Workers will soon be subject to having their wages terminated after 130 weeks. But how have thing changed to support injured workers back to work or to rehabilitate them?
I wonder if Kev will slash the number of Workcover board members, lawyers and employees to give employers a break and to let some of the injured workers get fair compensation for their work injuries.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 9:42am today
yeah yeah Steve, we know you have no life, now how about go getting a job instead of sitting home reading the news all day and whining about workcover you bludger.
Yeah.... Yeah... BludgersRus.
Do you think that people bludging on WorkCover would bother to sit home surfing the net and putting comments on the net?
They would be out surfing, golfing, fishing, socialising with their girlfriends, visiting doctors, visiting rehab , looking for a job. Thats what real bludgers do.
They would not be like me and stuck in a city office with a job they hate and waiting for some work to do.
Thats the way it is when one is injured at work, have to return to work and everyone treats you like you are incapable of doing anything because you were injured.
Well I do not mind I get paid for doing nothing now and get my wages topped up to 100%.
Anyway you are obviously an ex employee because you hate injured workers and fail to understand how the WorkCover system works..
I get paid for doing nothing as well and of course I do not mind. I have a family to feed and I have to survive. Is it my fault WorkCover took two years to accept my claim and another 8 months to put me on a rehabilitation plan? No.
And why dont I get off my arse and find a job? well because my wage dropped to 80% so I guess I am paying 20% of my wages for WorkCover to do just that. $180 per week out of my pocket. The guilt feeling of staying at home quickly dissapears when I think of it that way!
Tell ALL what Workcover is doing/has done to you.Lets stand up& be heard!Surely someone who can do something will help.We DO MATTER!Lets stop the BULLIES!Enough is enough!All AU states are welcome!Say NO MORE!Financial ruin,unfair disadvantages/laws, legislation& treatment.Workcover profits& what happens 2 YOU!If we all band together we have a chance.How does WC make profit out of your suffering?Is that ok?ITS NOT OK!SPEAK YOUR TRUTH TODAY!
The Labor government has pushed through new reforms for WorkCover. The current system is without challenge burdened with enormous administrative costs, there is no defined length for any claim, workers have not been given ample opportunity to return to work or been rehabilitated. Given that it is highly unlikely that the unfunded liability will get better with the new reforms.
Will the future Liberal government re-consider reverting back to a Workers compensation system which empowers workers with the opportunity to have their future income maintenance decided by a court on a common law basis as opposed to the current system where injured workers are locked into a system controlled by insurers where claimants are subjected to repeated challenges for the amount of their weekly income maintenance in a system which clearly only supports insurance agents being locked into contracts which clearly only rort employers and keep injured workers on the system until retirement age.
We expressed concerns at thwe time of the WorkCover changes that they needed to also address the management of the corporation and the scheme.
The future debt is now more than a billion dollars, plus $400 million for the government’s public sector scheme.
If Labor’s hadn’t messed this up, wrokers entitlements would still be in reasonable shape.
Workcover, Jeff Kennett was shell shocked when he lost, bewilldered,but the only thing that he changed so dramaticly before being voted out was the Vic Workcover system [only now are they looking at changing it back to a fairer system.]How long will it take before the Libs make our system a fairer one for SA,all Workcover systems went into trouble only after they outsourced would you take it back in house.
Subsist-er of Lockleys Sun 15 Mar 09 (10:13am)
Work Cover is a mess thanks to Mike Rann. Over one billion dollars of unfunded liability and as a result he has cut worker’s entitlenements. These entitlements were put in place by the former State Liberal government. When we handed over the scheme in 2002 the future debt position was $63 million. Mike Rann and Labour have delivered ruin to Work Cover. It’s a Labour mess and it’s Labour’s messy solution. Workers did better under the State Liberals on Work Cover. Just ask the unions who have been holding Mr Rann to account.
As an injured worker I want to know what you are going to do to bring the WorkCover system back to some level of respect, you know that the unfunded liability is not a problem created by injured workers, but it is a problem created by the people who make a great deal of money out of the system. It is rumored that the unfunded liability is close to $1.6billion. Injured workers have no say, no control over what the managers of the WorkCover system direct them to do, and are now prevented from lodging a notice of dispute without risking the loss of the income payments. The return to work test and the medical panels are not designed to be supportive of injured workers, but to simply destroy what is left of our lives. We have no rights, we have no say, we committed no crime. What are you going to do about all of this mess. Please don’t say that you will want another report or another review, we have had them for 7 years now and the system gets worse for injured workers everytime.
Injured Workers of South Australia Sun 15 Mar 09 (10:17am)
Thanks for your message and as a injured worker I feel for you. Interstingly my sister fell and broke her leg in three places in Queensland not that long ago during a lunch break and told me she was very impressed with the way the Queensland sheme worked for her. In Queensland levy rates are very low for small business employees and workers are helped back to work but here Labor has wrecked the scheme. Back in 2002 there were $63 million of unfunded liability under the LIbs, in the space of 7 years Mike Rann has given us over 1 billion and your figure of !.6 billion may prove to be on the mark when the truth is know. We keep asking in Parliament....no answer. Mike Rann’s solutions has been to slash worker’s entitlemets, put in place by the former State Liberal government. It should never have come to this. If I have the honour to serve as Premier we will fix the scheme. All the best for your recovery.
G Day Martin What would you do to reform workcover to make it a fairer system for injurd workers ,as Work Cover is in strife in all states in Australia would you consider taking it back in house and restoring the redemption part to permently unemployables
Gary of Western Suburbs Mon 16 Mar 09 (12:17pm)
WorkCover went from a $60 million liability to one now in excess of a billion dollars.
That’s despite labor’s cuts to entitlements.
We need to have a good look under the bonnet of the WorkCover bus...it’s rolling out of control.
Of course they supported the changes and I am sure if they get in next election there will be more entitlement cuts and heartache. Labor did them a very big favour. I posted the above blog comments for pure reference sake. Just like every other media release that is put on here.
9/2/09 SA: WorkCover stat’s released for Self Insurers 2nd half of 2008
WorkCover stat’s released for Self Insurers 2nd half of 2008
The Ombudsman for WorkCover recently released a brief report on complaints and investigations by his office for the second half of 2008.
The statistical report includes comparisons of suspension decisions for self insurers. For instance, 19% of self insurer Section 36 decisions were suspended compared with the rest of the scheme being 37%.
The Ombudsman was asked to comment on possible common whether he sees any commonalities in the suspension cases which could possibly assist case managers to improve the robustness of their decisions.
The Ombudsman responded:
“The main cause of suspensions is in connection with whether medical evidence is sufficient to support a discontinuance based on section 36(1)(b). Sometimes the case manager has misread or misinterpreted the medical report, sometimes the incapacitating effects of sequelae or deconditioning have not been addressed, sometimes it seems that the case manager has not properly understood what "ceased to be incapacitated for work" means and has wrongly relied upon a medical opinion thinking that it supports a conclusion that the worker has ceased to be incapacitated for work when it clearly doesn't”.
Typical of this government. Priorities all arse-about. Labor has ruined WorkCover, is intent on destroying the RAH - saddling us with a ridiculous debt, and is mis-managing mental health while Media Mike drags us along on his own vendetta againt bikes, instituting laws that threaten everyone. It's about time certain politicians remembered that they are in perliament by our good grace.
Posted by: Duane of Adelaide 6:50am today
The government needs to take responsibility for mental health. As everyone knows shortly there will be another few thousand injured workers on the streets that have been traumatised and who can only be considered at risk. I say at risk because a person with no job, injured at work, no income and no prospects of employment is facing very grim prosepcts for their future.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Burnside 7:50pm March 19, 2009
Comment 95 of 118
I have read lots of posts on this site but can not find anything about rehabilitation. I have been on workcover for 7 years and never so much as had anyone even suggest to me I can get rehabilitation. My employer who was an
(italian) sacked me after I was injured. I say it was entirely his fault for not providing saftey equipment and not providing me a safe workplace that caused my injury.
He said he had no work for me as he was only a small employer. Allianz accepted it ok and they now pay me direct.
My problem is I want to do a course and I read about a guy who started doing a course and workcover prosecuted him because he was doing a tafe course and therefore must have been dishonest and not injured. While I can not understand it all I want to do a course but im scared to do one because workcover might charge me and say I was dishonest because i am on workcover yet can doa tafe course.
How do I get any rehab?
EML have done nothing for me since I was injured, I rang workcover and that was just a waste of time.
I seem to be wasting my life away..
Can anyone help me about what happens if I want to do a tafe course and how come workcover prosecute injured workers for doing such courses?
Man dies, another loses leg after steel falls from crane
Article from: AAP
March 25, 2009 09:41am
ONE man is dead, another has lost a leg and three others are seriously injured after a load of steel fell from a crane, crushing the workers below.
A crew of Abigroup subcontractors were positioning a section of rail and sleepers with the help of a crane about 11pm (AEDT) yesterday when four lengths of steel came loose and fell from the crane.
"The crane was swinging a load (of steel) across the track and that load has fallen,'' a WorkCover New South Wales spokesman said.
"One man is dead and another man did lose a leg.''
The man who lost his leg is one of two airlifted from the scene to Newcastle's John Hunter Hospital.
Two other men were taken by road ambulance to hospital.
The man operating the crane has been interviewed by police, while detectives, forensic officers and WorkCover NSW representatives investigated the scene.
"The deepest sympathies of Abigroup and all its employees are going with the workers and the families at this time,'' Abigroup managing director David Jurd said.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business): The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following information:
1.De Poi Consultancy Services were not exempt from participating in the rotational referral system. The rotational system was an effective instrument to ensure that De Poi Consultancy and all other providers continued to receive a historically consistent number of referrals during the period the rotational referral system operated.
Many providers have established strong preferred provider networks. Referral overrides can occur in circumstances where the employer or worker could establish that sound reasons existed to direct the referral to a particular provider. An example of this would be any employer requesting to utilise a provider who had previously provided service to them and who was familiar with the workplace including physical demands of available alternative duties. The general experience is that better results are achieved where strong provider relationships exist and the provider has either good workplace knowledge or a good relationship with worker representatives.
2.Not applicable.
3.De Poi Consultancy Services' performance is assessed in the same manner as other rehabilitation providers. CAPO is one tool that advises of provider performance and provide for some indication of comparative provider performance.
Employers Mutual are responsible for referrals to providers and assessing provider performance through monthly data given by providers, feedback received from claims staff, and quarterly performance information relating to claims closed in the quarter. The file audit strategy is also linked to feedback from Employers Mutual's quality assurance team and case managers. It also considers statistical feedback, and findings from Employers Mutual's regular internal file reviews.
4.De Poi Consultancy Services' results were considered to be in the top third of providers in the period when key provider relationships were established.
Referral overrides can occur in circumstances where the employer or worker could establish that sound reasons existed to direct the referral to a particular provider. An example of this would be any employer requesting to utilise a provider who had previously provided service to them and who was familiar with the workplace including physical demands of available alternative duties.
Re- THE TISER 23 MARCH
A Father's eight -year battle with the navy for justice for his son has ended in a partial victory.Peter's son ,Warren's,promising career was in tatters after he was misdiagnosed with a sleep dis- order and wrongly prescribed addictive drugs.Warren has beeen unable to work since he was discharged in 2001. The navy has agreed to pay compensation and give the thirty year old his SUPERANNUATION entitlements.
I worked for EML in July 2008. De Poi Consultancy was NOT a good rehab provider nor did it have GOOD return to work rates. Nor were it's referrals based on CAPO statistics - they were based on RICHARD HILTON, RUTH MITCHELL and MARK MCKIE having weekly lunches with SANDRA DE POI.
De Poi Corruption Services and lack of facts & evidence provided to Hansard
It would be interesting to know why it took 8 months (!!!!) for Paul Holloway to get answers which contain no specific details such as how many injured workers De Poi Consultancy sucessfully rehabilitated and returned to work (must be a huge number if EML's statement that they are in the "top three"), and also why EML's CAPO statistics are not being publicly released? Where is the transparency?
Also, I can state that I have seen WorkCover documents that show that De Poi Consultancy was not even in the top ten of rehabilitation providers who got return to work outcomes in 2005, yet a year later they are suddenly a top performer, coincidently when EML were contracted - a claims agent that lodged their tender after the cut-off date, and a claims agent that has provided De Poi Consultancy with considerable amounts of work (and staff such as De Poi manager Elaine Soloman who worked in the rehabilitation provider unit at EML)... Oh, and lets not forget the De Poi's proprietor is Sandra De Poi - WorkCover board member and Labor party donator.
So in regards to above, yes *sniff sniff*, smells like bullshit to me as well.
Posted by Queen Bee's Unfunded Liability Honey-Pot at 12:49 AM, 26/3/2009
Yeah, interesting how THOSE questions arent asked in Hansard. De Poi's conflicts of interests are open and there for all to see and her mateship with Employers Mutual management is very well known in the industry, as is her penchant for blacklisting anyone who opposes her and her anti-worker views. It's not surprising that her rehab company is well known for it's Section 38's - not for returning injured workers back to work. Also it should be noted through the grapevine I heard a call was made to The Advertiser after their story last year on her conflicts of interests to ensure they don't do any follow-ups.
For those avid readers of Hansard, and those who might be interested, they can go to my website for the most recent update of Rann government appointments to boards and committees. I refer to a press statement on 7 January 2009, which lists a very long list of persons appointed to government boards and committees, who have strong associations with the Australian Labor Party, and also a release on 13 December 2008 relating to Rann's new favourite power couple—Fabulous Phil Bentley and Marvellous Margaret Wagstaff—and the number of boards and committees that they have been appointed to. Adelaide Now was also interested enough in the issue to put it on its website—for those members who might be interested in an update on the recent round.
The sacked chief executive of the South Australian Jockey Club (SAJC), Steve Ploubidis, has launched legal action over his dismissal, claiming it was motivated by personal malice.
The claim against the SAJC, Thoroughbred Racing SA (TRSA) and its chairman Phillip Bentley, has been lodged in the Federal Court.
Mr Ploubidis was sacked without a pay-out last Friday when the SAJC board met to discuss an independent inquiry into the club's conduct.
The inquiry investigated allegations of vote-stacking during the board's election.
Court documents allege Mr Ploubidis claims he told Mr Bentley about the recruitment of new members last year.
The documents also claim Mr Bentley orchestrated his downfall through 'threats and promises'.
Mr Bentley is accused of pressuring the SAJC to sack Mr Ploubidis, at the same time conducting a media campaign against him.
The statement of claim alleges Mr Bentley was motivated by personal animosity towards Mr Ploubidis, intention to cause Mr Ploubidis harm and to protect his own reputation.
The claim also seeks extra damages from Mr Bentley over allegations he interfered with the employment contract and that he told Mr Ploubidis last month that he would 'bury' him.
A spokesman for TRSA said Mr Bentley will not be commenting.
Racing chief doubt- Is Philip Bentley the WorkCover Board Chairman??
Racing chief doubt
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)
NIGEL HUNT
March 28, 2009 11:30pm
THE future of horse racing industry chief Philip Bentley is under a cloud as the South Australian Jockey Club controversy enters its next phase.
It seems likely his tenure as chairman of Thoroughbred Racing South Australia will be scrutinised in May amid suggestions he should stand aside.
The suggestions, from racing industry insiders, follow the initiating of Federal Court proceedings by sacked SAJC chief executive Steve Ploubidis this week.
Mr Ploubidis is suing the SAJC, TRSA and Mr Bentley personally for damages over his March 13 sacking.
The Federal Court statement of claim alleges Mr Bentley engaged in "tortious conduct" and "was motivated by personal malice against Ploubidis", claims which are expected to be rejected by Mr Bentley.
The legal action, launched on Tuesday, came just two days after the Sunday Mail revealed Mr Bentley allegedly knew about the membership stacking scandal that cost Mr Ploubidis his job.
The allegations by Mr Ploubidis, which have been vehemently denied by Mr Bentley, are in a legal letter sent by Mr Ploubidis's lawyer, Grant Archer, to Mr Bentley.
The letter was sent on February 6 - two days before Mr Ploubidis was to be interviewed as part of the Lipman Karas inquiry, which subsequently resulted in his sacking.
Mr Bentley provided the letter to lawyer Skip Lipman and to Independent Gambling Authority director Robert Chappell.
At the time, Mr Bentley acknowledged having discussions with Mr Ploubidis in Japan about SAJC membership but denied he had any knowledge of any "improper behaviour".
"All I knew when I left Japan was there had been a membership drive and I knew there was a large number.
"There was no discussion whatsoever about where these people came from, how these people were joined up, who paid for them or any irregular behaviour that has emerged as a result of the Lipman inquiry."
Several racing industry figures, who declined to be identified, said they believed Mr Bentley's $50,000-a-year position as TRSA chairman was now "quite untenable".
"Philip is now in the same position Steve was in," one said. "That is, he is the subject of allegations that will now be tested in court.
"Steve was stood down because there were allegations made; the two scenarios are very similar.
"And remember, Philip did the deal with Bill Spear (SAJC board member) that included Steve being stood aside while the Lipman inquiry was conducted."
South Australian Racing Clubs Council chairman John Glatz yesterday said there was likely to be a meeting of TRSA's two shareholders - the SAJC and SARCC - "very soon" after the May 13 SAJC board election.
At the meeting, there was likely to be "discussion over what had happened at the TRSA". "We have certainly discussed it at SARCC," he said.
"Philip has already been asked how is he going to keep out of all of this when he has been hand-in-hand with Ploubidis for the past two years."
Any examination would also most likely include the allegations made against Mr Bentley - including the fact he was alerted to concerns in 2007 and 2008 about a travel allowance claim made by Mr Ploubidis.
It has been revealed that Mr Bentley was approached by former TRSA chief executive Ian Hart on two occasions over irregularities in Mr Ploubidis' claims. No formal investigation was ever mounted until the claim was scrutinised by the Lipman Karas inquiry, which found it involved an allegedly false invoice that Mr Ploubidis used to claim a portion of his unused travel allowance.
It is also likely that any examination of the TRSA's activities would question the continued role of TRSA board member Mr Peter Pedler, who is also a legal adviser to the SAJC.
Many in the industry have questioned whether Mr Pedler has a potential conflict of interest in the two roles.
Mr Bentley yesterday dismissed suggestions he should stand down while the Federal Court action was underway. "To attempt to draw a parallel between the Lipman Karas investigation into serious failures in corporate governance standards at the SAJC and a civil claim brought by the individual at the centre of those investigations is nothing short of fanciful," he said.
When asked if he was paying for his own legal advice to defend the claim against him, he said: "The TRSA board will be taking legal advice when and if necessary."
He should do the right thing and stand down until this mess is sorted out if he is cleared fair enough but when we have no ICAC and imformation is to be with held because it is seen to be better kept in house, then what else is kept in house because it is seen as not in the publics interest.
Bentley isn't the only one who should stand down, especially when you have a woman on the Board who is making millions annually through rehab referalls from EML.
WorkCoverSA has reported a $51 million improvement in claims management performance, which has been swamped by the impact of the global economic crisis, with a net loss of $313 million for the half-year to 31 December 2008, resulting in the unfunded liability increasing to $1.3 billion.
The figures have been confirmed today with the receipt by the WorkCover Board of the Scheme’s six monthly actuarial report.
The position at December, with the Scheme now 51.7 %funded, compares to an unfunded liability of $984 million at 30 June 2008, when the Scheme was 63.4% funded.
WorkCover CEO Julia Davison said the last two actuarial valuations show that claims management performance has contributed to a claims liability reduction of approximately $68m in June 2008 and $51m in December 2008 compared to projections, before adjusting for changes in economic circumstances.
“There is still a way to go, but with the ongoing implementation of the legislative changes and a continued focus on improved claims management and return to work, we are confident we will see further improvement in the future”, Ms Davison said.
Ms Davison said the global crisis is, as expected, taking its toll.
“In the last six months stock markets have declined, investors have experienced significant losses, and interest rates have fallen significantly,” she said
“Like all investors, WorkCover has been hit hard by the global financial downturn experiencing an investment loss of $149m in the six months to December 2008.”
WorkCover’s results are also impacted by changes in interest rates. In the half-year to 31 December 2008, economic factors (primarily changes in interest rates and inflation assumptions) have negatively impacted on the Scheme’s liabilities by $188m.
“While interest rate reductions are good news for home buyers, they have the opposite effect on our Scheme as they lead to an increase in our claims liability,” Ms Davison said.
As at 31 December 2008, WorkCover’s levy revenue was on target, however softening economic conditions may have an impact on future revenue.
After extensive consideration of the factors that impact on the financial position of the Scheme, the WorkCover Board has today maintained the average levy rate for 2009-10 at 3.00%.
Ms Davison said this takes into account the significant downturn in world financial markets, coupled with the heavy impact on the Scheme of a reduction in interest rates.“These factors reflect an economic environment far different from that which existed at the time the Government announced its aim to reduce the levy rate to 2.75%.
“The decision to keep the levy rate at 3.00% was not made lightly. The Board is mindful of the impact on employers. It is the view of the Board, however, that all players in the Scheme - workers, employers and providers – must work together to improve the overall performance of the Scheme”.
Note: WorkCover manages its investments in accordance with a long term investment strategy. Over WorkCover’s 20 year history, it has consistently achieved an annual investment return which is better than the appropriate benchmark return for its investment portfolio.
The position at December, with the Scheme now 51.7 %funded, compares to an unfunded liability of $984 million at 30 June 2008, when the Scheme was 63.4% funded.
WorkCover CEO Julia Davison said the last two actuarial valuations show that claims management performance has contributed to a claims liability reduction of approximately $68m in June 2008 and $51m in December 2008 compared to projections, before adjusting for changes in economic circumstances.
“There is still a way to go, but with the ongoing implementation of the legislative changes and a continued focus on improved claims management and return to work, we are confident we will see further improvement in the future”, Ms Davison said.
Posted by now thats what I call putting a spin on it at 7:32 PM, 30/3/2009
Handing out thousands of redemptions because they are too lazy to get their corrupted rehab companies to do rehab does not equate to "good management" it equates to ignorance.
Posted by Employers mutual bullshit at 8:17 PM, 30/3/2009
Well Elmer Fudd could easily improve a $300 million dollar increase.
Lets hope for only a $280 million dollar increase in the next 6 months. That will make it a 1.5 billion dollar unfunded liability.
Keep up the good work Phil, Sandra and others surely you will be due for a bonus if you improve on the $300 million next report.
Posted by Bruce got out when the going got tough at 8:51 PM, 30/3/2009
Note: WorkCover manages its investments in accordance with a long term investment strategy. Over WorkCover’s 20 year history, it has consistently achieved an annual investment return which is better than the appropriate benchmark return for its investment portfolio.
Well if every injured worker is treated as an odds on favourite in litigation no wonder they are making such good returns on their betting ( investments)
I have been on Workcover for over a 1000 days now and still getting no rehab. How can anyone say that anyone involved with Workcover is doing a great job.
They obviously keep good company with media mike. all spin and dribble and no positive action..
Can anyone tell me waht the truely believe that rehabilitation will do for them. Its not a magic wand that will make you injury disappear or magically come along and give the job that you realyl wanted without trying to get it. What do you think a rehabilitaion provider will do that you cant do yourself, you can register for a training course, you all can write your own resume, you can all read the news paper and apply for jobs. So what is it that these people will really do for you???????
WORKCOVER'S $1.3 billion unfunded liabilities are an enormous problem for this state, particularly during a global downturn. This will have an impact on the state's already pressured balance sheet and cast more doubt on the imperilled AAA credit rating.
Business is, rightly, looking forward to a decrease in the average levy because of WorkCover reforms implemented by the State Government last year.
One can only imagine the situation if these vital reforms had not been passed.
Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by The Editor, Melvin Mansell, 31 Waymouth St, Adelaide, SA 5000
Posted by http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/news/opinion/ at 10:05 AM, 1/4/2009
The Advertiser - Not even worth wiping your arse with!
The Advertiser and it's Editor (if you can call him that) is a complete joke.
Interesting how The Advertiser REFUSES to publicly expose the corruption inside WorkCover, even though I know for a fact they have been sent documentation and evidence giving them a basis for a full journalistic investigation.
That would force The Advertiser to do some REAL journalism though, and we know the last time they did that - with an article on Sandra De Poi and her conflicts of interest, several phone calls were made to ensure it never happens again.-
WORKPLACE safety inspectors are investigating the death of a contractor who was stung by bees at a popular Burnside reserve yesterday.
The man, 58, was clearing vegetation when it is thought he disturbed a bee nest in a tree hollow at the Michael Perry Reserve, off Slapes Gully Rd, Burnside, just before 4pm.
The man was given immediate first aid but collapsed at the scene and could not be revived.
SafeWorkSA inspectors issued a Prohibition Notice closing the site while they assess any further hazards.
The worker worked for a council so it is probaly under self insured not EML.
If the scumbags want to argue whether a bee sting could be work related, remind them of this case,
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/coroner/findings/findings_2004/woodcock.finding.htm
I can not see any reduction in WorkCover levies in the near future. Unemployment rates will mean less levy income and now with losses due to the global financial crisis only makes it worse. To suddenly lower levy rates at this crucial time will be the nail in the coffin for a scheme that has been on the decline for the last six years. The Âżsafety netÂż of investments is just about to be removed!
Posted by: wayne mattner of plympton 10:27am today
Posted by http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,2 at 2:15 PM, 1/4/2009
Julia Davison, CEO of WorkCover Corporation, has just confirmed that poor investment performance and tumbling interest rates has caused a further deterioration in the Scheme’s liabilities. Internal financial monitoring confirms that the unfunded liability now tops $1.3 billion.
Actuarial evaluations are conducted twice a year and the results of the March evaluation for the year ended 31 December 2008 were released late yesterday.
In June 2007 the unfunded liability was $843 million and the Scheme was 64.7 percent funded.
In June 2008 the unfunded liability had risen to $984 million and the Scheme was 60.8 percent funded.
We now know that the unfunded liability has soared to over $1.3 billion with the Scheme probably less than 60 percent funded.
The average levy rate has been considered by the WorkCover Board and will remain at 3 percent for the time being.
The deterioration in the Scheme’s financial performance mirrors a continuing deterioration in the return to work rate.
The Heads of Workers Compensation Authority Return to Work Monitor shows that South Australia continues to have a return to work rate that is significantly lower than the national average of 85
percent. The average in South Australia is 75 percent. The next lowest state performance was shared by Victoria and the Northern Territory but at 84 percent they were only marginally under the Australian average.
The deterioration in return to work outcomes comes in spite of South Australia’s scheme containing the most onerous return to work obligations on pre-injury employers in the country.
Introduction of Medical Panels
Medical Panels SA is due to commence operation from 1 April 2009. It is expected that referrals to the Medical Panel will largely relate to the so called “work capacity reviews” and the assessment of a worker’s entitlement to lump sum compensation under section 43 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act .
So what does this all mean for injured workers and employers?
Injured workers face a good deal of uncertainty. Those injured workers receiving income maintenance payments and who have not had their entitlement to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment determined will, in most cases, experience a significant reduction in the value of the entitlement because of the introduction of a new methodology of assessment for permanent impairment entitlements from 1 April 2009. Many who would have an entitlement utilising the current methodology will have no entitlement after 1 April 2009 and most of those who have an entitlement after 1 April 2009 will find that their entitlement will be less.
There are likely to be many workers who currently receive “top up” income maintenance payments following a partial return to work who will be subject to a work capacity review and a risk that the entitlement to top up payments will cease as a consequence. Others who have not made a return to work at all will have payments ceased.
The obligation imposed upon a pre-injury employer by Section 58B of the Act will assume even greater significance in the current deteriorating economic climate. Itwill be increasingly difficult to provide “suitable” duties that are also meaningful and productive in circumstances where the productive workforce has been cut back.
Registered employers and injured workers have good cause to approach the next 12 months with trepidation.
Self insurers, whilst equally affected by the economic crisis and some of the uncertainties associated with the legislative amendments, at least have the advantage of maintaining control over claims management and rehabilitation initiatives. They and their employees will continue to occupy the best space in the Scheme.
The list of permanent impairment assessors. Not a very big list.
Dr John Meegan
Dr Jonathan Middleton
Assoc Prof Robert Bauze
Dr Gary Champion
Dr Malcolm Begg
Dr Felix Lim
Dr Nagi Guirguis
Dr David Cullum
Dr Beatrice Byok
Dr Andrew Sutherland
Dr James Economos
Dr Christopher Oates
Dr Suzette Blight
Dr Peter Jezukaitis
Dr Christopher Brown
Dr Mark Awerbuch
FIRST REPORT ON WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS - INEQUITABLE, UNFAIR, UNSUPPORTIVE, CREATING FINANCIAL BURDEN AND HIGH ANXIETY
Today - 1 April 2009, the full impact of the changes to the workers compensation laws will come into effect with almost 3,000 workers facing 100% loss of income and others receiving less compensation for loss of limb or body function. A day after the WorkCover liability hit $1.3 billion.
SA Unions has also chosen this day to release a report commissioned from the University of South Australia which is the first collection of issues and impacts of the laws on injured workers since their passing last July.
Ms Giles, Secretary of SA Unions said "Injured workers are often too terrified to speak for themselves in fear of repercussions by WorkCover, so the report has gathered evidence from the files and cases of those who advocate on their behalf. it is the first of a series of on-going and regular reports on the impact."
Key findings of the report are:
Workers choices are reduced when faced with a WorkCover claim
Extreme anxiety about the new medical panels which do not allow workers to be represented or question the decision of the panel
Considerable financial hardship for injured workers
An increase in the number of pre-emptive payouts often to the financial and emotional detriment of workers
Less time and less adequate rehabilitation and training
Significant amount of severe emotional stress and possible suicides.
"This report verifies that the financial problems of the SA Workers Compensation Scheme are being paid for by the wages, pain and suffering of injured workers," Ms Giles says.
A number of case studies are included in the report which illustrate the findings.
Dr. Cullum sold out quite a few injured workers by supporting EML referring them to corrupt providers like De Poi to get on that panel. Hope it's worth it David!
AMA5 Guides state:
“The physician’s judgement based upon
experience, training, skill, thoroughness in
clinical evaluation, and ability to apply the
Guides criteria as intended, will enable an
appropriate and reproducible assessment to
be made of clinical impairment”
What experience would Dr Peter Jezukaitis have in Respriratory or thoracic surgery?
To confuse you even more about Impairment assessors and Medical Panels SA
Seems Impairment assessors and Medical Panels SA are two different entities by what I can gather. Going by the above list of assessors, there isnt really a large pool to choose from and the specialist areas are even less.
The South Australian government gazette 26th March 2009
Section 1.8
In a case of a permanent disability, where different permanent impairment assessors are required to assess different body systems, the case manager will appoint a lead assessor to calculate the final percentage of whole person impairment (%WPI) resulting from the individual assessments. In the case of a dispute. Medical panels SA will determine by its own procedures how it will answer the medical question arising in such dispute.
I wonder when workcover will wake up and realise that depression can cause a lack of motivation. Most injured workers become depressed when they are injured, further depressed when they are faced with the workcover system, and further depressed with the lack of rehabilitation,a commonsense approach by insurers awoudl ensure they did not get further depressed by the litigation they endure and being stuck on the system.
So why is it workcover have so much trouble getting the depressed injured workers back to work?
Perhaps they are so oppressed they lack motivation and have rehabilitation has become ineffectove and does little to help them back to work..
About time they woke up and brought back redemptions for injured workers instead of keeping them on the system to rot.
But then it will all be fixed with the new legislation. The government obviously thinks its easier that they be thrown off the system and to hell with them.
Posted by Mike Rann for underdog at 8:18 PM, 5/4/2009
Workcover took a hit of over $300 million the second half of last year thru their investments blaming the global financial crisis. That $300 Million could have redeemed every worker off the system. Levy rates would have dropped to the lowest in the country and the new legislation would have had a clean slate to start with. Its all about greed, keeping the money for themselves instead of giving it to the people it was supposed to compensate. Unfortunately redeeming every worker will cost jobs for providers such as rehab consultants, case managers and lawyers. Now we wouldnt want that to happen would we!
If I was an employee I would be outraged if I was paying the insurance levy to WorkCover.
I doubt there woudl be one insurance company in Australia that can change the rules on how it pays out compensation after a claim.
Some claims are likely 5-10 years old and now with the legislative changes WorkCover is changing the boundary lines so they no longer get paid.
Wonder how that woudl go if they insured hosues or cars and they changed the policies on you when you went to make a claim..
WorkCoverSA says that any inference that almost 3,000 workers are facing 100 per cent loss of income due to work capacity reviews, is quite misleading.
CEO, Julia Davison, was commenting on SA Unions’ media release about a research report they’ve commissioned into changes to the WorkCover Scheme.
“In launching the report, Janet Giles said that almost 3000 workers will be facing 100% loss of income from 1 April 2009. This statement suggests that all workers who are subject to a work capacity review will have their payments stopped but this is not the case,” Ms Davison said.
“In many instances people who are subject to a work capacity review will notice no change. They’ll simply continue to receive their weekly payments. For example, the seriously injured will continue to be supported by the Scheme along with those workers that have returned to work and maximised their capacity.
“The WorkCover Scheme is designed to provide long-term support for people who cannot return to work, and short term support for people who can. The work capacity review only occurs once a worker’s entitlement exceeds 130 weeks (the equivalent of 2.5 years) and it is designed to assess whether a person can return to work or can increase their earnings.
“The best outcome for injured workers, their family and the community is to get them back to work. Delayed return to work can result in depression, family breakdown, diminished social networks and poor health outcomes unrelated to the original injury. “
WorkCover is ensuring that people are clear about how the work capacity review will work. That includes making sure they have information about the process, their entitlements and their review rights. Likewise we consider it very important that groups who provide support to injured workers are kept well informed. To that end, a letter and work capacity review booklet, which clearly outlines the process, has been sent to union groups, advocacy groups, health service providers, vocational rehabilitation providers, legal providers and employer groups to ensure they are able to provide advice and support where required.
Ms Davison says the information contained in the work capacity information booklet answers many of the concerns raised in the report commissioned by SA Unions.
For more information go to the WorkCover website www.workcover.com
Being on WorkCover causes depression - get it right
Quote from above.
"Delayed return to work can result in depression, family breakdown, diminished social networks and poor health outcomes unrelated to the original injury."
One must wonder why WorkCover wants to keep injured workers on the system and not offer them redemptions if staying on the system is known to cause depression and poor health outcomes.
Surely that in itself is an admission of a system failure and continuing to keep injured workers manipulated within the bounds of the workcover legislation is obviously demeaning and increasing their depression.
One must wonder if they are actually negligent in keeping them on the system and causing further depression.
Especially when they act in bad faith.
Posted by TTTTTTRRRRRRrrrrraumatised at 4:58 PM, 7/4/2009
I agree with the above comment. I had a look at the the last WorkCover yearly report and the average redemption was about $78,000. The only way that could ever be accepted by a genuine injured worker is if you are nearing retirement age or you are only redeeming part of your salary.
I would doubt any lawyer or accountant would ever advise someone to redeem their full wages with 20 or more working years left at $78K.
$78K in the bank will not allow you to seek any government benefits but it will give you about $35 a week in interest. You might be able to pay of part of your mortgage, but then what? Remember you are still injured!
Having worked in the industry, its amazing how many people after accepting a redemption are finally able to find new jobs all on their own and then create a new life for themselves!
So if that is the case, why would a redemption be warranted if "suddenly" they are able to work and find a new life for themselves? It would make interesting reading if surveillance is done on someone after receiving their redemption cheque!
"Having worked in the industry, its amazing how many people after accepting a redemption are finally able to find new jobs all on their own and then create a new life for themselves!"
I am not sure if this comment supports redemptions or not. On one hand it states as soon as an injured worker is off the system they improve or are workers faking an injury to simply receive a redemption.
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is to the Premier. How is it that under his leadership the unfunded liability of WorkCover, injury rates, return-to-work rates, compensation funding ratios and claim disputes have significantly underperformed the outcomes achieved in other states during financial conditions common to each state?
Last week the government publicly claimed that the 35 per cent increase in WorkCover's unfunded liability to over $1.3 billion was due to the global financial crisis—which has affected all states—but, according to the most recent national comparison of compensation schemes conducted by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, this state is the only state with an unfunded liability at all. South Australia has the highest rate of serious injury at 18 per 1,000 employees, South Australia is the only state or territory using the sole case manager model, South Australia is the only state or territory with a funding ratio less than 100 per cent, and South Australia has the second highest number of claims in dispute.
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (14:45): The simple fact is that the increase in the unfunded liability that we saw last week was a consequence of the economic times in which we find ourselves. In addition—I do not know, perhaps the leader's significant financial interests have performed better than anyone else's—I certainly know that anyone who has any money invested at this point in time in shares or cash is hurting very badly. This increase in unfunded liability was a consequence of the global financial crisis. The other points—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. P. CAICA: Sir, I only hope that they are interjecting as much tomorrow, and that the fund will go extremely well, unlike some of the funds that are under investment at this point in time. I hope tomorrow they interject the same way.
The reason that this parliament passed legislation last year is amongst, most importantly, the reasons that were identified by the opposition leader. The simple fact is that we have not had a WorkCover scheme that has operated in, certainly, the best interests of injured workers. It has not operated, most certainly, in returning people to work. That is why, as I understand it, the significant majority—and we do not reflect on votes—of the opposition supported that legislative change.
We are yet to see the full impact of that legislative change, but we are certainly expecting that, amongst other things, it will address poor performance in return to work and simultaneously address the unfunded liability.
This parliament in the majority was committed to that legislative change, and we are yet to see the full effect of that legislative change. To say that the unfunded liability, which was announced last week, was a consequence of anything else other than the global financial crisis is not being fair, it is not being reasonable and, indeed, it is not a very honest opinion.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:15): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the impact of high WorkCover levies on jobs in local industries? According to the most recent national comparison of compensation schemes conducted by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, South Australian employers pay the highest average workers compensation levy of any state or territory. The same document reveals that levy rates in iron and steel production businesses at 7.5 per cent were double the national industry average, and in the key construction industry our levy rates were higher than every mainland state or territory, except New South Wales.
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (15:16): There is no doubt, and it is well-known information, that we have a levy rate here in South Australia that, when compared to those on the eastern seaboard, is higher than we would like it to be. I think that is a view shared by not only the honourable member's core constituency but also most people involved with WorkCover.
Last week, a decision was made by the board for the status quo to prevail with respect to that levy rate. I believe that was a prudent and appropriate decision at this point in time, given the economic climate in which we find ourselves. Earlier I spoke in response to a question by the leader, and certainly we believe the legislative change adopted by this parliament last year, yet to be fully implemented, will have a positive impact on all aspects of WorkCover's operations, not the least being the levy rate going into the future.
If Workcover respected injured workers undertaking rehabilitation instead of using it as a means of surveillance and progressing section 38 reviews the system would not be as bad today as compared to other states.
This is a big problem that they fail to understand. Rehab should be for rehab and should not be abused by insurers or claims agents to place injured workers under surveillance to then threaten them with section 38 reviews because they could do some work..
The simple fact is that we have not had a WorkCover scheme that has operated in, certainly, the best interests of injured workers.
The reason that this parliament passed legislation last year is amongst, most importantly, the reasons that were identified by the opposition leader. The simple fact is that we have not had a WorkCover scheme that has operated in, certainly, the best interests of injured workers. It has not operated, most certainly, in returning people to work. That is why, as I understand it, the significant majority—and we do not reflect on votes—of the opposition supported that legislative change.
Rehabilitation in South Australia has become extremely warped, due to ONE WorkCover Board Member who has EML in her grasp. EML now has a "preferred" rehabilitation provider list - ALL OF WHOM have formed "cooperatives" and done deals with this ONE WorkCover Board member (come on guys we all know who she is). Rehabilitation is NOT about rehabilitation anymore, especially with these companies, it's about making as much money of injured workers, then throwing them to the next preferred company to make as much money, then it's about f**king over the worker even more by taking away their entitlements and shitting over any dignity they may have left. I can count the number of rehabilitation consultants/companies that do proper rehabilitation on TWO FINGERS. And those two fed up with dealing with EML's bullshit (Yes Richard Hilton & Ruth Mitchell - that's what your full of BULLSHIT), have now moved onto exempt and overseas rehabilitation.
The Longer we have the Sandra De Poi's, Ruth Mitchell's and Richard Hilton's in the rehabilitation industry in this state, the longer we have rehabilitation that is INEFFECTIVE, CORRUPT and NON-EXISTENT.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:24): My question is to the Premier. When will you deliver on your promise to cut WorkCover levy rates to 2.25 per cent?
The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (15:24): The actions that we have taken in respect to WorkCover, many of which have not yet come into force—they come into force, as I understand from the Minister for Industrial Relations, on 1 July—were necessary. Unlike members opposite who came out and said they would not need to take action, we did. We had the guts to take on our friends. We had the courage as well as the commitment.
I was condemned unanimously by my own party conference. I was attacked by close friends and colleagues in the Labor movement. But we had to make tough decisions because that is what we were elected to do, and that meant that we had to take decisions because the WorkCover system, as it was, was failing South Australians. It was delivering higher premiums to businesses and the worst return-to-work rate in the country. It also had an unfunded liability.
Various government bodies—as well as some people even in this place, I would imagine, who invest heavily in shares—have seen their portfolios hit by the global financial crisis. I would be very interested to do an analysis of some members' private trusts to see how they are going. So, no-one is surprised that corporations around the world are suffering a hit to the bottom line as a result to the hit on share prices internationally.
The actions that we took last year were necessary, and many of those actions come into force on 1 July, because we do not live in a parallel universe like members opposite, promising everything to everyone and, not only never having to deliver but never having to deliver the costings.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:26): I have a supplementary question to the Premier. Will the levies come down on 1 July?
The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (15:26): I have made myself quite clear; in fact, I have dealt with this matter not only seriatim but will come back to it sine die.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:27): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the current state of the public sector unfunded liability for WorkCover?
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (15:27): I thank the honourable member for his question and I guess I say farewell, Duncan; it has been nice having you as the shadow spokesperson. I do not have that figure here in front of me, and not only will I get back to the member for Morphett, I will get back to the house.
Does Workcover underperfomance comes from incompetence???
Mike Rann could not answer the question. He is nothing but an unreliable arrogant pig.
He was all for workcover until he was elected.
Obviously the government and the workcover board failed to realise that underperformance only comes from incompetence.
Perhaps if they did not employ their mates and relatives all the time they would have better performance from their workers.
worst return-to-work rate in the country can only translate to one thing also - incompetence.
No wonder it has a $1.3 Billion blowout it can not manage injured workers. I guess there must be many crying out to get off the system who are not able to because they are trapped.
Of course Mike Rann or Paul Caica could not answer if levy rates will be lowered by July 1st which is just three months away. The work capacity reviews intends to kick injured workers off so the levy can be reduced but If you disagree with the decision to stop payments you can still make an application to continue your payments or you may lodge a Notice of dispute with the SA Workers Compensation Tribunal for a review of the decision. How long do you think this will take and how many injured workers would need to be reviewed for all of this to happen? July 1st 2010 maybe! but also remembering the GFC and what it has caused. There is no way this scheme can ever recover with its current management.
How can the current minister in charge of the WorkCover portfolio NOT KNOW what the current unfunded liability is??? :))) Surely he is kept up-to-date daily/weekly from WorkCover & EML?
Good question by the Mr McFetridge as the $1.3 Billion unfunded liability figure was up to the end of December 08. If it had been lowered since then no doubt Caica would have let him know, so in other words it must still be escalating!
I wonder if the question would be ever asked if the levy fee could be increased??????
I am a bit dumb and wondering how people in Australia go about their business. How can a workcover corporation be so much in the red?
Seems simple to me. A person is injured at work.They get a payout. A figure is worked out and it is incorporated into the levy to be paid by employers.
If employers rein in the number of injured workers their levies go down, if they do not their levies go up. Its simple maths.
It becomes complicated when insurance companies tax employers instead of taking levies and use the money to fund their own little projects..
Most people call this corruption or a conflicting interest, but when its a government organisation doing it for their own superannuation funds and the like its called smartinvesting.
When you've got mates in the Labor party, you can get away with anything, including geting your grubby hands onto Millions of dollars through your rehabilitation company if your a workcover board member.
To maybe answer your question in the unfunded liability. First, the WorkCover corporation has many providers which rely on injured workers being stuck on the system. Its very much like its own stimulus. Secondly, the WorkCover corporation has an investment portfolio which at the moment is decreasing by the minute. They lost an estimated $300 million last half of 2008. That $300 million could have paid out all injured workers and the system would have had a clean slate, but what happens to EML, De Poi and Minters etc for work??? They wouldnt have any. Pretty simple.
In the mean time, injured workers are stuck and Businesses are stuck with paying the highest levy in the country, a levy not to manage injured workers but to feed the investment portfolio. The recent release of figures admitted that levies will not lower due to the investment fund. Businesses should be asking why is this so. Its ashame they havent an independant representative on the board instead of Peter Vaughan from Business SA who supports the investment fund over injured workers!
If being on Workcover long term causes depression why has nobody sued them for damages???
Julia Davison has openly admitted that it is well known that being on workcover can cause further depression.
Then why do they want to keep injured workers on the system??
One woudl doubt whether it can be described as clearly an object of the act and obviously they are making a mess of injured workers lives while at the same time accruing liabilities for employers.
About time the board woke up to a new day and managed workcover as an insurer not a free for all investment company with everybody grabbing what they can..
Workcover has obviously been using employers levies as stimulus to expand and grow the corporation. THere are now lots of injured workers in its control, lots of employees and lots of lawyers. Obviously stimulating the South Australian businesses at the expense of employers.
Posted by Peter Collins of lockleys at 9:08 AM, 17/4/2009
Yea the greed is good people have looked at these insurance schemes and decided to get their sticky fingers into the pie they' ve done it in just about all Work Cover Corporations on the planet more or less the same way they raped the financial sysyem of most of the countries creating the GFC the sub standard born to lead mob we have here are either blindly saying its not happening, while clawing the money in, or skimming the till until they can sculk of to their native born countries never to return, denying on they death bed that they did anything wrong.
Greed is the key. Why else has Sandra De Poi, WorkCover Board Member been allowed to assume authority over EML and wipe out over 3 quarters of the competition to her rehabilitation company? Meanwhile have we seen ANY improvement in the return to work rates since EML illegally was given sole claims agent status? Not according to WorkCover's own annual reports we havent.
It pays being mates with the SA labor party.
Posted by sandra de poi's persian rug at 5:48 PM, 17/4/2009
I was on work-cover after injuring my back at work. I have read lots of the posts on here and I have to agree with many of them. I walked away from my employer and from claimimng work-cover because it became too stressful for me and the family.
I have not returned to work and am still suffering. I wish all those well that are still on work-cover as its an awful system and it is so obvious it needs to change.
This government has many problems and instead of covering everything up it needs to wake up and see what it is doing to our society and South Australians.
Perhaps every politician gettinga good swift kick up the backside and instant dismissal for their corrupt ways might be a good stimulus package for them.
Posted Apr 07 2009, 10:38 PM by Lawyers Weekly
Minter Ellison employees will not receive a pay rise this year, except for exceptional performance, Chief Executive John Weber confirmed with Lawyers Weekly on Wednesday.
Weber said the firm was continuing to pay very close attention to its cost base and discretionary spending as part of the normal budget planning process.
"It is correct that we are not generally proposing salary increases this year, but exceptional performance will continue to be appropriately recognised. Staff who are promoted will also receive salary increases," he said.
"Limiting salary increases was not an easy decision, but it was one that we felt was appropriate, given the prevailing market conditions and to preserve jobs. Partners will also be lowering their earnings next financial year."
Employees were informed of the firm's decision in an email last Friday.
Give WorkCover windfall to workers: McPhie
Posted by Lawyers Weekly
PRESIDENT OF the NSW Law Society, June McPhie, has called for $2 billion of WorkCover revenue to be shared with the state’s injured workers.
News of the windfall came as the NSW Government announced an additional $390 million in the final budget for 2005-06, raising the amount to $1.034 billion.
In a continuation of the ‘Fair Go For Injured People’ campaign, McPhie said that New South Wales’ harsh workers’ compensation laws had delivered a boon to the State Government, with a multi-billion dollar deficit turning into a healthy surplus in just one year.
“WorkCover is making profits well in excess of what its own actuaries estimated, just one year ago. These figures demonstrate that the Government’s cuts to workers’ entitlements in 2001 have gone too far”, McPhie said.
“The profits under the WorkCover scheme are an embarrassment, particularly in light of the low cost of workers’ compensation insurance in this State. These profits exist because injured workers have been left to suffer,” she said.
A WorkCover Authority of NSW report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that actuaries had estimated a $2 billion deficit in the NSW WorkCover scheme would take until 2012 to pay off. In reality, it took less than 12 months with an $85 million surplus in the coffers by the end of the last financial year, the Law Society said.
“There is clearly room to restore consistency and fairness to the WorkCover scheme, which is now making significant annual surpluses,” McPhie said in a petition to John Della Bosca, Minister for Commerce, to remove some of the severity out of workers’ compensation laws.
“WorkCover has financed its debts in a fraction of the time that was anticipated by its actuaries, due to a scheme that denies more than 9 out of 10 injured workers fair compensation,” McPhie said.
According to the Law Society, a NSW Upper House committee unanimously recommended in 2005 for deficiencies in the current scheme to be improved by aligning it with the public liability scheme and altering the methods of assessment under the legislation. Della Bosca ignored those recommendations in favour of NSW WorkCover’s actuarial advice, the Law Society said.
“The validity of [Della Bosca’s] projections is brought into serious doubt by these revelations. Injured NSW workers are suffering needlessly under one of Australia’s harshest workers’ compensation schemes,” McPhie said.
“Since the commencement of the campaign ‘A Fair Go For Injured People’, dozens of people have come forward with very serious injuries which have irreversibly changed their lives, for which they will never be properly compensated due to harsh laws in NSW,” she said.
“The campaign is aimed at building public awareness about the inconsistency and unfairness of laws protecting injured people in NSW.”
The campaign is a joint initiative of the Law Society of NSW, the NSW Bar Association, Law Council of Australia and the Australian Lawyers’ Alliance.
“For the first time four peak legal bodies in NSW have come together to campaign for changes to compensation laws,” Eva Scheerlinck, chief executive officer of the Australian Lawyers Alliance said.
“Politicians have let down those hurt in work place accidents and it’s up to lawyers to stand up for the rights of injured people. The work cover windfall shows the scam behind the current compensation laws, which must be changed,” she said.
Posted by accountability in the media spin at 3:05 PM, 18/4/2009
Its about time that Workcover was folded also..
Mob of bastards.
Fuck Mike Rann! Go back to NZ you sheep f*cker!
mollycoddla (9 months ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
the biggest crims in SA are in Parliament. Dishonesty is written all over this guys 2 faces. SA needs an anti corruption unit and lets make it retrospective to get bRann and Foley( for obtaining a gift of an appartment at Platinum Towers). And he mentions 'decency'!
fixitdude74 (10 months ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
I have 2 friends who are permanately disabled from being injured at work, they both are very scared of what is to come, Mike Rann is a dictator, and foley is his monkey, they do not care for injured workers, they only care for themselves, i will not be voting labour, ever again, i ask all people to vote other than labour at the next election, let this government know they are not wanted, unfortunately once this legislation is passed, it is near impossible to reverse.
DODGEY440 (10 months ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
i would like to know how injured workers are meant to support themselves and there familys once they get cut off from WORK COVER??????? WE WORK AND WE VOTE!!!!!! I suppose when your overpaid like MIKE RANN and the worst injury MIKE RANN could get is a PAPER CUT!!! who cares about the working class!! obviously not MIKE RANN and his OUT OF TOUCH fellow asshole politicians who have pushed it through. YOUR AN ASSHOLE MIKE GO **** YOURSELF
taffetaqueenofthe80s (10 months ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
That is absolutely pathetic. Mark Parnell for premier.
5hutupl1nda (10 months ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
Rann is a traitor. He and the Labor government have sold out to the WorkCover board who are corrupt scum - such as Sandra DePois who is managing director of a large rehabilitation company and is making millions off of the WorkCover system with her mates from EML.
workersrights (10 months ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
shame shame shame shame Mr Rann
Posted by Bastards anonymous at 3:59 PM, 20/4/2009
Application for continuation of payments after expiry of the third entitlement period – section 35C
If a worker has been receiving payments under sections 35A(3)(b), 35B or under section 35(1)(b) (old provisions) and is in employment they may apply under section 35C(1) for a determination that weekly payments of compensation continue.
The claims agent must record the date the worker’s application is received and then has 90 days to either make or refuse to make a determination under section 35C(2).
The claims agent may determine that the worker’s entitlement to weekly payments does not cease if it is satisfied that the worker is in suitable employment and working to their full capacity and is incapable of undertaking further or additional work which would increase their current weekly earnings. In that case, the worker is entitled to continue receiving weekly payments equal to 80% of the difference between the worker’s notional weekly earnings and the worker’s current weekly earnings. A letter must be sent to the worker and, if appropriate, to the employer to advise them of the decision.
A review of this assessment (ie, worker’s work capacity and entitlement to weekly payments) can be conducted by the claims agent at any time but must be conducted at least every two years pursuant to section 35B(3).
I work for an italian who knows how the system works.
My boss told me that he woudl call me when he had some work available for me and that was a few years ago now. He has not sacked me or anything. Am I classisified as working?
BTW it was a workcover employee who told him how to evade his obligations under the act if he did not have suitable work for me or if he did not want me at his workplace.
Adelaide and Sydney researchers are after 400 Australians to take part in an international study to try to identify the biological indicators of depression.
The $18 million project will be used to develop the first clinical tests for depression and work out individually tailored treatments.
It's hoped the study, the first of its kind, will help cut the time it takes doctors to find suitable treatments.
Adult volunteers are being recruited for the study aimed at predicting responses to a range of medications by identifying a person's unique physical and mental characteristics.
The study acknowledges the fact that certain medications work well for some people but not for all.
Internationally, the study will involve 2,000 participants across 20 research centres.
The study requires two groups of volunteers - those who are about to begin treatment or those who are changing their medication.
Volunteers will be assessed before starting their medication.
The study's being coordinated by Sydney's Westmead Millennium Institute's Brain Dynamics Centre.
Most injured workers are so oppressed, bullied, deprived of money and a social life that any medication will not alter their moods. They mostly fall into a group known as chronically depressed there are a number of reasons for it.
Such as Environmental situations:
Certain life situations can cause depression, such as:
The loss of someone loved by physical separation or divorce. This often happens to long term injured workers especially when they get a payout and the ex wants half.
The loss of possessions, belongings and positions (divorce, retirement, or job loss). This also occurs due to low income, cessation of income and due to ongoing lawyers bills and the failure of workcover to pay income maintenance on time.
The loss of personal goals and dreams and knowing you may never get back to your pre injury duties. The fact that workcover will not help you get back is also depressing..
Lack of social support. Workcover does not give a stuff about you, nor does MIke Rann or anyone else. Otherwise they would have looked after injured workers better with their legislative changes instead of ripping off injured workers at the cost of employers.
Substance abuse: People that drink alcohol, use illegal drugs or have a substance abuse problem can develop depression. People on workcover often turn to drink through their depressed state. No problem in this as it can help get a social life back. Stay away from the pokies though on check day.
Physical factors
Certain physical factors can cause depression. Some of these factors include:
Lack of exercise: There is a significant relationship between an inactive life style and depression. Physical activity changes the brain chemistry causing improvements in mild to moderate depression patients. Research has proven that regular physical exercise influences the level of serotonin (the neurotransmitter that plays an important role in depression) leading to improved moods and feelings of well-being. Physical exercise burns the stress related chemicals (such as adrenaline) which helps the body to relax, increases the amount of endorphins, and boosts the body temperature which seems to help the body by influencing the brain chemicals. Exercising not only influences the brain chemistry, but also improves the person’s self-esteem, confidence, and can break down the pessimism because they are playing an active role in their recovery through positive and pleasant experiences. Thats why workcover make you see doctors all the time. So you remain active, if they did not harass you and give you the run around you would be sitting on the couch with a tinnie in one hand and the remote in the otherwatching the footy with your mates every day..
Get a life ..tell workcover and your case manager to go F.... themselves..that will put a smile on your face and might even cure your depression..
No mention of cuts at WorkCover which is a government statuatory and currently running at a $1.5 billion loss. Am I missing something here? Cutting on performing services but rewarding the under performing!
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of plympton 10:16am today
Comment 26 of 45
Give him the Industrial relations portfolio. Workcover is a basket case already and he cant really do any more harm!
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of plympton 4:07pm today
Comment 13 of 25
Perhaps he can leave his minsterial position behind and get a position on the WorkCover board. Who knows they could probably do with someone who does not follow the rules but is happy to implement them.
New documents lodged with the Federal Court allege Thoroughbred Racing SA (TRSA) chairman Phillip Bentley was given details of vote-stacking within the South Australian Jockey Club (SAJC), and endorsed it.
The documents were lodged after former SAJC head Steve Ploubidis was asked to provide more detail about the alleged involvement of Mr Bentley and TRSA in his sacking.
Mr Ploubidis is suing Mr Bentley, Thoroughbred Racing and the SAJC for a breach of contract.
The documents allege Mr Bentley was given full details of a strategy to target new members when he met Mr Ploubidis and SAJC chairman John Naffine last year.
It alleges Mr Bentley endorsed a strategy of new young members having fees paid for them, because they were more likely to vote for preferred board candidates.
Mr Bentley and Thoroughbred Racing have been given until Friday to lodge a defence.
Global pressures on Australian workers compensation schemes
Around 18 months ago the Victoria Government launched WorkHealth, a health prevention program that would be funded from the interest generated from the pool of workers compensation funds. SafetyAtWorkBlog has previously questioned how the program will be funded when its income source is likely to have been severely reduced due to the global economic problems.
On 1 April 2009 WorkCover in South Australia reported a half-year net loss of $313 million. WorkCover CEO Julia Davison said in a media release that
“the global crisis is, as expected, taking its toll. In the last six months stock markets have declined, investors have experienced significant losses, and interest rates have fallen significantly,” she said “Like all investors, WorkCover has been hit hard by the global financial downturn.”
Earlier in March 2009, the Chair of the WorkSafe Board Elana Rubin said
“the significant downturn on the world financial markets and reduction in interest rates had combined to drive a net loss of $1.42 billion for the half year. Whilst interest rate reductions are good news for those of us with mortgages, they have the opposite effect on our scheme - in the half year to 31 December 2008, the unprecedented level of interest rate cuts negatively impacted our net result by $645 million.”
On 1 April 2009 SafetyAtWorkBlog asked John Merritt why WorkHealth was not mentioned as part of his keynote presentation at the Safety In Action Conference. He reiterated the importance of the program in easing the recovery time, particularly, for manual handling injuries but acknowledged that the program’s funding source was based on interest
“from the [$600 million of the assets of the] workers compensation scheme over the next five years ….well there used to be interest from assets - there should be one day, there will be again - around $40 million each year for the next five years will be invested in worker health.”
It is good to hear that the WorkHealth program is going to continue but the fragility of the program’s funding should have been evident in the planning phase. Governments around the world are pulling back on government funded programs in a wide range of areas. Ideas that seem good in the good times are now looking like luxuries. It will be interesting to see if WorkHealth continues in the WorkCover area or moves to Health, where many of its critics have always said it belongs.
The above press release must be wrong because i thought WorkCover was in place to insure employers and compensate and rehabilitate injured workers.
"WorkCover is funded by employers to manage a balanced and financially sound system that rehabilitates, compensates and returns injured workers to safe workplaces and the community".
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:03): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations a question about WorkCover practice.
Leave granted.
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Members will recall that last year in the WorkCover debate I raised the issue of the scheme critical list—a list that was apparently provided to magistrates in the tribunal. Names on the list were deemed significant, obviously. Basically, they would find it difficult to settle these cases because of the cost that could be incurred by the WorkCover Corporation. During my speech I mentioned that a person, who had previously worked for WorkCover, had said that the term 'scheme critical' had now changed to 'significant case'.
Last week I was provided with a WorkCover document from a file that was stamped '107B', which is the definition of a significant case. The definition says:
Where a decision is made by the courts or tribunal that affects the management of the scheme and creates a fundamental risk to its viability, or where significant potential exists for such a decision to result, the matter is to be deemed a significant case. The corporation will endeavour to preserve the parliament's intention with regard to the application of the act. As a result , the corporation assumes full responsibility for that dispute and any other associated dispute, together with the cost s thereof, until finalised.
This definition lays out quite clearly that decisions are being made about whether a case is a significant case or scheme critical before the evidence is even heard before the tribunal. I have a letter from the previous minister, the Hon. Michael Wright, stating that in fact the scheme critical list used to be passed on to the tribunal, but to his knowledge, as of this letter dated 2004, it no longer occurs. This document was found in a file heading to the WorkCover Tribunal, which no doubt would have seen the definition front up in the file. My questions to the minister are:
1.Who is authorised to make a determination that a case is either scheme critical or a significant case before any evidence has been heard before the tribunal?
2.When will the minister provide to the parliament the number of cases determined to be either scheme critical or a significant case throughout the past 20 years or since its inception? What has been the cost of litigating these cases?
3.Who by name and title was the architect behind the scheme critical list and significant cases list, and when was this practice approved by the minister, the parliament or the WorkCover Corporation in relation to any legislation passed in this place?
4.What remedy will the minister provide for those scheme critical or significant cases, especially where documents have been lost or removed from files to justify a scheme critical determination: in other words, 'no evidence, no case' is the final determination?
5.Finally, when will the minister refer this matter to the Anti-corruption Branch as a matter of great public interest?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:07): I will refer those questions to the Minister for Industrial Relations in another place and bring back a reply.
WorkCover engaging in "Strategic litigation in bad faith"
What Anne probably should have detailed is that WorkCover's actions fall squarely within the meaning of the phrase
"Strategic litigation in bad faith"
What is in fact an assumption that workcover will bear full responsibility is a load fo crap. its the crown that bears it not the employers or the workcover board members.
Posted by Workcover for dummies at 11:41 AM, 2/5/2009
I got some docs under 107b. One of them talks about how my claim exceeds $500,000 and is epxected to cost another $200,000 and for that reason workcover is investigating my claim.
The other email written by piper alderman says "throw the book at him"
Then the legal coordinator from the claims agent written to workcovers in house lawyer says " we stopped payments to him today lawfully or otherwise"
Is that a case of acting in bad faith or do they just treat all injured workers like that?
One must wonder why thrown into the mix the investigators went to such great lengths to conceal the real facts.
Workcover legislation fail to provide incentives to prevent injuries
I have read the new legislative changes.
They are nothing but an attempt to reign in the massive problems caused by Workcovers incompetence for years and their failure to pay redemptions. UNder the new system there is still no incentive for any employers to not injure their workers. If employers are making extra bucks out of running workplaces that do not meet health and safety standards and if the legislation provides no incentives for employers who do not injure workers, or in the alternative heavily penalise the employers that injure workers there will be no downturn in the number of injured workers, they will still be on the system.
Seems the new legislative changes do nothing to change the underlying problems with the whole system..
To all Members of the South Australian Parliamentary Labor Party
Parliament House
North Terrace
ADELAIDE 5000
It is with deep regret that I write to inform you of my resignation from the Australian Labor Party. This action was taken after a great deal of thought and with reluctance after enjoying active involvement in the ALP for the past 40 years.
The decision to resign is based on my outrage at the amendments introduced by the Rann government in relation to the South Australian workers’ compensation legislation.
The amendments demonstrate that the leaders of the Rann government are prepared to sell out the interests of injured workers to boost its relationship with the South Australian business sector. The primary interest of the Rann government is to look after the financial interests of the business sector to the detriment of working people who traditionally have supported the ALP.
The Rann government’s obsession with maintaining a triple A financial rating is influencing the introduction of policies that betray workers who are forced to depend on the government to protect them. This is a violation and abuse of the trust that was put in that government when it was elected to office and is a flagrant example of the arrogance that has been adopted by members of the Rann government towards workers and their families.
It has been apparent for some time that the South Australian workers’ compensation scheme, its administration and the WorkCover Corporation have been in desperate need of review and radical change. There has been more than enough opportunity since the election of the Rann government for this to have occurred in a reasonable and informed manner and with due regard for the welfare of workers who depend on the government for workplace protection. Instead, the government’s negligence has allowed the problems to escalate unchecked to the extent where the system is out of control. The Rann government’s intention however to resolve these problems by cutting the protection of workers in order to benefit the business sector is unacceptable.
I consider that the Rann Government was devious and showed a lack of gumption in the manner that they introduced the Clayton–Walsh report and the WorkCover Amendment Bill 2008 into Parliament without the courtesy of allowing opportunity for full discussion with what I considered to be their natural constituents – affiliated Unions.
It is now blatantly obvious that the Rann government is in the pocket of the business sector. This is demonstrated by the recent Business SA full page advertisements in the local press stating “Our members asked for Workers Compensation reform. Business SA delivered. When the voice of business speaks, decision makers listen. Our advocating for a better Workers Compensation system with reduced employer levies has resulted in the passing of legislation that will benefit business in SA.” Clearly, in return, your party expects to be able to call on Business SA to assist in filling your campaign funds coffer before the next election.
For the record, I provide the following information from my experience as a Workers Compensation Advocate employed for the past 14 years by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (Forestry and Furnishing Trades Division). I have been actively involved in workers’ compensation since 1979 and from April 1987 to June 1994 was a WorkCover Board member.
When Michael Wright was the Opposition spokesperson for Industrial Relations and Workers Compensation prior to the election of the ALP to government in 2002 he was provided with an enormous amount of information from people inside the Trade Union movement and within the WorkCover Corporation that clearly showed that the scheme was on a downward slide as a consequence of political decisions that had been taken by the Liberal State Government and the leadership of the Corporation.
In 2000/01 the WorkCover Board and the CEO of the WorkCover Corporation decided to not only reduce the levy rate but also to provide a rebate to employers throughout South Australia.
In 2000-01 Michael Wright attended at least three meetings at the United Trades and Labor Council's office on South Terrace. On one occasion the Opposition Leader, Mike Rann, accompanied Michael Wright. On each occasion Michael Wright gave an absolute assurance that, on election of the ALP to government, the Workers’ Rehabilitation and Compensation Act would be improved to benefit injured workers.
On one occasion Michael Wright stated that should the ALP be elected in 2002 he would have a review conducted of the workers’ compensation scheme within six weeks after being elected and the findings would be introduced through legislative change. The Trade Union representatives involved in workers’ compensation at the time felt that the timeframe was ambitious but the commitment was welcomed.
On being elected, Minister Wright established the Stanley review and the findings were handed down in mid 2002. However, it was not until 20 December 2002 that Minister Wright officially released the findings. They have gathered dust ever since.
Minister Wright is to be condemned for his failure to honour his commitment to the Trade Union movement and his lack of responsibility in addressing the leadership and management problems within the WorkCover Corporation.
Approximately 18 months ago the Treasurer, Kevin Foley, supported by representatives of the business sector stated that there was a problem with WorkCover and that it would be fixed. Treasurer Foley and the chairperson of the WorkCover Board, Bruce Carter, decided that the Board would put up recommendations to the government to change the WorkCover legislation.
The recommendations that were put forward were extremely draconian. However, Bruce Carter and the majority of the WorkCover Board were so confident that the recommendations they had put to the government would be introduced that the WorkCover management established a unit within the WorkCover Corporation specifically to assist the government in drafting the necessary legislative changes.
In mid 2007 I and another Union official were invited to Minister Wright’s office to discuss our concerns that the Corporation was outsourcing their responsibilities under section 58B and 58C of the Act to Employers Mutual which, in my view, was like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The Minister stated that he shared our concerns but was powerless to do anything about it as it was a Board decision.
During our discussion I raised with Minister Wright the Trade Union movement's concerns that the Corporation was working on amendments to the legislation that were draconian. He gave his undertaking that while he was the Minister responsible for workers’ compensation in South Australia he would not introduce legislation that was detrimental to injured workers.
History has now shown that Minister Wright has reneged on that undertaking, just as he reneged on his promise in relation to the Stanley review in 2002.
I believe however that Minister Wright is not the primary architect behind the new legislation that will have dramatic adverse affects on injured workers in this State and undermines the conditions and protection for workers that Unions have fought for. Treasurer, Kevin Foley, played the leading role in promoting the changes to the legislation and worked hand in hand with the business community to ensure its passage through parliament.
Foley’s cohort, Pat Conlon – purported to be the leader of the left wing of the Labor Party - is another that deserves to be condemned for his involvement in this sorry saga. This fellow espoused working-class socialist left principles for years before he got into parliament. Once elected, however, his ideology appears to have changed. If he had voiced his opposition to the proposed legislative changes and used his influence with Rann & Foley injured workers would not be confronted with the harsh and unjust legislation that went before parliament.
Rann, Foley, and Conlon claim that, even with the recent legislative changes, the South Australian workers’ compensation scheme will still be the best in Australia. The reality is that the new legislation will be extremely detrimental to injured workers and their families and the business sector will benefit. The Rann Government has attacked vulnerable injured workers and not the root cause of the problem i.e. the WorkCover Board and senior management and, to add insult to injury, the Minister reappointed those that are responsible for the mess.
I have had the opportunity to make my views known to several Members of Parliament in person over the past months and have received a fair hearing. Nevertheless, the fact that these measures that are designed to disadvantage workers and benefit employers have been introduced by a government elected under the guise of a Labor Party is outrageous and I find totally unacceptable.
I feel betrayed by the party that I have loyally supported for most of my working life in the belief that, when elected to government, it would only implement policies that would benefit and protect workers and, where possible, would effect social change in the true spirit of the Australian Labor Party. This is clearly not the case and I have therefore been forced to, regretfully, resign.
(1) If the Corporation wishes to refer a medical question to a Medical Panel in respect of a matter
pending in the Tribunal it shall complete the form titled “Certificate of Referral to a Medical
Panel” and advise the Registrar in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. Such advice shall
include a copy of the Certificate. Upon receipt of this advice the Registrar shall, unless
otherwise directed by the President, refer the matter to the member who had carriage of the
matter prior to the referral for further directions. These may include:
(a) referring the matter to the suspense list pending receipt of the Medical Panel’s opinion.
(b) directing the parties to prepare for the consideration of the Medical Panel an agreed
statement of facts and in default of agreement statements of the alleged facts
underpinning their respective positions.
(2) If a party wishes the Tribunal to refer a medical question to a Medical Panel the party shall
file a request for referral to a Medical Panel. If the Tribunal resolves to make the referral the
Tribunal shall issue the Certificate upon such terms as it considers appropriate. In determining
such a request the Tribunal may issue such directions as are considered appropriate to the
circumstances. These may include:
(a) directing the parties to prepare an agreed statement of facts and in default of agreement
statements of the alleged facts underpinning their respective positions;
(b) deferring referral of the medical question until medical reports, witness statements or
other evidentiary material have been obtained;
(c) deferring referral of the medical question until
(i) oral evidence has been received
(ii) factual findings have been made;
(d) issuing a statement of any relevant legal principle applicable to the medical question.
The receipt of oral evidence, the making of factual findings and the issuing of a statement of
legal principle may only be undertaken by a Presidential Member.
(3) If the Tribunal of its own motion intends to refer a medical question to the Medical Panel it
shall advise the parties and give them a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the making of
and terms of the proposed referral. Such referral may be made with such directions as are
considered appropriate to the circumstances. These may include a directions of the type
referred to in sub-rule (2) hereof.
(4) If subsequent to the referral of a medical question to a Medical Panel and prior to the receipt
of the Medical Panel’s opinion, the parties resolve their dispute by agreement such that the
Medical Panel’s opinion is no longer necessary the compensating authority shall complete the
form titled “Notice of Withdrawal of Referral” and serve it upon the Registrar and the
Convenor of the Medical Panel.
It has been recently confirmed by an insider that the hit list exists. There was firm confirmation that there was at least one injured worker on the list.
LOL bells are a ringing...
Posted by Tammy does it on the bosses desk..LOL at 10:39 PM, 9/5/2009
Seems that the ACTU is going to have a look into these state based compo systems and hopefully set some federal laws in place and stop these corperate cowboys & girls from taking all the $$$$ from us and returning some fairness to the wounded worker.www.actu.asn.au
Article from: The Advertiser
TORY SHEPHERD
May 11, 2009 07:00pm
DOZENS of doctors and nurses are on workers compensation because of traumatic work experiences.
The latest statistics show almost 60 staff from one of the state's main health services have psychological harm from exposure to traumatic events, workplace violence, harassment, bullying, or other mental stress factors.
The figures are from the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service, which includes the Royal Adelaide, Lyell McEwin, Queen Elizabeth and Modbury hospitals.
Have your say: Are you stressed at work?
They show there were also almost 600 workplace injury claims in 2007-08, including one possible fatality awaiting a Coroner's report.
Australian Medical Association (SA) immediate past president Dr Peter Ford said workplace stress levels were on the rise. "That would go hand in hand with the increased workload," he said.
"The other issue in emergency is we are seeing a much greater incidence of people with mental health problems related to drug abuse and so on."
Dr Ford said there was also a "cultural issue" with doctors feeling reluctant to admit they were struggling to cope.
New AMA state president Dr Andrew Lavender agreed.
He said doctors needed to learn to look after their own health because they were in a high-risk profession and tended not to seek help when they needed it.
"In many cases you've got to be seen to be maintaining your strength in the face of everything so you can be a rock for family and other staff," he said. "The support is there. But it is the nature of doctors and other health workers not to seek support . . . there is a sense you've got to be strong."
SA Health chief executive Dr Tony Sherbon said programs were in place to help all employees.
"An employee assistance program is available to each SA Health employee who needs help with any personal or work-related issue, including trauma, stress and conflict management," he said.
DOZENS of doctors and nurses are on workers compensation because of traumatic work experiences.
The latest statistics show almost 60 staff from one of the state's main health services have psychological harm from exposure to traumatic events, workplace violence, harassment, bullying, or other mental stress factors.
The figures are from the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service, which includes the Royal Adelaide, Lyell McEwin, Queen Elizabeth and Modbury hospitals.
Have your say: Are you stressed at work?
They show there were also almost 600 workplace injury claims in 2007-08, including one possible fatality awaiting a Coroner's report.
Australian Medical Association (SA) immediate past president Dr Peter Ford said workplace stress levels were on the rise. "That would go hand in hand with the increased workload," he said.
"The other issue in emergency is we are seeing a much greater incidence of people with mental health problems related to drug abuse and so on."
Dr Ford said there was also a "cultural issue" with doctors feeling reluctant to admit they were struggling to cope.
New AMA state president Dr Andrew Lavender agreed.
He said doctors needed to learn to look after their own health because they were in a high-risk profession and tended not to seek help when they needed it.
"In many cases you've got to be seen to be maintaining your strength in the face of everything so you can be a rock for family and other staff," he said. "The support is there. But it is the nature of doctors and other health workers not to seek support . . . there is a sense you've got to be strong."
SA Health chief executive Dr Tony Sherbon said programs were in place to help all employees.
"An employee assistance program is available to each SA Health employee who needs help with any personal or work-related issue, including trauma, stress and conflict management," he said.
The 2009 budget states by 2023 Australians will have to wait until they are 67 to retire.Does this mean the unfunded liability just increased another two years as well?
It is all too obvious that this government has relied on the offspin from WorkCover to stimulate the economy in good times. Although it is called a workcover levy it smells like a tax and tastes like a tax to many employers. Now the problems have come home to roost. Workcover have gambled away much of the investment fund in investments and injured workers have to pay for it. With the financial crisis the answer became simple. Legislate to take away injured workers income maintenance and the levies from employers can then be used top up the investment funds and provide more growth for legal firms and office space in Adelaide. So Wayne and injured worker do not go telling kev to leave workcover alone- we need the cash injection from the employers levies to keep the lawyers jobs afloat and to haved available surplus from the levies to splash a bit of cash on rehabilitation copmpanies, doctors aafter all we can all share the office spaces in town and the views for the riverside building on North Terrace overlooking the Torrens.
Posted by: Peter Matthews of Toorak Gardens
9:25pm today
Injured Worker of Adelaide, the Federal budget just increased retirement age to 67 by the year 2023 which means the actuaries now have to amend the unfunded liability to accomodate another two years. Watch the unfunded liability all of a sudden sky rocket again!
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of Plympton 8:33pm today
LEAVE WORKCOVER ALONE YOU HAVE ALREADY SCREWED INJURED WORKERS ENOUGH. $2BILLION UNFUNDED LIABILITY BY THE END OF THE CURRENT QUARTER WILL BE EVEN MORE THAN THAT BY THE END OF THE YEAR, SO KEEP YOUR STICKY FINGERS OUT OF THE ALREADY EMPTY POCKETS OF INJURED WORKERS.
Posted by: Injured Worker of Adelaide 7:55pm today
Here is a challenge you Minister Foley, how about telling the truth about the contract between WorkCover and its claims agent, tell the people of South Australia just how the contract was awarded to the claims agent that had not even entered a tender but was invited by the immediate past Chairman of the WorkCover Board to put a proposal forward. Seems that in this instance the Rann committment to so called open government was slightly overlooked or totally forgotten. Minister Foley tell the people of South Australia just what there is a Parliamentary Committee investigation the process of what happened. Minister Foley you know that even if you wanted to tell the people of South Australia you couldn't do it. Because to do so would be to admit that you had some knowledge of the dealings and that would also lead to a police investigation into what else you know. I for one can hardly wait for the Parliamentary Report to come out just in time for you to try to bury it so as WorkCover doesn't muddy the waters of the 2010 election spin-cycle.
Posted by: Wife of Injured Worker of 6:56pm today
Comment 64 of 66
Has anyone ever thought about the imbalance that now exisats with injured workers and workcover?
They can stop peoples wages until the dispute is resolved, How does an injured worker even attempt to fight back when workcover throws all its financial resources into the fight?
INjured worker obviously going to lose as he has no lawyers to assist as they donot work for nothing.
Funny thing-workcover in that situation has injured workers money to use against him and its own funds..
Seems like the imbalance doubled with the legislation.
Posted by Pro Bono ran out of funds at 9:07 PM, 13/5/2009
WorkCover losses on the rise
WorkCover loss of $300m for latest half year (ABC News)
South Australia's workers' compensation agency WorkCover has reported a loss of more than $300 million in the six months to December.
Its board says the rise in its unfunded liability to $1.3 billion was due to exposure to the global economic crisis.
Despite that, it claims management improved by $51 million for the same half-year.
The board has decided to keep the average levy charged to employers and businesses at 3 per cent.
The SA Opposition says a continued poor financial performance by WorkCover threatens the state's economic future.
Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith says the Government gave assurances that last year's legislative changes would lead to a lower levy rate.
"Premier Rann said he would get the levy rate down and bring the scheme back under control," he said.
"Since then another $313 million down the hole, in the red.
"That's economic management under Premier Rann."
The State Opposition says a blowout in WorkCover's unfunded liability will cost South Australian jobs.
WorkCover reported a growth in its unfunded liability of $313 million in the six months to December last year.
Opposition leader Martin Hamilton-Smith says says the growth in unfunded liability is unacceptable.
"It's crept up each year over seven years, this is not a result of the global financial downturn at all, it is the result of government mismanagement, a Rann Labor Government unable to competently manage the scheme," he said.
"Now they've got to justify and explain what they've done to the WorkCover scheme and what they've done is deliver ruin."
The Industrial Relations Minister, Paul Caica, says Mr Hamilton-Smith is ignoring the true economic situation.
"He's got his head in the sand, they must acknowledge the impact of the global financial crisis," he said.
"Everyone's investments have been hit hard and WorkCover is ... not immune to this."
Posted by Fly away home Kiwi at 10:46 AM, 14/5/2009
Paul Caica needs to be reminded that WorkCover is supposedly put into place to insure Employers and Support injured workers and not be an investment institute to support the states AAA rating.
Businesses should be outraged by his comment as its their levies thats been wasted away and no sign of a levy decrease which was promised. Peter Vaughan its your call, resign from Business SA or the board as their seems to be a huge conflict of interest!
Even in Canada http://www.ciws.ca/workers_compensation_injured_workers.htm
- worker states, "I am currently a victim of this system. I have lost my home and everything except a few personal effects. . . . I have had the opinion of five(5) othopedic specialists who have examined and treated me over-ruled by WCB's non-specialist Paid medical consultant who has never even met me let alone examined my injuries."
- worker with multiple injury claims threatened by WCB with being cut off benefits despite continuing medical issues. He claims WCB tampered with and falsified his medical evidence. They also phoned his physician to attempt to discredit the worker. The physician responded by warning the WCB that further calls of that nature would be considered harassment. WCB forced the worker into inappropriate training while disabled which caused further injury and ridiculed him by telling him that he was not smart enough to be retrained. They refused him physiotherapy. They told him to omit revealing the existence of compensable injuries to prospective employers. The worker characterizes his treatment by WCB as harsh, callous, oppressive and discriminatory.
- worker with 3 crushed discs and severe pain denied compensation despite WCB agreeing that there is an injury.
- workers repeatedly contact the CIWS with cases against the WCB that they feel should go to court, however, they cannot obtain a legal remedy due to either an inability to afford a lawyer or because of the refusal of law firms to take on WCB cases.
- worker was knocked off a truck and received back injury. The employer did not file an injury report because he was operatring illegally. The WCB believed the employer, not the worker and denied the claim as fictitious. Worker took time off work anyway and later went back to work at a job that did not require lifting, Yet, walking around at home one day, his vertebral disc broke in half.
- worker had surgery with subsequent physical limitations and pain, yet the WCB cut off compensation saying worker is discharged "with no limitations".
- worker was off work with a heel injury but was cut off by WCB when they found out he also needed back surgery. Worker is depressed, on medication and still unable to work.
- An appeal was made through a lawyer and the Appeals Board ruled unanimously in the injured worker's favour. When the claim went back to WCB though, the Appeals Board decision was ignored, the claim was denied and the file was closed.
- man was sent into a confined space without protection and suffered lung damage. Despite proof and witnesses, WCB does not accept the facts of the case and denies the claim.
- man's WCB claim was initially denied but later the Appeals Board reversed that ruling. Now WCB is appealing their own Appeals Board decision! Meanwhile, the family is looking for a place to live and the mother is working in a remote location desparately trying to save her home. Thus two children are without their mother and the family may soon lose their home.
- despite having had repeated physician requests for an MRI, WCB refused to pay for it and worker had to pay for his own MRI. Results showed that the injury was work-related yet WCB refused to believe the MRI. Worker was cut off compensation.
- worker was told by WCB that he had a chronic terminal illness. This was false. Yet this false information was revealed to the worker's employer and coworkers. No compensation was received by the worker for his legitimate injuries.
- worker won after a 5+ year wait at appeal yet received only one tenth of entitlement.
- surgeries cancelled when WCB disallows claim
- disabled workers report "financial devastation due to WSIB's criminal decisions and treatments".
- disabled workers forced into homelessness and have to live on the street even with children involved.
- disabled workers report having to give up their children due to financial devastation and homelessness.
- disabled workers report mental exhaustion because of WCBs treatment of them
- disabled workers report that they have thoughts of suicide on a regular basis.
- A physiotherapist, chiropracter and doctor all assess worker as having chronic back pain but the WCB disagrees without ever having seen the worker and blames the impairment on an ankle injury the worker never had. WCB refuses to contact the other care workers for clarification. Without investigating, WCB closes the file, refuses to represent the worker and states that there is no evidence to support the claim.
- WCB-hired specialist made comments about worker's abilities, job performance and weight and implied that worker's "very soft hands" suggested 'deconditioning'. These comments disturbed the worker who felt insulted.
- The WCB nurse (who never met the worker) contacted the worker's doctor to force the worker back to work. WCB told the worker that the doctor had recommended light duty and the worker's claim was denied. Later, when worker obtained their file, it was found that the doctor had never recommended light duty but had said the worker was unable to return to work. When worker filed a complaint about the WCB nurse, nothing was done.
- workers have to pay their own medical bills for specialists to prove to WCB the extent of their injuries.
- heavy equipment operator with repetitive stress injury was denied compensation because WCB said it was arthritis. Yet blood work from doctor says worker has no arthritis.
- when worker received their file from WCB, half of the documents were missing including most hospital medical files, x-ray reports and letters from the worker's lawyer.
- WCB adjudicator overrode doctor's restrictions and worker was sent into light duty work. Worker asked for an ergonomic assessment of the light duty workplace but document was incorrectly recorded and then the adjudicator withheld it from worker's file for almost two years. During appeal, the workplace was finally inspected by a panel but when they arrived the area was empty of all personnel and production. It was obvious that the employer would not cooperate but the panel made their decision anyway - in favour of the employer.
- chlorine gas accident that caused irreversible lung damage was labelled as asthma. Worker claims that the safety violation was hidden in a cover-up due to political expediency because the accident happened in a government department (about 30 years ago). Worker is still fighting for recognition of the accident by WCB and by government.
- worker's WCB file is "well over 15" inches high". The injustices make worker ". . . sick to my stomach, I've started to have nightmares . . . wake up with my heart pounding, and can't function on 2 hours of sleep . . . If I try to sit to read through my file I end up in severe pain within 15 minutes . . ."
- worker found out about injustices in the case file that were hidden until worker decided to represent himself. He found out that the specialist informed WCB that he was willing to see the worker and set an appointment date but WCB cut off benefits and didn't tell the worker about the appointment.
- worker in severe pain all the time and can't sit for more than 15 minutes yet has to go 300 miles to get to the WCB appeal.
- worker despairs saying, "Everybody just passes the buck and doesn't care. I'm exhausted and know that nothing will change, there is no quality of life left in this body anymore. I've had to shut-up and not talk about my injury or the treatment I've received as my family has already been stressed out enough over the lack of treatment that I've received."
- when worker had some money left, worker went to a lawyer who stated that it was the worst case of bungling he had ever seen. He stated that I needed to get more proof of my injuries as he was willing to file a lawsuit but needed to wait until all appeal avenues were exhausted due to WCB regulations.
- worker sold all possessions to pay for medical treatment. Credit cards are maxed out and what little money was left was needed to feed the children and provide housing.
- worker "tried to be strong and return to work but this has put everyone at danger as I'm in extreme pain and the naracotic meds that I'm on did weird things to my brain, which made my job extremely dangerous to the public."
- when worker found out that worker's advocate was a former employee at WCB, worker "felt abused even more . . ." . When worker tried to represent himself, it caused much mental anguish.
- claim took almost one year to get approval. After surgeries, physio, etc., and continuing pain and difficulty with limb, WCB decides injury is resolved. Worker started appeal process. Seven months later, still no appeal, no income, constant daily creditor calls and missed mortgage payments.
- claim was denied as pre-existing, but the injury was a complication of a previous work injury accepted by WCB!
- 21 year old injured and was never treated for all injuries. Has had three surgeries and wears a brace. Has received no re-education, was forced to move and all WCB said was that he can work as an order desk clerk. Family member says, "Comp doesn't care that this injury is for life. . . . When will the government realize these young people are our future . . .?"
- workers advisors are reported to be doing "absolutely nothing" to help injured workers. Worker says, "I can't get anywhere with these people and I just really need some help. I have a worker with (deleted) and honestly he has done absolutely nothing in regards to helping me with anything. In fact in 6 months I havn't so much as recieved a phone call from him."
- workers report being penalized at work for making a WCB claim.
- after being told by physio and neurologist that worker could not be helped due to the severity of the injury, worker was told by WCB that it was OK to go back to pre-accident work contrary to the family physician who said worker could not go back to work. This is despite the fact that WCB doctors have never seen the worker nor have they consulted with the worker's doctor. Due to extreme financial troubles, worker tried three times at three different jobs and only worsened. Later, worker independently saw four different specialists who confirmed that the worker cannot go back to work. Specialists said there was not much they could do about the injuries now but if they had seen the worker when the injuries first occurred, the worker's life could have been made a bit more comfortable. Worker has extreme physical and financial challenges and three children who "go without".
- worker waited 2 years for an appeal tribunal at which the worker won. The case was referred back to WCB who refused to implement the tribunal decision.
- workers forced into remortgages and loss of homes where the rents are more expensive than the mortgages they had before.
- workers forced into excessive overtime work to make ends meet
- workers report writing to their provincial governments about WCB abuses and getting nowhere. Provinces use the "arm's length" excuse to avoid getting involved and thus allow WCBs to remain totally unaccountable.
- doctor accidentally placed misinformation in injured worker's file that resulted in denial by WCB. When the doctor tried to contact WCB to rectify the error, the doctor was told that if he continued trying, he would be denied access to assess any other WCB client and that the WCB would report him to the medical board and have him fired.
- totally disabled workers report being caught in the middle between the CPPD (Canada Pension Plan Disability) and WCBs (workers compensation boards) where neither are taking into account the worker's physical, mental or financial wellbeing. Disabled workers report 'falling through the cracks' as both agencies fail to provide adequate support.
- Worker was dropped unconscious from a high dose of chemical gas. WCB denied that the chemical had any long term or neurological effect yet family says worker went from sharp, witty and intelligent to dumb and slow with a constant severe headache. WCB 'brushed off' the worker and his family doctor and gave him anti-depressants, tranquilizers and painkillers - then cut off his financial support. Worker now has to choose between paying for house or food and says he feels retarded, has no hunger, and cant remember things. Family is afraid he will lose his mind and jump off a bridge.
- WCB sent worker to a rehab center before he had any real medical tests other than an xray. After a month in rehab, worker was worse and in pain all the time. As soon as the rehab program ended WCB cut worker off compensation. Worker appealed and lost. Eventually a doctor sent worker for an MRI - result - a fractured vertebrae, bulging disc and torn spinal muscle. Worker couldn't find lawyer so has been on CPP Disability and AISH (assured income for severe handicaps) for ten years. Worker is still on morphine and other meds and doctor believes he has developed fibromyalgia/chronic myofascial pain syndrome.
- Surgeon advised worker not to do any work until he re-examines worker but WCB disagreed and said worker could return to work so they would not pay. Worker had no income so was forced back to work prematurely - then developed further tendon and ligament damage - now has to wear brace and requires further physiotherapy. WCB says that their statistics/records show that for that type of injury, nothing more is required from them and they ignore repeated calls from the doctor.
- toxic chemical injury claim denied twice due to insufficient evidence, yet when the injured worker investigated, the evidence was available in the WCB's own library. Claim was subsequently accepted, yet retraining in a toxic environment caused further toxic chemical injury. Claim was discontinued when 'retraining' ended. Claimant, now sicker, went bankrupt.
- suicidal depression because of direct abuse by WSIB
- injured workers feel they are being profiled as criminals for wanting WCB benefits.
- WCB case manager telling the doctor what he should do about the injured worker as if the case manager was a doctor
- permanently injured worker denied benefits because he refused to take a test that doctors said would further injure him.
- WCB psychiatric report says patient "malingering" despite two family physicians, a psychiatrist, two psychologists, a neurosurgeon and pain clinic employees all stating that worker has legitimate pain. Appeals Commission sides with WCB-employed psychiatrist whose report clearly erred on dates, history and names. (WCB doctors have "template reports" and sometimes not all the blanks are entered correctly.)
- case manager's computer notes say that worker will never be able to physically handle the job they are providing "Training on the Job" funding for - but still lets worker try anyway
- WCBs routinely working with same employer for 'Training on the Job' programs even though the employer has "laid-off" previous employees as soon as funding was finished. At least two of these employees are known to have never been able to work again.
- WCB doctor wrote note that injured worker was not to lift more than 20lbs at rehabiliatative evaluation session. Evaluation report says worker was uncooperative with self-imposed limit of 20 lbs (worker had supplied doctor's note prior to assessment).
- worker with neck dislocation injury tries to work more than a year after injury. Reaches for hammer on job site and pulls a neck/shoulder muscle. In bed on meds for a week. Worker's doctor submits report to WCB saying all due to original injury. WCB opens up new claim for this incident despite all doctors clearly stating that it is all related to the initial dislocation
- injured worker being threatened by WCB case manager with being "cut off" compensation despite being diagnosed with permanent work restrictions by specialist
- WCB cut off wage loss benefits for a multiple injury case claiming the injured worker had achieved "maximal medical recovery" yet they ignored several body areas that had not yet recovered, including a spinal injury, a head injury an ankle injury and chronic pain.
