Archive | WorkCover WA

RSS feed for this section
police-bad-treatment

WA is the only state that does not have workcover for injured police officers!

If you get hurt at work there’s an expectation you’ll be covered by some form of workers’ compensation.
But not if you’re a police officer in Western Australia.
That’s because WA is the only state that doesn’t have a workers’ compensation scheme in place for injured police officers!

Continue Reading…

complaint-letter-workcover

WA Injured Worker Complaint about employer treatment after a work accident

Yesterday we received the following story and complaint letter (written to The Human Right’s Commission: “complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au”) from a Western Australian injured worker, who, like countless of other injured workers, has been ill-treated by his/her  employer and workcover insurer…

Continue Reading…

workcover-is-like-quick-sand reform-needed-injured-workers2

Reform needed for work injured people

Co-author “Trinny” kindly shared the following article titled “Work Injured Reform Needed” which she found on a Medical Forum, and which was recently written by two doctors. While the article focuses on WorkCover WA and its gross inadequacies such as depriving injured workers who suffer from pain syndromes of adequate multidisciplinary CBT-orientated pain treatment until they are in the terminal stages, we can’t help it but strongly believe this serious problem is not confined to WorkCover WA, contrary to what the article implies.

Continue Reading…

denied-claims3

WA Injured worker denied required surgery after impairment assessment

A Western Australian injured worker (“S’) has been brave enough to share his workcover WA ordeal with us. He has currently lost all purpose and joy in his life, after his workcover WA insurer has denied his required (second) back surgery. The injured worker believes that the surgery may have been denied because he has undergone a permanent impairment assessment (at the advice of his lawyer), however he has not settled his case (yet). Any advise, help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Continue Reading…

workcover-judge

Time limits for common law damages claim must be adhered to: a WA case

The application of limitation periods applying to legal actions – common law damages claims- arising from work injuries must be very carefully adhered to, as this WA legal case has demonstrated.

Time limits for commencing court actions for negligence (in common law damages claims) are subject to very complicated rules, and also vary from state to state. Therefore injured workers should obtain sound advice about their particular situation immediately.

Continue Reading…

wtf-certified lets-get-real-for-moment

When has the employer done enough to avoid liability for psychiatric injury claim?

Further to our popular “stress claims” topic, and the highlighted, very stressful uphill battle for most psychologically injured workers face in having to prove their injury was caused at work and that “reasonable action was taken in an unreasonable manner or unreasonable action taken in a reasonable manner”, which obviously will be fought tooth and nail by the insurance company; the difficult and complex decision whether to lodge a workcover claim or to accept a “separation” package; or to litigate the claim; we came across this interesting yet disheartening WA legal case whereby the ultimate question is asked whether or not the employer had breached duty of care and that the psychiatric injury was foreseeable. Notwithstanding that the injured worker was found to have suffered a serious psychiatric injury, the judge found that there had been no breach in “duty of care” on the part of the employer, and as such dismissed the case.

Continue Reading…

surveillance-no-evidence

Surveillance shows injured worker “exaggerates” symptoms however court finds no evidence

An injured worker who was allegedly found to have exaggerated her symptoms based on “almighty”  workcover surveillance was, thankfully, not required to refund the weekly payments paid to her ordered by some “review officer”,  as there was not enough evidence that she actually exaggerated, the WA Compensation Magistrate’s Court ruled (in 2006).

However, based on the surveillance, the Magistrate did agree with the ‘review officer” that the injured worker was not incapacitated and upheld that she should no longer receive weekly payments.

Continue Reading…

allianz