiction would arise if this Court were to be required to consider the various review decisions now appealed. 
[3]
Having said that, I note that the respondent has taken a pragmatic view of these appeals, and has noted that each of them does raise a claim for reimbursement for treatment costs incurred, and it has by letter of 4 September 2007 agreed to a settlement of these six appeals. 
[4]
The terms of the settlement are that the Corporation agrees to pay for the products purchased by the appellant upon evidence of purchase in the form of a receipt. The Corporation also has agreed to pay for the cost of a report from Dr MacDonald, in relation to advice given as to the appellant requiring certain eye drops. 
[5]
At the very most, the issue which this Court would consider in these appeals was whether the respondent was legally liable to make payment for the particular treatment products obtained, and it is that issue which has now been settled by the respondent agreeing to make payment in respect of same. 
[6]
If there be an outstanding matter relating to the providing of evidence of purchase and the actual making of payment, those are matters outside the ambit of the appeals and are wholly administrative matters which cannot be the subject of Court direction. 
[7]
If it be the case that the appellant has not received payment in respect of any of the claims, then that is an administrative matter and not a legal issue. The Court identifies that the respondent's requirement that it see evidence of purchase is fair and reasonable and any objection from the appellant to providing such information would be wholly without merit. 
[8]
As the issue in these appeals has now been resolved by an acceptance of liability by the respondent, there is no longer any live issue in these appeals, the appeals now being wholly moot. Accordingly, each of the appeals numbered above is hereby dismissed. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents