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.
Thousands of New South Wales workers could be stopped from accessing lump sum workers compensation payments they need for financial stability. A recent decision in the NSW Court of Appeal, in Cram Fluid Power V Green, means seriously injured workers can no longer top up their initial lump sum payments if their condition deteriorates.
You may remember the case of former PM Julia Gillard’s house keeper’s workcover claim for an injury she sustained to her back while straining to fit a sheet on Julia Gillard’s king-size mattress in 2012. The house keeper had initially some issues with her claim, also re-injured herself and now it turns out that she was accused of “fraud” by means of surveillance. However recently the AAT overturned the decision of Comcare to cease her claim for compensation. The article gives some worthy tips re surveillance.
The following NT legal workcover case demonstrates (again) to what lengths workcover insurers will go to deny liability for an injury, more so in cases of psychiatric injury. A psychiatrist (IME) hired by the workcover insurer found the injured worker experienced symptoms of depression as a result of his “difficult circumstances”, as opposed to having major depressive disorder. The insurer stated that the injured worker did not have a psychological injury, or that in the case he did, it was not caused by his (primary) low back injury.
A key element in suicidal behaviour or idealisation is the feeling of helplessness, which arises from prolonged periods of [extreme] stress or emotional upset. For many [seriously] or ill injured workers this may include constant abuse from the employer or the workcover insurer [case manager], constant denials for even the most basic of medical and like care/services; …
The Victorian Federal Court has very recently (March 2015) dismissed an injured worker’s claim that his employer took “adverse action” against him by exposing him to a manager’s extremely and outrageously abusive behaviour and by failing to offer/provide him with a return to work plan.
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.