About two weeks ago, workcovervictimsdiary.com received a Word letter (!) from [popup url=’ http://www.radfordlawyers.com.au/’] NSW Radford lawyers [/popup] sent to our generic email address, on behalf of three unhappy Allianz NSW workcover case managers, threatening us with a lawsuit for defamation, excuse us!
Allianz NSW workcover case managers threaten aworkcovervictimsdiary with a lawsuit!
Allianz NSW workcover lawyer’s threatening letter
Note: it is worth mentioning that the letter was only picked up 4 to 6 days after it was sent, and accidentally, because it had been spammed by our email software due to the WORD attachment!
We did not defame anybody! Who is there to de-fame, please?
Two of the mentioned workcover case managers, who so rapidly ran to their lawyer, were in fact publicly trashed in a derogatory manner in a publicly published COURT case, which we had published long before the lawyer’s letter appeared in our generic email inbox, and long before the letter was -literally- and accidentally un-spammed!
We did not intentionally meet the “demands” of said threat, however and most unfortunately perhaps, we did remove and censor some of the comments!
A. We will re-summarise the Allianz NSW workcover case here in case you missed it:
The case was published on 14 February 2012, in a blog post article entitled: “Bullying workers’ comp insurer Allianz pays the price”
The “defamatory” comments as stated (alleged) in the said lawyer’s letter were mainly direct copies and pastes of the following court case transcript!
In this horrid case, an injured worker had, according to the Judge, “good reason” to feel harassed by the insurers (Allianz NSW) who managed her compensation claim. A NSW court has ruled in finding her anxiety and stress were work-related. The Workers Compensation Commission, Deputy President Bill Roche heard the worker had suffered chronic pain, insomnia, anxiety, social withdrawal and depression as a result of her physical injuries and the claims process.
An extract from the court case (transcript) which is publicly available on http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWWCCPD/2011/4.html reads as follows:
“Ms Davis (plaintiff) spoke to Ms Reiner’s manager, Ms Rogers, and contacted WorkCover. She felt that the approach by Ms Reiner and Ms Rogers was unprofessional and constituted bullying and victimisation”.
“Following the exercise physiologist’s report, an officer from Allianz, Ms Reiner, telephoned Ms Davis, which made her angry and distressed “because of her thinking that she could intimidate me”.
“Ms Reiner said that Allianz was aware that Ms Davis had an injury, but they did not think it was as bad as had been reported. She said that Allianz had video surveillance of Ms Davis and reports of her carrying out a number of activities. Ms Davis did not deny having carried her daughter’s school backpack over her right shoulder, using exercise equipment in the park (with no weight or resistance), and being able to walk. Ms Davis was further distressed when Ms Reiner threatened her when she said that fraud was against the law. She felt frustrated when she saw what had been reported because of the surveillance”
Ms Davis said she felt it was unreasonable for Dr Kafataris to expect her to increase her hours of work and that it was “more of the bullying tactics” that were being directed towards her by Allianz. She felt that Ms Reiner had bullied her by sending her job seeker diaries even though she had been certified unfit
The day after Ms Davis received the surveillance report in the mail from Allianz, she experienced two significant panic attacks and a third attack on 3 November 2008 when she listened to voicemail messages from Ms Burgess. She felt that Allianz, through its letters and “bullying telephone calls”, was sabotaging her attempt to get on with her life. She felt that Allianz was treating her unfairly, and disguising their treatment of her by talking about the Workers Compensation Act caused her distress”
“She [plaintiff] described her experience dealing with Allianz (NSW) staff as being bullied by a global organisation…”
- First, they make the same basic error referred to above under “psychological injury”. The worker did not suffer a “psychological injury” and her counsel did not argue that she had. It was therefore not necessary for the Arbitrator to find injury under s 4 and that employment had been a substantial contributing factor to any psychological injury. The Arbitrator erred in finding that the worker had received a psychological injury. However, applying the correct approach, the conclusion is the same. Ms Davis’s psychological condition resulted from her physical injuries. Her symptoms (from her physical and psychological conditions) resulted in her being totally unfit from 30 October 2008 to 30 April 2009 and partially unfit thereafter.
- Second, Ms Davis’s psychological symptoms developed in 2005, not 2008, and the evidence from Ms Marshell clearly linked those symptoms to her physical injuries and the claim for compensation for those injuries. The management of a claim for compensation is as much a part of the claim as the treatment of the injury.
Please read the court case – we are not defaming people – these are exact extract of a publicly available published court case – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWWCCPD/2011/4.html
B. The third Allianz NSW workcover case manager
With regards to the third case manager who ran to her lawyer in order to seek a lawsuit against me for defaming her, I wish to point out that a couple of our loyal readers had – rightly so it appears- flagged Ms S as a potentially “difficult” (shall we say) case manager.
As the letter correctly states, we did warn our readers and commentators that we would censor names if no evidence of wrongdoing was provided. This is also stated in our disclaimer. And we did in fact censor the names of all three case managers before the letter arrived! And we should not have had to!
