Policy

However, the most significant 1971 Act travel provision is the additional coverage contained in S34 of that Act, which operates only where living accommodation is provided by the employer and relates specifically to journeys other than those to and from work.

• Section 34 (2) relates specifically to the case where the accommodation is provided at the place of employment.
• Note that the provisions of S34 are in addition to (and do not cancel) those of Ss32 and 33 which relate only to travel to/from work.

Subsections 53(1) and (2) on their own present a strict requirement for provision of timely notice of injury. However, S53(3) modifies this rigour and deems a notice, which is out of time because it was not presented 'as soon as practicable', to be properly given if:

Section 57 of the SRCA gives Delegates the power to require the client to attend a medical examination by a doctor of the Delegate's nomination. The form of S57 is as follows:

57 Power to require medical examination

57(1) Where:

a) a notice has been given to a relevant authority under Section 53 in relation to an employee, or

b) an employee has made a claim for compensation under Section 54,

Note that Commanding Officers are also constrained by DI(G) PERS 14-2 when approving member involvement in civilian sporting activity.  There have been occasions where Commanding Officers have approved Routine Orders authorising such unsuitable activities as rodeo bull riding, i.e. risky activities of little value in promoting fitness or ADF skills.  In those cases, the “approval” is clearly not in accord with the terms of the DI(G) and compensation coverage would not be extended to the injuries arising out of the activity, i.e.

Rarely, the Delegate may become aware that the reservist holds medical documents relevant to the case but refuses to make these available. This may occur where a lawyer acting for the claimant has commissioned a medical report but has subsequently suppressed it because the report does not find what the advocate was expecting. Delegates have the power under S58 to demand such a report and to refuse to deal further with the claim unless it is delivered within 28 days.

A claimant who is injured is required by S53 to give notice in writing of the injury as soon as practicable after they become aware of the injury. However, if the Department of Veterans' Affairs is not prejudiced by the failure to give proper and timely notice of injury, S53(3)(c) operates to deem proper notice to be given.

Where old cases with open liability have lain inactive (i.e. without the employee requesting a benefit) for some considerable time – perhaps for decades – employees sometimes forget that RCG has already accepted their claim. Such clients may submit a new claim form when finally they come to request a financial benefit or service from RCG. This is another reason why all compensation claim forms should prompt a check for previous applications.

Delegates should be wary of purported new claims where the medical evidence relied upon by the claimant is in fact an alternative 'label' for a condition for which there is already a liability decision. For instance, if a Delegate had previously accepted liability for 'split medial meniscus, left knee' and the client upon visiting another specialist submits a claim for 'bucket handle tear, left knee cartilage' there is no case for an entirely new claim.

The claimed condition must be 'a result of' reasonable disciplinary action taken against the member if the exclusionary provision is to operate. Accordingly, the exclusionary provision does not operate where:

Although a consensus approach may indeed be an attractive option in many cases, Delegates should ensure the integrity of the decision making process by observing the following points: