Decision
Woolfman v Lifetime Care and Support Authority [2025] NSWPIC 666
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A Claimant suffers serious injuries in a motor accident. She seeks to recover the cost of travel to the UK, to visit her family, as a treatment and care expense on the grounds that the trip is good for her mental health and general wellbeing.
Is the trip to the UK a form of rehabilitation?
In Woolfman v LTCS, a PIC Member concluded that the trip to the UK was not a form of rehabilitation. Whilst the trip would undoubtedly contribute to the Claimant’s wellbeing, the same could be said for most activities of life, including meeting family and friends, nutrition, sleep and exercise.
Principles
✅ A Claimant may claim the cost or rehabilitation, as defined by section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), as a treatment and care expense.
✅ The fact that an activity is good for the Claimant’s mental health and general wellbeing, however, is insufficient to render the activity a form a rehabilitation.
Facts
The Claimant suffered very significant injuries in a motor accident on 16 September 2019.
After the claim for damages under common law resolved, the Claimant sought to recover the cost of travel to the United Kingdom as a treatment and care expense.
The Claimant argued that travelling to the UK was a form of rehabilitation because it was good for her mental health and her general wellbeing.
The legal question of whether the claimed overseas travel constituted a request for treatment and care was referred to a PIC Member as a Miscellaneous Assessment.
Relevant Definitions
The definition of “treatment and care” in section 1.4 of MAIA includes “rehabilitation”.
“Rehabilitation” is separately defined in section 1.4 as follows:
“Rehabilitation of an injured person, means the process of enabling or attempting to enable the person to attain and maintain—
(a) the maximum level of independent living, and
(b) full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and
(c) full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.”
Member’s Decision
The Member found that the proposed trip to the UK did not fall within the definition of “rehabilitation” or, more broadly, the definition of “treatment and care” for the following reasons:
🟪 There is little doubt that the proposed trip to the UK to see the Claimant’s family contributed to the Claimant’s wellbeing. That alone, however, is insufficient to render the trip a form of “rehabilitation”. Many activities of life – such as meeting friends and family, nutrition, sleep and exercise – contribute to an individual’s wellbeing but do not constitute “rehabilitation”.
🟪 The Claimant frequently visited her family in the UK prior to the accident and there was evidence that the purpose of the trip was to celebrate her grandfather’s 100th birthday and to meet a new niece and nephew. It follows that the trip would likely have occurred even if the Claimant was not injured.
My Perspective
The decision in Woolfman confirms that there are limits to what falls within the definition of “rehabilitation” in s 1.4 of MAIA.
In prior PIC Decisions, the following items have been found to constitute a claim for “rehabilitation”:
🟪 Private transport to school.
🟪 A wheelchair modified vehicle.
Importantly, in each of the above disputes the item sought involved a process which maximised the claimant’s ability to participate in education, training, employment and/or recreation.
(Whether each item was reasonable and necessary and related to the injuries sustained in the accident was a separate issue to be determined by a Medical Assessor.)
The Woolfman decision, however, highlights that there are a vast multitude of activities which help an injured claimant with their mental health and their general wellbeing. As the Member pointed out, eating well and getting a good night’s sleep is good for a claimant’s general wellbeing, as is seeing friends and family.
(One could readily add: a night at the movies, a quiet night at home with a good book, watching your favourite sports team (provided they win), downloading a forgotten song you used to love, a good cup of coffee, a weekend away at a small luxury lodge, binge-watching a series on Netflix etc etc…)
The Member reasoned, however, that just because an activity is good for the claimant does not mean that it constitutes “rehabilitation”, specifically, or “treatment and care”, more generally.
Implicit in the Member’s reasoning is that a good or service does not constitute “rehabilitation” unless it is part of a process which helps the claimant maximise their independence in education, employment or recreation.
PJH