Well, it turns out that Ms S has a lot of defamatory comments on the internet, and, rest assured, some of those date well before the existence of workcovervictimsdiary.com, which was only launched in August 2011. In addition, the authors and administrators of this blog reside in Victoria, as is clearly stated on the left hand site of our blog (under the character). So to say that we would deliberately be spreading malicious ‘comments’ about somebody totally unbeknownst to us would be rather far fetched indeed.
But if that is not enough, folks, it turns out that Ms S, who is running to a lawyer to sue us for defamation – obviously because it is causing her harm and hurt – is in fact, herself, sourcing all those derogatory and defamatory comments on the internet about herself and LINKING them to her Facebook page and, hang on, is bloody well JOKING and MAKING fun of them! That is how “affected” (shall we say) Ms S is – how sick. So, in fact Ms S is responsible for spreading defamatory “stuff” like wildfire about herself and JOKES about it! That’s right, folks, but she sues US for allowing our readers and commentators to “flag” her in a comment, that was censored within days!? How pathetic.
workcovervictimsdiary.com’s response to Allianz NSW workcover lawyer’s letter
We have taken the liberty to publish Allianz NSW lawyer’s threatening letter as we we did not defame anybody and if you are instructed and believe so we will provide you with our legal representatives’ address(es) for service of the Court Documentation.
What’s more a few lawyers including Atlas Legal Australia, specialised in Crime, Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Law Litigation, have also kindly volunteered to accept service of the writ or statement of claim for Defamation!
We would look forward to having all three women in the Witness box being cross examined.
Note: We do have more incriminating evidence of your wrongdoing, however we will keep that to hit the nail on your coffin in court, should you wish to proceed.
Oh and by the way
Updated 7 April 2012
“would highly recommend Michael Tehan or Paul Zawa of Minter Ellison to you Allianz, they both have some experience with defamation threats against impoverished Centrelink clients for publishing complaints on the internet. The keyword search engine optimization has just begun now Allianz have employed lawyers to try and shut-up injured workers and to intimidate a website detailing the experiences of aggrieved clients. Deny, Delay, Avoid and Intimidate seems to be the Allian of deatiln with injured workers. Radfords in NSW or Minter Ellison in Victoria, champions of the people, weasels being paid big money to silence unpaid injuered workers. Minter Ellison will do a basic cease and desist letter for $5,000. How much do Radford’s charge?
USA and International actions might not be their forté. Mark Radford demands that workcovervictimsdiary.com removes personal opinion even if it is true a basic defense to any false defamation claim, he also demands that they remove google cached pages which is beyond their power. Such a threatening letter to send to an aggrieved client. Alliaz are exposed again and again. Mr Radford and Minter Ellison will be rich on the proceeds of insurance policies that were meant to go to injured workers. Copyright and Access conditions Mr Radford. Previous aborted actions by Minter Ellison to try and silence aggrieved impoverished Centrelink clients”.
YOU ARE BEING WATCHED
The Health and Safety for Beginners Daily
Updated 8 April 2012
The very popular Health and Safety for Beginners (HSfB) provides health and safety downloads, support for health and safety courses, toolbox talks, careers advice, vibrant discussion forums and much more… also published our article (with the full “intimidating lawyers letter!) on 7 and 8 April 2012 and circulated it in the UK (and worldwide) for all to see. Their digital magazine has been re-tweeted to date over 31 thousand times! Check them out – www.healthandsafetytips.co.uk and via twitter @hsfb
Isn’t there a saying, dear Ladies, that “what goes around comes around’? And that there is such a thing as “karma”!
The more you’ll try to -wrongfully- intimidate us in the hope to shut injured workers up (who have been ill-treated by ladies like you) the more your attempts to do so -wrongfully- will be spontaneously picked up by various popular media outlets and the more injured workers (and concerned, supportive members) will be aware of people like YOU!
It certainly appears to us, and in our very humble opinion, that your “lawyer” would have been better served instructing you on your rights and the relevant legislation… Or that YOU, lovely darlings, should have told your lawyer the FULL TRUTH!
We apologise profusely
We apologise for allowing our concerned readers to name you, and we apologise for having censored your last names in those comments to initials , but only after we gave them a warning that we would do so and only after a day or three, when we had physically a chance to do so. We sincerely apologise that you had already been “defamed” in a publicly published NSW Court of Law and we apologise profusely of discovering that one of you finds it very funny that injured workers are very upset with the hurt you have caused them and that this person is now spreading those derogatory comments like wildfire, perpetuating her own “defamation”. We apologise even more profusely that you have now provided us with not only a very intimidating and demanding letter, but that you have also disclosed to us the first names of those ladies.
However, we do NOT apologise for showing Australia what you are trying to do to honest injured workers who are trying their best to expose the real workcover and the real workcover insurance practices in the hope of hopes to educate, and especially, protect fellow and future injured workers from the further harm that you are so clearly perpetrating.