The State Ombudsman  has highlighted sinificant flaws in the workcover billing scheme. Unfortunately, there has for a  long time been rumours that some Surgeons were coming out of operating all night on motor accident victims and boasting that they had paid for their children's yearly private school fees! The TAC seemed to be obsessed with stopping the injured  from receiving one more treatment than they were entitled to, but letting some health professionals go unchecked. Michael Lombard from  the Transport Accident section of Holding Redlich hopes that the Ombudsman will put "A Rocket" around those who have not been monitored. 

The TAC has declared war on paper by looking to scan all the documents coming into its office. A tender issued by the TAC wants cost effective end-to-end solutions for incoming documents. TAC reveals that it has to manage 3200 documents each day. On average 10,000 pages are sorted each day. The TAC have been "famous" for losing clients papers that are sent in. Sometimes they have been faxed in, but still operators have told our clients that they didn't get them. Michael Lombard from Holding Redlich says "It's not clear whether this tender will help , but any improvement will be a blessing."

Today Stella Gold of Holding Redlich attended the County Court on behalf of a widow to hear the company her late husband worked for be fined $300,000 for his death. The fatality occurred at the B & D Doors Kilsyth factory in November 2006, when a 7 metre industrial drum fell from an overhead crane, killing the 51 year old man. B & D Doors was prosecuted and pleaded guilty to a number of offences relating to its failure to provide a safe place of work and adequately train its staff.  We had assisted the widow prepare a Victim Impact Statement, which was read out in court and relied upon by the Judge in sentencing the company. We are also assisting the deceased's family to recover compensation entitlements and damages arising from this avoidable workplace death.

Click here for a Herald Sun news item on the case.

Judge Bowman of the County Court has awarded one of our clients $867,000 damages for injuries she sustained at work as a medical receptionist.  Our client suffered a hip injury whilst squatting down to file medical records in overloaded drawers.  The claim was vigorously defended by WorkCover's lawyers. The damages included $334,000 pain and suffering damages, $170,000 for past loss of earnings and $363,000 for future loss of earnings. Our client is very satisfied with the outcome we achieved in her case.

Lisa Maynard recently presented at a seminar run by the Australian Lawyers Alliance, an association of primarily Plaintiff lawyers. The subject of the seminar was the 40% loss of earning capacity test in Serious Injury Cases. In workcover applications for a serious injury certificate, a worker must establish a permanent drop in their capacity to earn income of at least 40%. This is a very difficult test to meet and presenting and attending the seminar gave our lawyers invaluable further knowledge in this area.

Lisa's paper - 40% loss of earning capacity test - some cases

We were recently able to resolve a damages claim for a worker suffering a severe psychiatric condition from his fear of developing an asbestos related disease after he was unreasonably exposed to asbestos dust at work. Over a number of weeks he and his co-workers raised concerns about a white powdery substance present at the worksite. They queried whether the powder could be asbestos and they were assured it was not and their concerns were not taken seriously. Eventually experts were called in who confirmed the powder was the lethal blue asbestos and shut down the site. Although he never developed an asbestos related disease, such as mesothelioma, he genuinely feared that he would and suffered a severe psychiatric reaction to these events. He was unable to continue working and requires on-going counselling and medication. He recovered compensation for his injuries. The terms of the settlement were confidential.

Andrea Tsalamandris is in the Australian newspaper today talking about the rare occassions when she has had to take her children to court with her. Although not something she does often, and something she prefers to avoid, there have been emergencies when she has had to bring a young child to court. Unlike the Senate which recently asked Sarah Hanson-Young's young child to be removed from the chamber, the courts have been accomodating, even the High Court. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25668981-17044,00.html

On 10 June we settled a damages claim for a client who had suffered a neck injury as a consequence of her employment in a gaming room. As part of her employment she was required to operate a coin dispensing machine. It was placed on the right hand side of her work station and she was required to repeatedly stretch out her left arm to collect coins, whilst operating the machine with her right hand. Overtime this resulted in an injury to her neck. She complained about the positioning of the coin machine but her employer refused to move it to the position where she said it placed less strain on her body.

Our client required a fusion to her neck as a consequence of this. She was granted a serious injury certificate for her pain and suffering. It was not until the day the case was listed for hearing that the Defendant was prepared to make any decent offers of settlement.  She received approximately $160,000 for her pain and suffering damages.

We were recently successful in defending an application to strike out one of our client's claims. A dispute arose as to whether a County Court Writ that we had issued was valid, based on an earlier dispute about whether the Plaintiff's Serious Injury Application was validly served.

A response has to be received to a Serious Injury Application within 120 days or it is deemed to be a 'yes', but in this case the Defendant disputed when that was to be calculated from.

The Judge decided that the Application was validly served and agreed that the Plaintiff's Serious Injury was deemed and therefore refused to strike out the proceedings. Our client's claim for damages is continuing.

See the ruling at: http://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/CA256D90000479B3/Lookup/Judgments_M1/$file/09_VCC0546.pdf

On 1 May we got a judgment in a serious injury case for a worker who injured her back lifting heavy boxes. She was given permission to commence a case for pain and suffering and loss of earnings.

This is a link to the judgment http://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/CA256D90000479B3/Lookup/Judgments_P1/$file/09_VCC0415.pdf