Member Belinda Cassidy
Summary
The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission (NSWPIC) considered whether dog walking services provided to an injured claimant fell within the definition of “treatment and care” under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (‘MAIA’). The Member held that such services could be classified as “attendant care services”.
Background Facts
The claimant, Dr Jeffrey Forrest, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 25 February 2020. His injuries included:
- Cervical spine injuries
- Injuries to his left shoulder, arm, and hand
- Psychological injury (PTSD)
Due to his physical and psychological condition, he was unable to walk his dog. Subsequently, Dr Forrest engaged a dog walker and initially, QBE Insurance funded the service on a without-prejudice basis. In September 2024, QBE stopped funding the dog walking service, asserting it was not a “reasonable and necessary cost” and did not qualify as treatment and care and is not attendant care services under the MAIA.
Issue
The principal issues were:
- Does dog walking constitute a form of “treatment and care” under the MAIA?
- Can domestic services like dog walking be considered “attendant care services”?
Decision
The Member found in favour of the claimant:
- Dog walking services were deemed a form of domestic assistance, particularly in the context of his incapacity and PTSD symptoms.
- The Member accepted that the care of the claimant’s dog, undoubtedly formed part of his household’s domestic routine to which he would reasonably require assistance.
- These services were found to be a form of “treatment and care” and were held to fall within the definition of “attendant care services” under section 1.4 of the MAIA.
- The Member accepted that the use of the word “everyday” in the MAIA is not limited to tasks that are done every day. Rather, it refers to tasks which are ‘usual, mundane, normal or ordinary’.
The Member noted that the claimant may have an entitlement to statutory benefits for dog walking services provided subject to any of the restrictions and limitations in the MAIA including:
- The resolution of any medical assessment matter (were the dog walking services reasonable and necessary or related to the accident-related injuries); and
- The resolution of any merit review (regarding the reasonableness of the cost of the service).
Implications
- This case sets a significant precedent for interpreting “attendant care services” broadly under the MAIA.
- Insurers may be required to fund non-medical domestic services, which extends to the care of domestic pets, where they are a necessary consequence of the injury.
- The decision reinforces that quality-of-life considerations, especially where household dynamics are impacted, are relevant in assessing reasonable and necessary care.
- Claimants and lawyers may rely on this case to argue for a wider scope of recoverable support services under statutory benefits.