- denials or delays of months or years causing bankruptcies and other financial devastation
- WCB setting up 'bogus' companies that 'hire' injured workers so that WCB can cut the worker off benefits
- injured worker in WCB rehab facility aquasizer pool was abandoned during evacuation for gas line leak and left alone in building
- refused MRI by WCB, then worker paid for MRI with charity from family and immediately therafter was booked into back surgery
- single parent injured worker cut off benefits wrongly
- injured worker lost everything - home and truck
- rehab/pain clinic teams introduced sleeping aids - when injured worker slept in, they were cut off
- case workers making notes to their assistants predicting when the pain would plateau
- wage loss calculations based on erroneous amounts
- doctor said injured worker had to keep as active as possible, then WCB videotaped them doing tasks in their yard but failed to acknowledge the days required to recover in between activities (WCB then failed to supply videotape that was used by the review board)
- empIoyers not paying into WCB and therefore not reporting accidents
- injured workers getting phone calls during Christmas holidays threatening to cut their coverage
- WCB demanding new information the day before the due date then cutting coverage when injured worker unable to provide the information
- injured worker receiving $260 per month while raising 3 children
- injured workers and their children going through eviction from their rental accommodation when unable to pay
- injured workers having to pay for their own transit between cities for specialist appointments
- injured workers report being treated "like dogs"
- WCB refusing to pay for home care recommended by threee professionals
- northern worker forced to pay for own visits to southern specialists
- injured worker's family forced out of home with young children
- WCB selectively ignoring sections of the claims manual that would advance the worker's claim
- video surveillance used inappropriately
- WCB rules injured worker capable to return to any occupation while taking large amounts of morphine
- injured workers suffering chronic pain labelled as "uncooperative" by WCB vocational rehab operations
- payment for required medical assistance devices denied
- payment for pain medication denied
- WCB estimates seasonal worker's long term wage rate using the lowest level of employment in the year
- the raises each year for people on WCB pensions are well below the cost of living increases
- injured workers unable to get a lawyer if WCB is mentioned
- provincial human rights commissions ignoring injured workers
- restrictions by surgeon post-surgery totally ignored by WCB
- 20 year employee demoted after injury with pay decrease
- injured worker asked for time off rehab for funeral but told that WCB doesn't get paid to be compassionate
- in spite of family funeral, injured worker told to go to rehab or the WCB would cut them off comp
- injured workers being refused treatment
- being cut off required medications
- injured workers going to welfare to pay for rent and medications
- workers in chronic pain being told to go off pain medications and go back to work
- doctors refusing to deal with patients who are on narcotics for pain
- workers suddenly out of work with no income while injured and WCB still refuses any assistance
- workers being forced to return to work while in severe pain and heavily medicated without regard to safety
- seven years to get to first tribunal
- WCBs and WCB doctors manipulating and/or suppressing medical (and other) evidence
- cover-up of toxic chemical hazards causing death
- cover-up of toxic chemical accidents causing permanent disability
- specialists' diagnoses being ignored by WCB if it favours the worker's claim
- specialist's request for surgery refused by WCB doctor until the injured worker threatened lawsuit, then the WCB doctor changed his diagnosis and allowed the surgery
- injured workers being cut off compensation without notice or explanation
- injured workers having to apply for government assistance when they should be receiving workers compensation
- children suffering physically and mentally from poverty
- specialists' reports being overrruled by WCB doctors, nurses, and even non-medical staff
- workers' claim files being 'lost' or simply 'disappearing'
- compensation being denied based on fraudulent employers' reports
- employees too scared to file an accident report because of intimidation
- being forced back to inappropriate work that further injures the worker
- WCB using generic 'time tables' for recovery time, then cutting the worker off benefits regardless of the real medical situation of the worker
- inadequate, sub-poverty-level compensation
- increasing debt and bankruptcies due to inadequate compensation
- loss of homes
- divorces
- suicides
- inaccurate medical assessments by doctors who are paid by WCBs
- assessments being made on workers by WCB-paid doctors without even seeing the worker or consulting with the worker's GP.
- WCB using doctors who have been reported to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for investigation
- inappropriate use of AMA guides for assessing injury
- inappropriate (and illegal) use of impairment ratings when WCBs should only be assessing 'disability', not 'impairment'
- doctors who have lost their licenses due to disciplinary reasons doing employee medical investigations.
- physical harm caused by WCB medical examinations
- stress related conditions caused by the workers compensation process itself (examples reported - insomnia, depression, anxiety, palpitations, etc.)
- WCB refusing to compensate for these conditions because they are supposedly not 'work related'
- WCB withholding medical evidence (a criminal violation)
- WCB suppressing "core" facts and information relevant to the case
- WCB doctors falsely accusing the injured worker of 'malingering', 'being a complainer' and/or 'trying to abuse the system'
- WCB involved in 'covering up' workplace hazards for some employers
- inappropriate treatments ordered by WCB nurses without a doctor's order
- inappropriate treatments leading to further injury
- compensation cut off because of 'non-compliance' with these inappropriate and harmful treatments
- medical evaluations that have nothing to do with the injury
- inappropriate psychiatric evaluations of physically injured workers
- verbal abuse and harrassment by WCB employees against injured workers
- intimidating phone calls from WCB
- WCB failing to comply with Appeals Tribunal decisions
- inappropriate use of surveillance of the injured worker
- injured workers being told by WCB employees to 'find a job' or 'retire'
- injured workers being told by WCB to 'just work through the pain'
- discrimination against certain types of injuries (example: chronic stress diseases)
- cruel and abusive psychological treatment of injured workers by WCBs
- false billing statements (for undelivered services or interventions)
- false diagnoses
- manipulation of facts, evidence, dates, medical words and expressions
- concealment of facts and evidence
- recurrent use of avoidance or distraction techniques (such as unnecessary tests)
- multiple medical reports for the same visit/intervention
- coverup of wrongdoing that caused physical harm
- putting intentional and inappropriate emphasis on the injujed worker's psychological status rather than addressing physical origins or causes of injuries
- inappropriate psychological profiling
- denegrating the injured worker's character
- WCB falsely accusing the injured worker of having a family history of alcoholism, even when this is refuted by an independent psychologist's report
- violations of trust leaving the injured worker feeling "emotionally raped"
- WCB adjudicators who disregard doctors and specialists who say the injured worker is unable to work - compensation is cut off anyway
- injured workers unable to eat properly
- feel they are "fighting for their life"
- doctors refusing diagnostic tests because they report that the worker is 'malingering' when subsequent tests show that there was, indeed, an injury
- physiotherapists refusing to do assessment because the worker is in severe pain and WCB using that to deny benefits because of 'incomplete assessment'
- employer falsely denying injury occurred and WCB believes the employer over the worker
- requests by doctors for diagnostic tests refused by WCB
- specialists recommendations not implemented by WCB
- specialists stating that premature return to work caused further re-injury and/or failure to heal properly
- WCB using generic 'time tables' for recovery time, then cutting the worker off benefits regardless of the real medical situation of the worker
- workers repeatedly forced into inappropriate psychiatric examinations for physical injuries
- being forced by WCB to do physiotherapy exercises against specific doctors orders to abstain from all activities because of a high risk of injury
- important evidence not being presented in court
- company doctors lying about the physical damages
- people being fired for trying to stand up to the company
- threatened with loss of employment, workers go back into dangerous jobs with unhealed injuries
- taking advantage of employees who only speak English as a second language to make them stay in a damaging situation
- injured employees being told they have no right to disability or insurance
- injured employees being told that their 'time has run out' even if they are still inured
- employees being told that, even if they return to their job, they will lose seniority and pension
- employers taking advantage of functionally illiterate people
- threatening the life of an injured worker's children
- injured workers having to live off the charity of friends
- injured workers having to live off the charity of religious institutions
- injured workers having "nothing left to lose"
- no recognition for over 20 years of service during which the worker was given increasing responsibilities
- inability to sue either WCB or the employer due to lack of funds or legislative restrictions
- employment situations being referred to as "sweat shops" right here in Canada
- unions refusing to help the injured worker because it is too much trouble (or other reasons)
- employers using company lawyers to manipulate and intimidate workers
The above reads like a sorry state of affairs. Unfortunately I can relate to many of these complaints.
One of the biggest complaints many people must have is the probelm which occurs when hey have no funds to afford lawyers yet know they are being shafted.
I guess this will only get worse as workcover now explore their powers to cut off injured workers while they are engaged in litigation.
What a power imbalance..no wonder so mnay injured workers lose their homes when they are on workcover.
and suffer increased levels of anxiety and stress.
.
Victoria’s WorkHealth program is due to roll-out its next stage of worker health assessments. However, the program has been seriously curtailed by the failure of its funding model. According to The Age newspaper on 18 may 2009, employer associations have begun to withdraw their support compounding the embarrassment to the Premier, John Brumby, who lauded the program in March 2008.
The Master Builders Association will not be supporting the program due to WorkHealth’s connection with WorkSafe. The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) thinks likewise. There are concerns over the privacy of worker health records and that data from health checks may affect worker’s compensation arrangements or future claims.
The VACC is also concerned that employers will be blamed for issues over which they have little control – the health of their workers.
Many of these concerns could have been addressed by locating WorkHealth in the Department of Health, where health promotion already has a strong role and presence. It is understood that the funding of WorkHealth from workers compensation premium returns on investment caused the program to reside within the Victorian WorkCover Authority. There has also been the suggestion that WorkHealth was a pet program of the WorkCover board.
The program aims of free health checks for all Victorian workers was admirable and still achievable but the program was poorly introduced, poorly explained, based on a flawed funding model and now seems to be, if not dead, coughing up blood.
Conflict of Interest Evident when Disability Insurer Both Reviews and Pays Claim for Benefits Says First Circuit Court of Appeals
Massachusettts Personal Injury Attorney, Keith L. Miller, reviews and analyzes a recent U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals decision. This is the second part of a two part blogpost, involving the denial of an employee long term disability claim, where the insurer both reviewed and paid claims, allegedly giving rise to a conflict of interest. The First Part reviewed facts leading up the to the employee's application for long term disability insurance, which the insurer rejected, and resulted in an action in Federal District Court.
In June of 2002, the plaintiff employee in this case filed for long-term benefits. She would qualify as disabled under the long-term plan if, for two consecutive years, she was unable to perform the material and substantial duties of her occupation, and subsequently was unable to perform "the material and substantial duties of any occupation". The same Liberty nurse who had denied her earlier claim, also reviewed this file, which contained medical support for a finding that the plaintiff's symptoms had become worse. She had also completed an activities questionnaire in which she claimed to have severe restrictions on her ability to sit, stand, walk, drive, and concentrate.
liberty mutual 2.jpgIn her second review, the Liberty Mutual nurse discounted the IME report, suggested that the plaintiff's condition was not as grave as the completed questionnaire implied, concluded that the plaintiff did not qualify for benefits and Liberty denied the claim. The plaintiff requested further review. Liberty responded by hiring a private investigator to observe the plaintiff's activities. The investigator produced reports and photographs showing that the plaintiff was active.
With this information, Liberty then utilized a referral service furnishing physicians to evaluate the functional abilities of claimants. One of its physicians concluded that the plaintiff was capable of working full-time in her primarily sedentary position. On December 10, 2002, Liberty reaffirmed its earlier denial of benefits.
Fourteen months later, an administrative law judge ruled the plaintiff was entitled to social security disability benefits retroactive to her last day of actual work. The judge premised this decision on a subsidiary finding that the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Although the definition of disability under the Act differed from the definition of disability under the Liberty's plan, the plaintiff forwarded the SSDI ruling to Liberty, along with a further report from her rheumatologist, seeking reconsideration of the denial.
Liberty refused to reverse its decision, which resulted in the district court action. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgement to Liberty, deciding that Liberty had not abused its discretion in denying the claim. On initial appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed, but then the United States Supreme Court made a ruling, which changed the substantive law in the area and resulted in a successful request for rehearing of this case.
IThumbnail image for supreme court.jpgn rehearing the case, the Court analyzed the Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008). There, the Supreme Court had reviewed a denial of benefits by an administrator that passed judgment upon and paid claims under an ERISA-regulated plan. It concluded that courts should recognize that a conflict exists whenever a plan administrator, whether an employer or an insurer, is in the position of both adjudicating claims and paying awarded benefits.
In the prior eighteen years, courts had struggled with how to handle structural conflicts of interest in ERISA cases, most courts using the classic abuse of discretion model, taking account of the impact, if any, of a conflict in evaluating whether a denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious and thus, an abuse of discretion.
The Court in this case applied the newly refined standard following Glenn. It assessed relevant factors, including the plan administrator's "structural conflict, its inconsistent positions concerning a social security determination, its unexplained emphasis on medical opinions favoring a denial of benefits, and its offhand discounting of contrary medical opinions". The Court concluded that the decision should be set aside.
The Court concluded that it was obligated to inquire into what steps a plan administrator had taken to insulate the decision making process against the potentially "pernicious effects of structural conflicts". But the Court went further and also addressed the issue of discovery in such cases. Normally, such cases are adjudicated on the record compiled before the plan administrator, and courts have been disinclined to permit discovery, which might distort that view. Plaintiff in this case has sought discovery to investigate the conflict issues.
The Court concluded that where a colorable claim of bias had been shown, targeted discovery on the specific issues raised seemed appropriate. Based on the Glenn case, the Court determined that some discovery was appropriate on the issue of whether a structural conflict had "morphed" into an actual conflict, in particular where the plan administrator failed to sufficiently detail its procedures.
Under the circumstances, the Appeals Court vacated the district court judgment below and remanded the case for further consideration, consistent with Glenn and leaving open the possibility of modifying the discovery order previously imposed.
Denmark v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company of Boston
___________________________________________________________________
The above information is provided by the Law Offices of Keith L. Miller, a Boston, Massachusetts personal injury and civil trial lawyer, specializing in the legal representation of individuals who believe that they have been injured as the result of the negligence of others and have been involved in all types of accidents causing personal injury. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident where you believe someone else is at fault, contact Keith L. Miller to arrange a free consultation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week either by telephone at (617) 523-5803, or click here to send him an email. You will be contacted within 24 hours.
By Mike Cassidy in Accidents At Work on Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Several newspapers have today reported the case of a mechanic who was yesterday awarded Ł400,000.00 after slicing his fingers whilst servicing a police car.
The Claimant injured the index and middle fingers on his left hand. The injury was caused by a concealed knife which had been wedged down the side of the driver’s seat in the police car.
The injury was said to prevent the Claimant from working again and had left him with crippling pain.
The Metropolitan Police admitted liability but disputed the extent of the injury. They filmed the Claimant performing a variety of day to day activities including shopping in a DIY store, walking his children to school and shooting an air rifle in a competition.
However the Judge at the High Court said that although the Claimant had made a better recovery than he had described in court, he had suffered a genuine disability. He agreed that it was not likely the Claimant would ever return to full-time work but he may be able to take a part-time role in three years. The Judge also accepted that the injury did not prevent the Claimant from enjoying his hobby of shooting.
The damages awarded included a sum of Ł32,500.00 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and there were awards also for past and future loss of earnings.
On August 6, 2000, the Los Angeles Times ran a feature article entitled "Public Fraud Favors Those Who Privately Fund It." That article suggested, among other things, that the Fraud Division and district attorneys would not prosecute employers and insurers for claims fraud because they did not want to "bite the hand that feeds it." Both the Fraud Division and local district attorneys have denied that charge.
However, in response to the Commission’s call for information, the LA DA did report, in part:
"… The [Fraud Assessment] Commission’s authority to review and comment on the district attorney’s funding has led to criminal defense attorney accusations and lengthy legal motions alleging bias. In order to successfully prove a conflict of interest allegation, the defense must show, in part, that the ‘district attorney’s discretionary decision making has been placed within the influence and control of a private party with a particular interest in the prosecution of the defendant.’ … To date, these conflict of interest allegations have been deemed by reviewing courts to be unfounded and without merit. However, defending the funding scheme is needless waste of prosecution resources."
The response goes on to suggest that the funding assessment should continue to be levied on all employers. However, "the funding should be applied toward criminal investigations and prosecutions on a per county basis based on a formula which analyzes the number of employees in each county." Such an approach "would still require a review of data by the Insurance Commissioner and Fraud Division, but would eliminate the need for the FAC." The response further suggests that the "Fraud Division should be reviewed and funded on a regional and not statewide basis."
According to the August 6, 2000, Los Angeles Times story, there were two reasons behind employer funding of the anti-fraud program:
"[Senator Robert] Presley’s legislation, which passed in 1991, was unusual in that it required employers, rather than taxpayers in general, to pay for investigations and prosecutions through a surcharge collection on their insurance premiums.
"There were two reasons Presley took the private money approach. The state was in the red and Presley said any general fund appropriation would not pass. County prosecutors were unwilling to use tax money already assigned to them. They had higher priorities: violent crimes.
"[James] Morris, the Presley aide, recalled speaking to several county prosecutors including representatives of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office who told him: ‘Unless we see any money, we’re not going to prosecute this type of case.’"
In subsequent years, the needed money came. What began in 1992 as a $3 million a year program has rapidly expanded to more than $30 million a year in funding. Many district attorneys have grown attuned to the program and its anti-fraud targets. Over the past nine years, there have been several high profile fraud prosecutions, some successful, some not. According to district attorneys, the scope of the program has grown and the perpetrators of fraud have become more sophisticated. Investigating and prosecuting these sophisticated operators, they say, requires substantial and continued funding.
CWCI’s response discusses the overall amounts spent on the program, rather than the funding source:
"Each year the Fraud Assessment Commission generates through assessments $30,000,000 to be distributed to the Fraud Division … and local district attorneys. Each insurer licensed to do business in the State must maintain a Special Investiga-tions Unit. Annual costs range between $50,000 and $200,000 or more depending on the size of the insurer, the amount of workers’ compensation insurance written, and whether the SIU is out-sourced or not.
"To our knowledge, no one has been able to put a price tag on the total system cost of the anti-fraud effort nor for that matter have we been able to get a good handle on the cost-benefit of pursuing fraud in workers’ compensation."
In a letter dated May 15, 2001, the president of CAAA attempted such a cost-benefit analysis. Referring to the amounts of court-ordered restitution and penalties, he stated:
"Compare these figures with the costs of investigation and prosecution. This figure can be approximated by adding the cost of the fraud assessment ($30 million) with the cost of the Special Investigation Units (estimated by CWCI at $50,000 to $200,000 per licensed insurer). Then ask the question: Is it appropriate to spend $30 million annually plus the cost of the SIU’s to successfully prosecute 390 cases to obtain $9,012,132 in penalties and restitution? And of that, to obtain only $3,660,856 in collections? Only when these figures are appropriately analyzed can this issue be intelligently discussed. We urge the Commission to examine this data."
In another letter dated July 6, 2001, the head of the Fraud Division responded, in part, as follows:
"… Back in the early 90’s, doctors and attorneys sent their cappers out to the Employment Development Department (EDD) offices to recruit clients. These potential clients were employees applying for unemployment benefits. There was no enforcement and cappers had no real fear of reprisal. But soon, with funding from California employers and a recommendation by the Fraud Assessment Commission, resources were in place providing an aggressive anti-fraud effort. These efforts resulted in the prosecution of many attorneys and medical clinic doctors. Today some doctors and lawyers have developed different or more sophisticated fraudulent schemes to avoid detection and prey upon the system. Others have gone to other states and some are just continuing their illegal activities with other forms of insurance fraud.
*****
"An effective anti-fraud campaign in California has played and will continue to play a substantial role protecting workers, reducing costs of the WC system and (sic) to honest employers statewide. … Fraud Division is eager to investigate those cases that make the greatest economic impact in order to protect businesses and the public. Measurements of results by numbers alone overlooks the societal value of a program. … However, on the numbers side of the ledger, in fiscal year 1999-2000, the district attorneys reported $141,055,765 was charged in workers’ compensation insurance fraud in cases that went to trial. The joint anti-fraud efforts are achieving a valid economic impact as well as a deterrent effect."
