Accident compensation

Press, 1 August 1989, Page 12

Accident compensation

Sir, —The A.C.C. corporate manager’s reply to my earlier letter (July 21) was disappointing, in that it tended to cloud the issues and failed to give reasons for the discontinuance of chiropractic coverage, after a period of many years. There has been no legislative change requiring this action. There has been no court decision reached on the matter. The court case the corporate manager referred to was one quantifying the payments to be made to physiotherapists, and study of (the court judgment fails to show any consideration or decision by the court on the subject of chiropractic. We are left, therefore, to presume that the decision to cease chiropractic coverage is simply an administrative procedure, made by the A.C.C. arid not by either legislature or court; and made for its own reasons.— Yours, etc., J. RICHARDSON. July 22, 1989.

[The A.C.C. corporate affairs manager, Mr Barry Davis, replies: “May I explain; to J. Richardson how the Court of Appeal judgment drastically affected the A.C.C. discretion regarding the payment of fees for medical services. The A.C.C. in,‘all good faith, had been using Section 75(6) of the 1982 act,. particularly the reference 1 , to ‘other para-medical services,Mo justify its payments to a range of service providers, including chiropractors. The A.C.C. argued before the court ?toat 575(6) provided for who could be paid and also what, they' could be paid. In brief, the A.C.C. held that 575(6) introduced its own regime. The court was emphatic that 575(6) was not a code in its own right, but merely an administrative machinery provision. The court held that the matter of

who could be paid (and what they could be paid) is governed by 575(1) and (2). The only para-medical groups thus covered are those for whom a general medical services benefit may be claimed. Chiropractors do not come within this category. Following on the court’s decision, the A.C.C. sought independent legal advice, together with an opinion from the Crown Law Office, as to the implications of the decision for ‘other’ paramedical services. The consensus was that the A.C.C. does not have the authority to pay the cost of para-medical or other services except for those that qualify as ‘treatment’ in terms of 575(2).”]