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!
Workcover stress claims can be extremely challenging to file and to litigate against. And they are getting tougher and tougher. There are many legal requirements that need to be satisfied in order to have a viable case. In order to submit a WorkCover claim for stress, it’s necessary for your legal team to demonstrate that you have suffered an ‘injury’ – at work – and within the meaning of the WorkCover legislation. This means you cannot typically claim for experiencing stress as an emotion, but rather, you are suffering from a clinical medical condition.
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.
What have the 7 deadly sins to do with your lawsuit? They are simply easy to remember warnings to litigating injured workers (aka Plaintiffs). We’re not trying to save your injured soul, rather your workcover case (i.e. common law claim, any litigation). In other words: if you ignore these seven deadly “sins” you will probably sc*w up your case.
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.
In most Australian states, firefighters who are diagnosed of suffering with particular types of cancer are automatically “deemed” to have developed the condition by reason of their job. Unfortunately and tragically this legislation is not currently in place in Victoria, even though there is increased community support for such recognition.