Others view the current source and level of funding to be appropriate, but believe that the total monies could be used more effectively. They point to the claimed duplication of investigative efforts by the Fraud Division and district attorneys. And like CAAA, some argue that the anti-fraud program is not getting enough "bang for the buck" when evaluated by the number of convictions obtained and amounts collected in restitution.
Prosecutors respond that investigation and prosecution of high impact cases involving medical provider fraud or employer premium fraud require substantial resources and are very difficult and time consuming. Too much program emphasis on increasing the number of convictions will cause more effort to be spent harvesting only the "low hanging fruit" of claimant fraud. There also appears to be a widespread view among the Fraud Division and district attorneys that more specialized resources are needed, particularly forensic auditors and experts in computer science. In some cases, these experts need to be available on very short notice or for lengthy periods of time. Acquiring this important expertise would require increased program funding.
. . . Attorney General Marc Dann, a Democrat, said that questions remain about how politics influenced the bureau's investment practices. "While Mr. Gasper acknowledged in court what many of us have known all along, that the BWC became a veritable ATM machine that was used by Republican political appointees to reward campaign contributors, we still don't know who was pulling the strings," he said.
By JAMES DREW and STEVE EDER
BLADE STAFF WRITERS
AKRON - Terrence Gasper, who used his power as chief financial officer of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation to steer millions of dollars in investment funds to brokers and marketers in exchange for illegal gifts and favors, was sentenced yesterday to five years and four months in prison.
Moments before his sentencing, Gasper told U.S. District Judge David Dowd, Jr., that he wanted bureau employees to understand that there was a "small group of political appointees in senior management" during his tenure from 1995 to 2004 who called the shots at the agency.
"Their agenda was totally political in nature, often to the detriment of what the bureau was trying to do. It was very frustrating for those of us who were more professionally inclined," said Gasper, who didn't identify the officials.
Gasper also told Judge Dowd that he "actively opposed retaining" certain investment managers.
"I was compelled to retain them by my superiors. I did not pursue or intend to support their participation at the bureau," Gasper said. He declined to comment after his sentencing.
Inspector General Tom Charles disputed Gasper's comments about politics infecting the bureau's management under two Republican governors, saying Gasper was responsible for the decisions that the investment department made.
"With Terry Gasper, this was the person at the center of pay-to-play. As the [chief financial officer], he was the man and he's going off to prison," Mr. Charles said. Later the inspector general added: "He had the key to the vault; he had power of attorney."
Mr. Charles said James Conrad, the bureau's former CEO-administrator, gave Gasper power to make investment decisions because of the large size of the agency and because of his financial expertise.
But Attorney General Marc Dann, a Democrat, said that questions remain about how politics influenced the bureau's investment practices.
"While Mr. Gasper acknowledged in court what many of us have known all along, that the BWC became a veritable ATM machine that was used by Republican political appointees to reward campaign contributors, we still don't know who was pulling the strings," he said.
"Mr. Gasper referred to 'superiors' who compelled him to retain politically connected investment managers. But until we bring those superiors and the people who were pulling their strings to justice, we won't be able to close the book on this scandal once and for all," Mr. Dann said in a written statement.
Gasper pleaded guilty in June, 2006, to a federal racketeering charge for accepting use of an oceanfront Florida condo from brokers Michael W. Lewis and Daniel P. O'Neil, $25,000 from Republican power broker and former Toledo-area coin dealer Tom Noe, and $20,000 from marketer Clarke T. Blizzard - all of whom did multimillion-dollar business with the agency in charge of insuring injured workers.
Gasper's sentencing was delayed until yesterday as he cooperated with a federal-state task force that has netted the 16 public officials and money managers - including former Gov. Bob Taft and Noe - who have been convicted since The Blade began reporting in April, 2005, on problem investments at the bureau.
Gasper, who was hired at the bureau when George Voinovich was governor, could have received 20 years in prison on the federal charge. But in plea agreements, prosecutors recommended a prison sentence from six to seven years, citing Gasper's cooperation with investigators. Judge Dowd lowered that range and picked five years and four months.
Gasper, who joined the bureau in 1995 after leaving a high-ranking post at Borden Corp. in Columbus, testified for the prosecution at the trial of Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Lewis, who were charged with bribing Gasper in exchange for bureau investment business
A jury in November acquitted the two men after a trial in which Gasper acknowledged he had given conflicting statements to investigators and defense attorneys referred to Gasper as a liar.
Gasper will continue to cooperate from a federal prison because the investigation into the bureau's investment practices continues, assistant U.S. Attorney Benita Pearson said. Gasper, who has lived in the Columbus suburb of Worthington, would like to serve his prison term in Morgantown, W.Va., his attorneys said.
Judge Dowd ordered Gasper to pay a $60,405 fine: $15,000 for the use of the condo owned by Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Lewis purchased; $20,405 for the amount that Blizzard paid Gasper, and $25,000 for the investment that Noe gave Gasper in the name of his former girlfriend.
Gasper made key decisions regarding both the failed $50 million Noe rare-coin investment and the bureau's failed offshore hedge fund managed by Mark D. Lay of MDL Capital Management in Pittsburgh, which lost $215 million. Gasper was forced to resign in 2004 after the hedge-fund loss.
Noe is serving a 27-month sentence in federal prison for illegally laundering thousands of dollars into President Bush's re-election campaign through friends and colleagues. He also was sentenced last year to 18 years in state prison for stealing millions of dollars from the rare-coin funds he managed for the bureau.
Yesterday afternoon, Gasper was sentenced to five years in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on a felony money-laundering charge for accepting the $25,000 from Noe and six months on a misdemeanor charge of failing to disclose sources of income, gifts, travel, meals, entertainment, and gratuities on his annual ethics statements and was fined $1,000.
The prison term will run at the same time as the federal sentence, meaning Gasper won't be sent to a state prison.
Last year, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said Gasper accepted thousands of dollars in gifts, meals, sporting tickets, and other gratuities from "substantial dozens" of other BWC vendors.
Gasper both asked for and was given the gratuities on at least 150 instances, Mr. O'Brien said.
David Freel, executive director of the Ohio Ethics Commission, said Gasper's plea meant that he knowingly committed crimes while working for the bureau and that he had plenty of opportunities to report unlawful activities by others.
"He lied all the way through the process of what he did at the outset," Mr. Freel said, adding that Gasper began to tell the truth only after he was under investigation.
Stop The Frame-Up and Jailing Of CA Injured Worker
Reginald Fagan
Source labornet@labornet.org
Injured Worker: Victim of Workers Comp System Faces Jail Time
By Rae Jones
(Los Angeles, CA)
Reginald Anthony Fagan is an intelligent and outspoken man. And, this tendency to speak up apparently is what got him into trouble. At least, that's the only conclusion that can be drawn since he has done nothing wrong, except fight back.
His story is almost unbelievable, but here is the quick and easy version. A Watts native and most recent resident of San Luis Obispo, CA, Fagan was hurt on the job, filed for workers compensation, was denied workers compensation, then fired from his job, after which he lost his home. More than four years after he originally filed for and was denied workers compensation he was charged with workers compensation fraud, dragged through
the court system and found guilty. Of course, during the more than four years between the times he filed for workers comp and was denied it, Fagan
did other things. After he lost his workers comp claim to the Lucia Mar Unified School District where he served as a groundskeeper and a member of CSEA Chapter 275. His injury took place in December 1999 and when he lost
the workers comp claim he appealed it. In January 2000 his supervisor threatened him saying, "I'm going to destroy you?" He filed an a written complaint with the school district superintendent. When the District terminated him in February 2000, without the option to continue his medical benefits although he already had been diagnosed with conditions that required surgery, he fought it. And, when he lost his home, he applied for Section 8 Housing assistance and received it, only to end up renting a
property that illegally contained asbestos. When Fagan complained and the owner refused to do anything about the asbestos, he called in the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's regional office (Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity) and the Air Pollution Control District of the County of San Luis Obispo. These agencies pursued Fagan's claim until in the midst of it, the San Luis Obispo District Attorney charged him with workers
comp fraud, after which the agencies dropped their investigations.
Following the charges, Fagan went back to school where for two years he was a straight "A" student. It was at the school, in front of his classmates and peers, that he was handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail.
Currently 49 years old, Fagan was diagnosed with epilepsy and other developmental disorders at an early age. As a result of his work-related injuries he also has been diagnosed with a torn Anterior Cruciate Ligament
(ACL), severe arthritis, a tumor, nerve impingement, carpel tunnel, muscular dystrophy and an assortment of other physical disorders, all substantiated by medical doctors.
The apartment Fagan had was entered, illegally. Mail at his post office box was opened without his permission. The San Luis Obispo District Attorney has had unrestricted access to his medical records without consent. To add to Fagan's troubles, the San Luis Obispo District Attorney's office hired a private investigator to the tune of $28,000 who has followed Fagan around
illegally and video taped him in an attempt to mitigate his medical claims.
In the interim, Fagan has not received a dime. As a result, some nights Reginald Fagan sleeps in his car.
Unfortunately, he is not the only one facing this nightmare and trauma. Although statistics are not available, it has become clear that thousands of injured workers who have been denied workers compensation, end up homeless,
according to Steve Zeltzer, chair of the California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day CCWMD www.workersmemorialday.com. "A high percentage of
workers can't get compensation and are subject to retaliatory prosecution by the district attorney's offices who primarily work on behalf of the employers and the insurance companies" he added. "In Reginald's case it's
a complete frame-up. They don't like people who fight for justice and speak out? They are also cost shifting the cost of workers injuries to SSI, Disability Insurance and public hospitals. This is a billion dollars cost shifting scam fruad by the insurance companies and self insured employers" said Zeltzer
Most recently involved with this retaliatory prosecution is the case of injured worker Anita Blick, who was charged with fraudulently claiming workers compensation benefits after sustaining an injury as a police dispatcher in the City of Atherton/San Mateo County. The California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day was ecstatic when her conviction for workers comp fraud was overturned in the California Appeals Court. The court declared that the trial judge had not informed the jury that in order to be
convicted of workers compensation frand you need to have intent to commit fraud. "Not telling your doctor that you are not driving as the San Mateo DA Katherine Alberti charged is not "intention to defraud." said Zeltzer. By
the time of the court decision which revoked the conviction however, Anita Blick had already been jailed for 90 days in solitary confinement and was thousands of dollars in debt with the danger that she might lose her house and become unemployed and homeless. But while imprisoned, Blick a 54 year old grandmother who had never even received a parking ticket before being incarcerated for workers comp fraud, contemplated suicide as her family and home life fell apart.
"The systemic terrorism against injured workers continues unabated" Zeltzer asserts. "In fact, newly elected Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizer has continued to cover up the direct conflict of interest by his
Insurance Fraud Commission, which does oversight on the insurance industry and dispenses $22 million a year to district attorneys to pursue fraud cases by California District Attorneys. He has appointed William Zachary who
is chair of the California Fraud Accessment Commission and vice president for Risk Management for Safeway Inc. to a "blue ribbon" committee to "investigate" the insurance industry." In the meantime, Anita Blick faces
an uphill battle to keep her home and pay her medical bills.
As for Fagan, he faces two or more years in jail for a false charge leveled by an overzealous District Attorney's office and lack of representation by a competent public defender.
"The District Attorney's unwarranted assault on me has impacted my health and medical treatment, my disability benefits, my education and training opportunities, my quality of life and my future" Fagan declared.
"Essentially the District Attorney's office seems to be engaged in 'Prosecution for Profit' and retaliation because I have been targeted as a whistle blower."
Fagan also contends that passage of Workers Compensation "Roadmap to Reform" legislation, AB 227 and SB228, in 2003 provided further financial
incentives for the District Attorney's Office to launch prosecution campaigns of even those most remotely capable of fraud. "Even though my case was closed and beyond the statute of limitation, the District Attorney
arrested me four years later and falsely charged me with a felony" Fagan charged. Fagan also never received a penny from Workers Compensation but was prosecuted by the DA in a retaliatory prosecution.
Not taking his current circumstance lightly, Fagan continues to fight and intends to appeal the current conviction and seek housing. But, he needs
help.
To offer support or for additional information Reginald Fagan can be
reached at fishfagan7@yahoo.com or 310.748.4987.
Also a Reginald Fagan Defense Fund has been set up by the California
Coalition For Workers Memorial Day.
You can contribute to this fund by sending a check to
CCWMD/Fagan Defense
P.O. Box 720027
San Francisco, CA 94172
EDITOR'S NOTE: Reginald Fagan is available for interviews. Please feel
free to contact him directly.
RAE JONES
RAEDIANT Communications
323.294.5280 or 323.294.5258 (fax)
Let These Officials Know Where You Stand On This Case
State of California Department of Insurance
C/o Mr. Steve Poizner, Insurance Commissioner
300 S. Spring Street South Tower
Los Angeles, CA. 90013
San Luis Obispo Courts - Grand Jury
P.O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Superior Court of California
County of San Luis Obispo
1035 Palm Street Rm. 385
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
San Luis Obispo Courts
Presiding Judge: P. Pickuel
Tel: (805) 781-5473
(805) 781-5936
Attorney General Edmond Jerry Brown
Office California Department of Justice
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Tel: (916) 322-3360
Attorney General Edmond Jerry Brown
Office California Department of Justice
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Tel: (916) 322-3360
Judge MARTIN J TANGEMAN OFFICE #9
1035 Palm St Rm 385
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
(805) 781-5936
Nigel Hunt
Former South Australian Jockey Club Chief executive Steve Ploubidis lodged a WorkCover claim a short time before his sacking. It has been revealed.
The Sunday Mail has learned a WorkCover SA investigator has been interviewing SAJC staff and former board members in recent weeks as part of the claim.
Mr PLoubidis on Friday confirmed the claim, but could not recall the date it was lodged.
When asked if it was lodged just two days prior to his sacking, he replied "I can't give you that date" and referred inquiries to his lawyer, Grant Archer of Finlaysons.
Mr Ploubidis said his WorkCover claim was "not necessarily" for stress ebdured in the period leading up tois termination from the SAJC and that it pre-dates to over three years"
Mr Ploubidis was stood down as SAJC chief executive last December, when the law firm Lipmaan Karas was engaged to investigate vote stacking allegations. He was sacked on March 13 after the SAJC board accepted the findings in the Lipman Karas report.
The Lipman Karas report findings and other material gathered during that inquiry are still being investigated by police and the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs.
One of those interviewed by the WorkCover investigator as part of Mr Ploubidis claim said he had been spoken to "at length" last Friday.
" I was interviewed by the chap for some time in a solicitor's office, my solicitor's office", the man who declined to be identified said.
"He indicated the claim he was investigating was for stress Mr PLoubidis claimed he wqs suffering",
WorkCover SA acting chief executive Jeff Matthews on Friday would not comment on individual claims because of confidentiality provisions in the Act..
When asked if WorkCover SA chairman Philip Bentley - who is also chairman of Thoroughbred Racing SA- woudl be excluded from any deliberations on Mr PLoubidis claim because of his potential conflict of interest, Mr Matthews said regardless of the privacy provisions "neither the chairman or the Board is involved in the assessment or case management of an individual worker's compensation claim".
Mrf PLoubidis on Friday discontinued his Federal Court Action over his sacking against the TRSA and Mr Bentley, but he is understood to be proceeding agsint the SAJC.
The case, before Justice Mansfield is listed for a directions hearing on Wednesday.
TRSA chief Executive Jim Watters said the decision was 'good news for the industry". "Mr Ploubidis decisions to abandon his case against us vindicates the strong position the TRSA board and chairman have taken in opposing this action" Mr Watters said.
TRSA and Mr Bentley consented to the discontinuance of the case against them, and in so doing agreed to bear their own costs of their defence case to date.
this way we have ensured there is no scope for Mr Ploubidis to raise again claims of the kind which he has now withdrawn." mr watters dai.
Mr PLoubidis launched the action against SAJC, TRSA, aand its chairman Philip Bentley on March 25.
The Federal Court claim is unlikely to be settled out of court, with the incoming SAJC board alreaqdy stating it woudl not consider such a move. .
Posted by is it a retaliatory investigation at 4:33 PM, 24/5/2009
Quoting the comment from the Sunday Mail today and Jeff Matthews comment "who is also chairman of Thoroughbred Racing SA- would be excluded from any deliberations on Mr Ploubidis claim because of his potential conflict of interest, Mr Matthews said regardless of the privacy provisions "neither the chairman or the Board is involved in the assessment or case management of an individual worker's compensation claim"."
That does not exclude Mr Bentley or Board members including the Chairman applying pressure to certain employees of WorkCover to fast track and prioritise the investigation of Mr Ploubidis.
It was clearly evident that this occurred in the Thompson case after he complained to his Member of parliament about WorkCovers conduct.
Perhaps Mr Ploubidis can ask for that information to be provided to him including all records of verbal communications and also those on the white boards.
This Thompson case has a lot of the Easling case about it. Do these government appointments ever learn that they are not dealing with a stroke of a pen and the targeted will always fight to protect whats right and the answers will also come to the surface!
Has anybody looked at the repecussions of the federal bill to change retirement age from 65 to 67 years old. What I believe is that the 1800 or so injured workers who have recently taken a redemption would have done so believing retirement age is 65 in which at that age you would have been able to obtain the pension. Not so now! Could they now reinstatement payments from WorkCover from 65 to 67 years old?
The change in the retirement age would also cause heart ache for WorkCovers actuaries as they would need to add an extra two years to the unfunded liabilty. This would make it so much worse as redemptions would soon be stopped. I am sure the question will be asked in parliament if the age is increased.
The rumor of the unfunded liabilty for WorkCover is heading to $2BILLION, the number of people who have taken redemptions in the last 6 months is higher than in the previous 6 months, so there are less injured workers but the unfunded libailtiy continues to grow, that is inspite of all the promises this Governemtn have given. The door is still solidly locked on the WorkCover Boardroom, even though it is a Public Corporation we are not allowed to know just what goes on in there. Then there there is the fact that WorkCover Corporation is half the size it was in 2002, but now has a CEO and a Deputy CEO, The State Auditor General still has not gone into do a full and open audit of the process of WorkCover or to report to the people via the Parliament as to what is going wrong, even though as of 1st July 2008 the process was put in place for the State Auditor General to do so. So the question has to be why is it that the States top Accountant can not look at WorkCover, what is it that these people do not want any one to see. Rann promises better outcomes, but delivers only more broken bodies. We all know that the union sanction against Rann was as big a farce as Rann is himself about caring for the injured and deceased workers of South Australia. Vote 0 for Rann.
Posted by: 0Vote for Rann of 7:53pm today
Comment 64 of 64
The comment about WorkCover is an interesting observation as Rann took away workers right for the sake of saving his triple A rating. So the perfect global crisis storm has it and it can now be revealed WorkCovers investments is the reason the unfunded liability is sky rocketing and not injured workers. Business owners have been duped as their levies were used for the investment fund instead of supporting the scheme.
