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.
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…
The workcover insurance company (who is defending your workcover claim) has a right to have a doctor (an independent medical examiner) of its own choice examine the injured worker. The logic of this general rule cannot be questioned. However the manner in which so-called “independent medical examinations” (IMEs) are carried out is often fraught with controversy, and it’s important that you know that you can refuse to see a certain IME in certain circumstances!
After reading a recent comment posted by “Doug” stating: “I too suffer from mental health issues which have been aggravated due to a workplace injury, yet work cover do NOT want to even know about them”, I am compelled yet again to repeat today that when a worker is unfortunate to be injured at work, there is not only injury but it is then – just about always – followed by assault and workcover case managers (et al.) are re-injuring those workers all over again.
As you may have gathered, our site was hacked last month and malware was found. The trouble started shortly after we received an email from a -clearly- very disgruntled IME, referring to his multiple negative reviews on our site’s “rate an IME / IME List“, and stating that we caused upset in those injured workers who were due for an IME assessment with this man. He demanded an apology and requested we delete the reviews pronto…or else… Coincidence? Maybe…