IME Shrink threatens us with an unfounded defamation lawsuit


Dear Mr Lawyer -Thank you for your letter. If you were up to date with you would have had no need to threaten us with a “defamation” lawsuit as we already published our reply to your client misguided attempt to advise us, the administrators of of our rights at law.

This and what follows is the official reply we – the site’s administrators – sent to Mr Lawyer of the very retaliatory and well known victorian based bia*ed IME shrink…

IME Shrink threatens us with an unfounded defamation lawsuit

The IME shrink and her lawyer





Our response

Dear Mr Lawyer -Thank you for your letter. If you were up to date with you would have had no need to threaten us with a “defamation” lawsuit as we already published our reply to your client misguided attempt to advise us, the administrators of of our rights at law.

In our most humble opinion your client would be better served if you were to explain to her her rights and obligations under the law.

However, as a courtesy, we have removed the “word”[censored]”,  “initials “[censored]” and “[first name] “[censored]” and “letter” [censored] from the alleged “offending and defamatory” comments from two injured workers, who had been examined by your client (independent medical exam) for their workers compensation claim.

Our published response dated 23 November 2012

It has come to our attention via another source – [the Injured Workers Support Network as the lawsuit threat was served to our Guest Blogger John McPhilbin, who does NOT operate this site!] that Dr [censored ], psychiatrist who is also undertaking regular IME assessments for workcover insurance companies in Victoria has threatened for defamation regarding 2 anonymously posted comments (above by “injured” and “anonymous”) back in February this year where part of her name “”[censored ] and Dr [censored] and [censored]” were used and not immediately censored by admin (see our legal disclaimer).

As is clearly stated in our legal disclaimer:

“If an individual happens to be named in a defamatory or derogatory manner in a comment, by a visitor, without written evidence of the alleged misconduct (either in text/link/attachment) the Administrators do not endorse that comment and will censor the named individual as soon as practically feasible. Given the large volume of daily comment this blog receives, it may be possible that the comment(s) is/are not censored immediately. Please be patient. Should you have a concern about a particular comment, we urge you to contact the Administration of the blog via “” as soon as possible.”

Given the seriousness and, frankly drastic action sought by a Dr [censored] , consultant Psychiatrist, Melbourne, Vic, and her Lawyers, and even though’s administrators did not personally receive the legal letter, a nevertheless wishes to state the following:

  1. the names used within the comments were deemed not really identifiable – there are a number of Dr [censored] (no first name) in Australia, “Dr [letter]” and Dr “[censored]”means nothing, no state or location was given either
  2. is concerned about the amount of comments, both published and unpublished received about certain IMEs – given the current evidence (AMA) of a widespread problem re biased and, frankly, unprofessional IME assessments in all states in Australia. operates in the BEST interest of injured workers and is extremely concerned when several injured workers report certain medical assessors, doctors, case managers or any other workcover “stakeholder”and takes those, most often documented and validated concerns very serious. Many injured workers have been DEFAMED by independent doctors and have experienced extreme pain, suffering, damage and grief because of it, without ever receiving an apology, even though their physical and/or mental ‘assessments’ may have been ‘rectified’ thanks to legally binding Medical Panel opinions
  3. The names (first name, letter [censored] and word [censored]) have now been removed from the alleged “offending” comments- however we would have been grateful if you would have dropped us an email and alerted us rather than to serve other unrelated websites with a legal threat for defamation!
  4. (administrators) is in receipt of several psychiatric “assessment” reports from injured workers and would be happy to publicly publish those as well as the comparative psychiatric assessments as conducted by a medical panel of psychiatrists
  5. As our legal disclaimer clearly state aworkcovervictimsdiary does not endorse or condone comments by injured workers. This site does not endorse, approve or condone any statements or comments made by any injured worker, however in view of the adversarial action taken by a Dr [censored], we have ensured all referrals to “[censored], or [censored] or [censored]” have been removed”.
  6. apologises to anyone who believes they have been truly or accidentally negatively affected by those two comments referring to “[censored], [censored] or [censored]”
  7.’s heart also goes out to the many injured workers affected by IME assessments in general.


You may also want to refer to the case Allianz vs

We would also urge you or anyone interested to read our legal write ups (written by our lawyers) re defamation laws in Australia

PS: As stated on the disclaimer, and as any person in their right mind would do, and as stated in the defamation act, if any person has a concern about a derogatory comment or potential defamatory comment, the first thing they’d do is contact the administrators of the blog and discuss the issue.

