The recent announcement by the Victorian Ombudsman -Ms Deborah Glass– to investigate the management of Workcover claims is definitely very worthwhile initiative. For years, injured workers and their representatives have faced workcover Insurer representatives who just say “No”, no matter what!
Generally speaking, and as for example outlined in the Independent Medical Examiner – IME – Sevices Standards, (in Victoria) a doctor hired to examine a patient/injured worker on behalf of a workcover insurance company ((or employer), does not establish a (standard) doctor-patient relationship. However, we believe that there are times when at the very least, a limited duty to the injured worker (patient) may well exist in some circumstances! And that the IME in question could potentially be sued for liability (i.e. malpractice)!
In August 2015 the NSW Court of Appeal decided that NSW injured workers could not make more than one lump-sum insurance claim. In other words that injured workers could not top up their lump-sum compensation payment if their condition deteriorated. However, yesterday (Monday 26 Oct 15), the state government will make a new regulation to override that court decision in that case, known as Cram Fluid Power v Green.
In the following 2015 NSW legal case, a workcover insurer (and its client, the employer) tried very hard ( but failed) to appeal a decision which required to compensate an injured worker who resigned from his job. The NSW Court of Appeal found that the injured worker’s duties as prescribed by the worker’s injury management plan were not suitable.
We have lately been reading heaps of legal cases and recently came across a pretty disturbing one: The NSW Workers Compensation Commission (NSW WCC) ruled in a Jan 2015 case that it does NOT have the power to order a workcover insurer to(re) pay weekly payments to a seriously injured worker for a 2-year period even though the injured worker had a “no work capacity” status. WTF!?
Having liability accepted for a psychological work-related injury can be very difficult, even more so because the connection or relationship to work can be (and is often) less obvious than in workcover claims involving only physical injuries. However in the following recent legal cases, the courts accepted that there was a psychological work-related injury present.
If procedures in relation to a dismissal are not properly managed, and shows a degree of procedural unfairness, Fair Work can order an employer to compensate the sacked (injured) worker even if the dismissal itself was actually justified.
It has come to our attention that resources relating to workers compensation (workcover) in two jurisdictions – NT and VIC – have recently been released.
We recently received a rather highly controversial email from an injured worker. The aggrieved injured worker believes that ‘killing’ ‘defective’ workcover employees (such as case managers) is the answer to fixing our horribly broken workcover system. We believe that the fundamental problem is that of bad faith…
Yesterday we received the shameful story of “Severely Injured” who, rightly, describes his Xchanging case manager as a crazy ex-girlfriend who went from my ‘new best friend’ to nothing short of a stalker. She
would ring the injured worker up to 8 times a day, and berate him, scream abuse, make outrageous claims – “I am stopping your payments, its up to me, and you are getting nothing, which is what you deserve”…Sound familiar? You bet! And here is what you can do about it!