When an injured worker returns to work on “restricted duties” it is absolutely necessary that the restrictions are adhered to. If they are not, it can have an impact on not only the amount of damages that an injured worker (may) receive(s), but also the percentage that the injured worker’s employer is held liable in a multiparty claim. In this legal case, the injured worker’s employer copped a $1.3 million damages bill because of the injured worker’s post injury exacerbation.
The following Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) legal case found that an injured worker was not eligible for paid massage and chiropractic treatment because such treatment is transient and may work against the injured worker’s recovery from stress by fostering a ‘sick mentality’. WTF!
Injured and recovering workers who fail to supply medical information requested by their employers about their ability to perform their job can be sacked. Two separate and fairly recent legal cases highlight that injured workers have to allow their employer(s) to obtain medical information from their treating doctor(s), if they request so.
The following article was submitted by “Bullied” as a Guest Post. The article focuses on a shocking, disgraceful, totally unconscionable recent legal case (NSW) that basically highlights everything that is wrong with the workers compensation system, including the insurer and the IME. The Judge in this case directed that the independent medical examiner (IME Dr Casikar) AND the workcover insurer (Allianz) both be investigated for their disgraceful and seriously alarming [mis]conduct!
The following story highlights that any injured worker who receives monetary compensation (eg. settlement) needs to seek sound financial advice before ‘spending’ their settlement money.
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.)
A recent WorkCover NSW legal case illustrates that further litigation re a workcover claim can arise many years after an incident giving rise to compensation. In the following legal case, the NSW WCC found that an injured worker’s fatal cardiac arrest resulted from a shoulder injury he suffered at work some 19 years earlier.
Recently, 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, including $300,000 in general damages, $337,090 in past loss of earnings, $550,000 in damages for future economic loss and $70,000 interest on lost wages. It has been suggested that this case could open the way for other employees to sue state governments for damages under the negligence (common) law.
One of the most frustrating things about workplace injuries is that injured workers’ employers’ interests (and those of the insurer of course) are very often at odds with the injured worker’s interests. A common example, your employer would like you to return to work as soon as possible. If you’re injured, it’s in your best interest to wait until you are healed and physically (or mentally) ready to handle your job demands. Or else, you could get injured again or never make a full recovery.
Sexual harassment victim Jemma Ewin won a record $500k payout – this case should serve as a wake-up call to employers that sexual harassment claims will be taken seriously by the courts, and that awards of compensation are on the rise.