There is NO NEED to threaten us (or anyone) or this blog with a lawsuit and make inappropriate, uneducated and rather intimidating demands.

Be very grateful we did not publish this doctor (IME) full name and location and reports –

also be mindful that should you (your client) wish to proceed with “defamation” the affected injured workers will ALL testify .

 / end of published response

…[our reply continues]…that is they will all provide statements and be witness to what has transpired during such “assessments” with your client and provide the relevant medical reports (by your client) as well as those of several other IMEs and the legally binding opinion of a full medical panel of Psychiatrist for comparison – perhaps this would allow a judge and a jury and the public to make their own judgement about the your client’s misleading allegations about her “reputation”/ “professional damage”.

As the administrators of this site we feel extremely intimidated and insulted by the drastic action and unfounded “defamation” lawsuit threat by your client, which is in itself in breach of the Defamation act.

We trust the above published material is satisfactory.

Should your client insist on a “personal public apology” believes that the “apology” would draw further unwanted attention to your client, in the context of this blog/website. We would also have to publish your clients lawsuit treat, adding undoubtedly to a “general” outrage on behalf of our many readers, most who are all seriously injured.

In addition to your client’s alleged “defamation” (see above) – we also wish to add that access to our site is HIGHLY restricted with a professional ultra secure HT access file, which automatically blocks for example all workcover insurers, authorities, medical professionals. So to state that your client’s “reputation” has been “damaged would be extremely misleading in addition to the fact that your clients full name was never disclosed, nor her location, nor other personal identifying features.

Should your client wish to proceed with a “defamation” lawsuit, we would be more than happy to provide you with the details of our pro bono lawyers whom you can sent the writ, summons and statement of complaints you may wish to lodge with any court and in any jurisdiction.

We would also state that, failing any successful Court action, by your client we will be seeking costs on an “indemnity basis” – see Colgate- Palmolive vs Cussons (1993) 46 FCR225 for further explanation.

We look forward to your reply.
Sincerely Administrators

Dear Mr Lawyer

Just FYI Mr John McPhilbin does NOT operate nor own, he is is a guest Author.

We do find it extremely disturbing that your firm sent this unfounded “defamation lawsuit treath” to an unrelated person, when, clearly, as per our site (, the admins’ contact details are clearly displayed

.As a courtesy and a kind favour, we will await your client’s further “instructions” with regards to the requested public “apology”, which – in our humble opinion- would only, link your client’s full name and specialty with our site in Google, and – undoubtedly- draw unwanted attention to your client within the context of our site.

If we do not hear back from you/your client within 3 business days (COB Wednesday 28 Dec) we will go ahead and publish:

Your letter in full (uncensored)

“Our apology” as instructed by your client (word for word)

We also reserve the right to publish at least one injured worker’s psychiatric “assessment” report as undertaken and prepared by your client, the injured worker’s second, third (and fourth, where applicable) psychiatric assessments and medico-legal reports as undertaken by other independent psychiatrists as well as the full report and legally binding opinion of a full medical panel of psychiatrists.

Kind Regards

aworkcovervictimsdiary Administrators

Additional blah blah

  • a Google search conducted entering this “doctor’s” full name and or last name did NOT link any article back to (!) No wonder Mr Lawyer and Dr IME could not provide s with an exact date, link or even the exact “offensive” word or “letter” used
  • Unfortunately injured sods do not get to choose to what “IME” shrink or other they are sent to by the insurer – so to state that Dr shrink has sustained “professional damage” would be hard fetched – one would think that – were her name published and linked to our site – the insurers would jump at the opportunity to send more unfortunates to “flagged” IMEs
  • how about the stress, anxiety caused to the administrators, authors and co-authors, guest bloggers and contributors, visitors and commentators by this “defamation lawsuit threat”? May we remind Mr lawyer and Dr shrink that we are all seriously injured folks who suffer greatly, with serious physical and/or psych injuries
  • Oh, and what if, in Mr Lawyer and Dr shrink’s misguided interpretation of the Defamation Act (shall we say), were to successfully sue a seriously injured worker for “defamation”… what on earth could a Judge award you? Centrelink payments at best?  Seriously injured workers are extremely poor – did you forget that?
  • Any comments, folks?



22 Responses to “IME Shrink threatens us with an unfounded defamation lawsuit”

  1. O’Farrell closed down all roads to the court house for injured workers. So if some crackpot psychiatrist wants to drag me in to court before a judge. Place the summons in the mail, hand on the bible lets share our stories before a judge..I know I wont burn in the lake of fire for perjury..