The restrictions placed on injured workers who want to claim common law damages against their employers vary across states (jurisdictions). An injured worker can seek damages (by means of a common law claim) if they believe they suffered a serious injury due to their employer’s fault (negligence), but in most states they have to meet certain (harsh) thresholds. The following post gives a quick overview of common law damages claims.
In this article, we’ll outline the main benefits of settling an injury (common law) damages claim OUT of court. In doing so we also wish to highlight that in some cases, injured workers may well believe that their case is worth much more than the workcover insurance company is willing to pay, and also believe their case is worth much more than it is actually worth. Indeed injured workers hear or read stories about large settlements and/or court verdicts and may get caught up in the (very expensive) litigation process.
In September 2014, Peter Doulis, a Victorian teacher driven to the brink by unruly students including one who made a flamethrower in class has been awarded around $1.3 million in compensation by the Supreme Court, by means of suing the state government for damages under the negligence/common law. Many ‘stress’ victims were gobsmacked at the size of the amount in compensation awarded. Let’s have a look at what the $1.3 million compensation awarded really means for Mr Doulis (and anyone else in a similar situation.)
Even when you have been awarded a serious injury certificate in Victoria (or elsewhere) for both pain and suffering and economic (pecuniary/future earnings) loss for a common law claim, your lawyer may advise you to drop the economic loss part of your claim and to only pursue the pain and suffering claim. This brief article explores the potential reasoning for not pursuing the economic loss part and to stay on workcover (weekly payments) instead.
Do you, like Judy, read legal cases or stories involving considerable sums of compensation payouts to injured workers and wonder why it is that you did not receive any such compensation (payout) from workcover, even though you are badly injured and may never work again? If you do, read on as we’ll explain how this “compensation” works in Victoria and hope it all makes some sense.
This interesting legal case (QLD) highlights that, in awarding future economic loss, a Court can take into account that an injured worker must disclose his/her injury and claim history to any prospective employer, putting the injured worker at a very significant disadvantage when competing with able bodied applicants in an attempt to find new employment.
A young truck driver who developed marriage-destroying erectile dysfunction after injuring his back carrying up to 40 kilograms of timber has won a $725,000 payout in the ACT Supreme Court.
As we’ve mentioned yesterday, many lawyers (and law firms) enter into ‘no win‐no fee’ costs agreements with their clients, undertaking legal work on their behalf on what is sometimes called a ‘speculative’ basis ( because the lawyer agrees to take the risk that the case might lose)
The idea behind a ‘no win ‐ no fee’ cost agreement is that it gives people with limited finances access to justice…
The welcomed proposed changes to Workcover SA – in particular the ability for (seriously) injured workers to pursue a common law claim through the courts- were revealed by SA Premier Jay Weatherill and Attorney-General John Rau on 24 January…But on condition!
According to Yahoo 7 News, South Australian injured workers will -thankfully- again be able to sue their employers for negligence, …. while those falsely claiming benefits will be targetted, under a long-awaited plan to overhaul WorkCover SA scheme. Again, note the stigmatisation of injured workers as “all fraudsters” and “system-milkers” … indeed the result of countless derogatory comments about them in the media and by politicians.