Posted by: injured worker of scrap heap 8:56pm today
Issues such as Water, WorkCover, Ashbourne, Easling cases will decide on the next election and not promises!
Posted by: wayne mattner of plympton 9:26pm May 26, 2009
After 6 years on work cover and coming in with a whole body impairment of 47% I was paid $230,000. Out of that the Solicitors,Barristors and the like fees came to just over $67,000. leaving me with approx. $163,000. My injuries have not miraculously dissappeared. I have had two major ops and one relatively minor, with at least two more major ops to go and more minors.My mental health suffered greatly, to the brink of suicide.With the assistance of experts I am slowly putting mental health back together, with no thanks to Work Cover who definitely put me there in the first place.I am also getting some help with re-training for some suitable work, as it's well known that working is a valuable part in assisting with any kind of recovery. So please don't sit there and say...Having worked in the field...all of a sudden people go out and find themselves a job! You know nothing.
It's a long slow road, and the torture that work cover put people through is both inhumane and uneccesary.
If you are an injured worker it will not take long to work out that
1) Compensation is missing
2) Rehabilitation is missing
3) Duty of care is missing
4) A return to work program is missing or ineffective.
Gas anyone reported their case manager missing in action yet?
Federal Public Judicial Inquiry into Wrongdoing by Workers Compensation Boards Across Canada
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19942/sign.html
Although this petition is for Canada, we are all in the same boat as far as being wronged.
If you care about this, please sign the petition.
Thank you.
PDM
Posted by PeopleDoMatter at 12:38 PM 0 comments
State MPs have awarded themselves generous benefits to isolate themselves from the financial effects of workplace injuries, while voting to cut the benefits of other South Australians. Parliament mid-last year approved sweeping changes to the WorkCover legislation, which covers most working South Australians seriously hurt or crippled long-term at work.
Under the new laws, injured employees have to apply for their claim to be accepted. If it’s rejected, they must go through a dispute process before a special tribunal.
For about three months they’re guaranteed their average weekly salary, but after that their payments are reduced by 10 per cent and later by a further 10 per cent.
“The WorkCover scheme appears not to apply to members of parliament because we do not fit within the definition of employees or workers under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act,” Greens MP Mark Parnell told The Independent Weekly.
“Instead, MPs are provided for under the Personal Accident Compensation Scheme policy and, in some instances, of permanent incapacity or invalidity under the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 1974.”
Mr Parnell raised the abnormality while WorkCover cuts were debated in Parliament.
“The MPs’ scheme provides for payments for the injury or death of a family member where the Government is satisfied that the person was injured or killed as a result of his or her relationship with a member in his or her official capacity,” Mr Parnell said.
“What a remarkable provision that is. On those rare occasions when a member of my family might need to accompany me to an official work-related event, if something happens to them, they are covered as well. I wonder whether any other workers in South Australia with a spouse or children would have that benefit as well.”
The answer to that is no.
Family members are not covered under WorkCover.
The Personal Accident Compensation Scheme policy states that the Government carries its own risk in relation to MPs’ cover and will make lump-sum payments and pay medical and other expenses to members injured “out of any circumstance” anywhere in the world. “The MPs’ Personal Accident Compensation Scheme appears to be the result of a policy decision rather than being legislated,” Mr Parnell said.
Another MP, the Independent Member for Mitchell Kris Hanna, said it appeared from his reading of the rules that an MP could take a virtually unlimited number of sick days.
This compares with most industrial awards, which limit the time most employees can get to 10 days. An MP needs Parliament’s approval but once granted, the MP could take months off at full pay by claiming illness, and just as long for a workplace injury – also at full pay the entire time.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles yesterday criticised the difference between the way MPs treat each other, compared with legislation they pass affecting their constituents.
“Workers in SA still injured after 130 weeks compulsorily go before a medical panel with no representation rights and no appeal,” Ms Giles said.
“If they are found to have any capacity for any work at all, then their payments are completely stopped. Lump sum payments for loss of limb or body function will only be paid if the injury is greater than 5 per cent of the whole of their body, so someone who loses a finger or is badly scarred will receive no payment at all.
“And while most South Australians aren’t covered going to work and back, that seems not to be the case for MPs.”
Mr Parnell said parliamentarians ought to also examine their other benefits, including superannuation.
“Complaints of double standards will be difficult to bat off if we are not going to apply to ourselves exactly the same standards that apply to other workers,” he said.
The WorkCover Bill passed Parliament with cross-bench dissenters.
What they can get away with
MPs don’t play by the same rules as most South Australians. Technically they could turn up to Parliament for five minutes once a month and not be in breach of any rules.
They would be paid at their full rate, well over $100,000 a year with a fully-paid, fuelled and insured car and generous allowances.
Under the rules they need parliamentary approval to be away for 10 consecutive sitting days, but Parliament normally sits just three days a week, and even then only every second week with two full months without any sitting at all.
Between November this year and the start of February next year, it will sit for just six days.
Different rules for those in power to the peasants
Its obvious there are different rules for those in power and they care not about the injured workers, the sick and the poor.
I also wonder whether some of them have little man syndrome and thats why they are so hell bent on targeting people who ride moor bikes..
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:22): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the projected impact on WorkCover and the state government's WorkCover compensation scheme as a result of the Rudd government's increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 years of age?
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (15:22): I do not have those figures in front of me. It is one of the issues that I am investigating and, when I have investigated it, I will bring the answer back to the member in the house.
For those who can do the math its easy..
Cut all injured workers off after two years and that should counterbalance the minor cost of the injured workers who stay on the system from the age of 65 to 67..oh and for those who are injured when they are 65, 66 or 67..
This legislative change will also ensure bigger and better offices for workcover and claims agents, more employees, more funding for litgation, more advertising about Harry..
I think you are a few sandwiches short of a picnick -do the math..
How can cutting all injured workers off after 2 years be the same as having injured workers being able to claim for another two years?
Thats a typical rort of this government.
Both Liberal and Labor make out they look after injured workers when they all want to have their hands in the money pot when its their turn in power.
Close down workcover and inject the money back into the courts.?
Let the courts deal with injured workers under common law and sack all the workcover employees..oh and the claims managers..
Oh and they could then shut down de poi and all the other rehab companies.
WOuld be plenty of money for upgrading the court buildings then
Has anyone been with them? Horrible horrible rehab consultants. So impersonal. All the money seems to be spent on the flashy office and NOT qualified rehab!!!!!!!
Qld companies, director charged over worker deaths
Article from: AAP
June 05, 2009 08:31am
CHARGES have been laid against three companies and an executive officer following an investigation into the deaths of two Gold Coast workers last year.
The workers were fatally injured on 21 June 2008 when the swing stage scaffold they were using to carry out concrete patchwork on the Pegasus high-rise, then under construction at Broadbeach, failed and they fell 26 levels to the ground.
The charges allege various breaches of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 for failing to ensure the health and safety of the workers.
Allscaff Systems, which erected the swing stage, is charged with failing to ensure the plant was erected in a way that ensured it was safe when used properly.
Ralph Michael Smith, director of Allscaff Systems, is charged with failing to ensure the company complied with its obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act.
Karimbla Construction Services, which built the high-rise, is charged with breaching obligations as a person in control of a workplace and as project manager.
Pryme Constructions, which undertook the concrete patching, is charged with breaching its obligations to ensure workplace health and safety.
In a statement, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland said it had advised the deceased workers families that the investigation into the incident is complete and charges have been laid.
The complaints are scheduled for mention in the Southport Industrial Magistrates Court on June 26.
Comment 68(Where does the WorkCover Billion dollar plus unfunded liability get a mention?) It doesn't get a mention because it doesn't actually exist! It's just a worse case senerio, if Workcover weren't getting investment returns! Mike wants people to believe it's a real debt so he can screw over injured workers and employers alike. Note in just 2years EML has more than doubled that "debt" to $1.3Billion, and Mike says the Board are doing a good job. So much so, that not only do board members get paid around $90,000pa but also a $6000 bonus each time they actually meet. Why don't you tell the public the truth about that one Mike and Kev? And also about Sandra Depoi's conflict of interest! Your all a bunch of crooks and this budget just confirms that!
Posted by: Vaugn Harvey of Seven News, Canberra 11:35pm June 04, 2009
Comment 107 of 132
Vaughan Harvey of comment 107 claim that the WorkCover liability fictional is an interesting one. Why is it I am being charged as an employer a levy based on the unfunded liability when there doesnt seem to be such a liability. Not only De Poi should be questioned but Peter Vaughan who is supposed to represent employers who sits on the WorkCover board. It was well documented that injured workers were to blame for the unfunded liability but now it has come to surface that its the investments that are the true cause.
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 11:40am today
Unfortunately the new leglistation does not allow good rehab providers to provide WorkCover. All the good ones are doing social service and veteran affairs now.
The only good rehab consultant I can think of who STILL does quality rehab for workcover is cheryl milburn - she's a former workcover employee from years ago who branched out and opened her own company. The other couple of good rehab providers have blacklisted workcover/eml and refuse to do their work and have moved onto better things - mainly because they recieved NO SUPPORT from unions who are supposed to fight for workers and were cut off from doing their jobs - rehabilitation - by employers mutual working on instructions from corrupt board members peter vaughan and sandra de poi.
Has anyone heard that a national workers comp scheme is being put in place? I hope alot of the rehab providers are put out of business. They are TRAITORS to their profession.
Administration Officer
De Poi Consulting provides exemplary injury management and employment services to our clients. Our aim is to empower our clients to achieve their results and return to work in a timely manner.
Due to the growth of the business, we are seeking an experienced Administration Officer with a financial background to work as part of the Administration Team. You will be required to provide exemplary services to the Rehabilitation Consultants, Physical Assessment Unit and Psychology Unit. The hours are 9.00 am - 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday.
To be successful in this role, you should have previous experience in a financial administration role, be corporately presented, have a high level of customer service, excellent phone manner and the ability to relate to a variety of demographics. You will need to be proactive in nature and have the ability to adapt to a changing environment.
Duties and Responsibilities
- Invoicing for Consultants, OT's/ Physio's and
Psychologists
- Data entry
- Accounts receivable
- Management of bad debts
- Visa reconciliation
- Reconciliation of visa statements
- Processing, data entry/recording, monitoring
and updating of system and reports in
relation to referrals and plans
- Auditing of files as per company policies and
procedures
- Provision of company reports as
stipulated or requested
- Provide support to reception and switchboard
- To be positive and proactive with
management of workload
Education, Qualifications, Skills & Experience
- Typing speed of 50 wpm
- Data entry skills
- Intermediate to advance skills in Word,
Excel, Intermediate level Microsoft Access
Outlook, PowerPoint, etc
- Advance level of MYOB
- Familiar with Medical Billing Systems
- Excellent time management and
organisational skills
- Proven previous experience (at least 5
years) working in the rehabilitation,
healthcare or corporate related
industry
The successful applicant will be required to be an Australian Citizen or Australian Permanent Resident.
Applications close Friday, 12th June, 2009.
Marie Searle
General Manager
De Poi Consulting
Suite D, 83 Fullarton Road
KENT TOWN SA 5067
How ironic a company who could state injured workers has the capabilities of obtaining gainful employment with no rehabilitation, training or expertise can stipulate a stringent job qualification for its own purpose.
BY HOW, CUTTING OFF THEIR ENTITLEMENTS????? SOMETHING DE POI IS WELL KNOWN FOR.
"to achieve their result"
THAT'S RIGHT, AFTER ALL DE POI'S ONLY "RESULT" IS TO SEND OUT INVOICES TO EML AND MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF CASH WHILE INJURED WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE LIVING TO THE SKINS OF THEIR BONES.
I was sent to de poi for a s38 review. How can a company managed by a workcover board member have anything to do with section 38 reviews of injured workers. What a conflict of interest.
Workcover itself is nothing but a sham
‘Unpaid’ work for your mother is
still fraud
An injured worker has been found guilty of defrauding
WorkCover Queensland because he failed to disclose
working for his mother whilst receiving weekly benefits.
Magistrate Graham Lee found the defendant guilty of
defrauding WorkCover Queensland by failing to disclose a
‘return to calling’. The defendant was also found guilty of one count of a false and misleading representation to a WorkCover Queensland officer, after the three-day trial. On sentencing the magistrate commented on the community’s expectations, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for deterrence. The defendant was sentenced to 18 months probation, and ordered
to pay a $2000 fine as well as costs of the trial and investigation totalling $26 308.19.
On 20 June 2005, the defendant applied for compensation
for a laceration injury to his left hand. The application was
accepted and benefits paid. However, over the period February to September 2006, the defendant returned to work as a courier driver for his mother. He did not disclose this information to WorkCover Queensland and continued to receive weekly benefits.
During the trial, the defendant’s mother stated she was helping to rehabilitate her son by ‘getting him out of the house’. She said that she ran the courier business and made deliveries, but would allow him to use a personal car to deliver parcels, with fuel paid for with his own money, and he used his personal mobile phone. However,
the magistrate rejected the mother’s evidence as unreliable.
Whilst it was not possible to prove if the defendant received
payment from his mother, the court accepted that the definition of returning to work (‘calling’) included unpaid work, even for your mother. The court found the activity was one that would ordinarily give rise to remuneration and connoted full-time work (or at least up to 50% of the time).
WorkCover Queensland stated that, in this case, the offence of fraud was not in working but in failing to fully disclose the work. The magistrate found that WorkCover Queensland was prejudiced because the claim could not be managed effectively whilst the claimant was working for his mother.
Posted by guilty if you try and rehabilitate yourself at 8:38 PM, 8/6/2009
My rehabilitation consultant is trying to arange me to do some work hardning in a few weeks. Does this mean that if I do work hardning that I can be charged with fraud?
I do not trust my rehab consultant because she is allways on the phone to my case manager.
Can anyone help.
They can only make you do a Work Hardening if it fits into your medical restrictions. Check with your Doctor and ensure that the Work Hardening paperwork matches the restrictions on your medical certificate. Also ASK your rehab consultant for a COPY of the Work Hardening paperwork (it's a WorkCover proforma called "Work Training Placement"). You are entitled to a copy of it - signed by all parties, and you DO NOT have to start your Work Hardening until the paperwork is signed by all parties - your Doctor is also supposed to look over it and sign.
May need another correction due to Rudds new retirement age
CORRECTION: RETIREMENT AGE
The following statement was made to the Jeff Burzacott Program on 5AA radio on Thursday, 7 May 2009.
Dear Jeff
On Monday night's program caller Karen raised an issue about Workers Compensation entitlement and retirement age.
To clarify, under the previous legislation the retirement age was defined as 65 or the industry standard, whichever was the lesser.
If you were injured within six months of retirement age, as defined above, or after retirement age you could receive weekly payments for up to six months of incapacity but not for a period of incapacity after the age of 70.
In other words, if you were injured between the age of 64.5 and 69.5 you could receive weekly payments for up to six months of incapacity.
Recognising that this was of considerable disadvantage for older workers remaining in the workforce, the new legislation which came into effect on 1 July 2008 contains new provisions relating to retirement.
Under the new legislation the definition of retirement age is still the same (as outlined above), but if you are within two years of retirement age, or past retirement age, then you are now entitled to two years of weekly payments. Further, there is no longer a “cut off” of weekly payments at 70 years of age.
It would be appreciated if you could clarify this with your listeners
Another correction. You would just with the case managers wouldnt stuff up
CORRECTION: PRESCRPTION MEDICATION
The following statement was made to the Bob Francis Program on 5AA radio on Tuesday, 24 March 2009.
Dear Bob
During last Monday’s segment you discussed a call from Paul about his partner being told that a prescription would be more expensive because it was through WorkCover.
I would like to clarify that there is no need to declare that a prescription is for a workers compensation injury as it does not make a difference in terms of cost to the person.
A worker on the workers rehabilitation and compensation scheme may be reimbursed by WorkCover's claims agent, Employers Mutual, for prescriptions that have been prescribed by a medical expert in relation to the treatment of a workplace injury.
It would be appreciated if you could clarify this with your listeners. If your listeners have any further questions, or any queries about WorkCover in general I encourage them to contact us direct on 13 18 55.
Funny, there's no mention of how it takes AGES for EML/WorkCover to do reimbursements or how they have problems paying bills. I know of doctor's surgeries waiting over 6 months to be paid by EML/WorkCover, some even longer.
In response to this article http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,25613197-5006301,00.html I posted a comment early this morning and mentioned WorkCover. Not surprisingly it WASNT published. So I have posted another one this morning at 10:05am. No doubt this one wont be published either:
"I notice my comment re WorkCover is missing that I posted at 1am this morning. FUNNY that AdelaideNow. What are you trying to hide? Who are you trying to protect? Your good friend Peter Vaughan whose business reps pay for a great deal of advertising in your paper? SHAME ON YOU."
Posted by labor isnt the only thing that's corrupt at 10:53 AM, 10/6/2009
I know this is not relelvant to what you are discussing but can any one tell me about the RISE Scheme I am desperate to get back to work although I have been told that no-one on work cover wants to return to work on more than one occasion.
It is easy to get back to work. The biggest problem injured workers face when attempting to go back to work is being on workcover.
When you attempt work it will be used in s38 reviews and they may even allege you have been dishonest because you claim you are injured and yet are doing work (albeit not as many hours or in any way the same as your previous job).
So if you want toget back to work choose your pathway.
Tafe offer lots of courses and certificates but do not look for something that will just fill in time. Look at something long term ie carpentry, hospitality or something that will actually offer you a job.
Once you find something you want to do advise your rehab consultant and stick to your guns and ask the bastards to pay for your training and to continue your income until you complete the course or get a redemption.
Do not take the bullshit answer that the course is too long or costs too much as if you do not push you will miss doing an 18 month course and find yourself on workcover 5 years later.
Do not forget its not in workcovers interests for you to go back to work. They rely on you for a job..
It will be noted that this person was on a labor hire contract, got a payout without all of the bullshit of being on work-cover.
Same scenario as what any inured worker may find themselves in.
One must wonder why they would want to be in an employee/worker relationship when they can get caught in the tangled mess they call work-cover.
HERD v CHEVALIER PTY LTD [2009] SADC 63 (9 June 2009)
Article from: The Advertiser
GREG KELTON
June 17, 2009 12:01am
BETTER control of state finances, including managing public service numbers, as well as more money for harvesting stormwater have been promised by Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith.
In his formal reply to the June 4 State Budget, Mr Hamilton-Smith accused the Government of trying to "borrow and promise" its way into a third term.
As a result, he said, the state's debt was reaching huge proportions and was more than double the $3.1 billion figure Treasurer Kevin Foley was claiming.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said when all debt from Government enterprises such as SA Water and WorkCover were taken into account, the total was closer to $20 billion.
On the public sector, he said figures showed that over the past eight years Labor had hired more than 16,400 public servants, only 4400 of whom were nurses, teachers, doctors and police officers.
`That's 12,000 people extra and Mr Foley is looking to get rid of 1600," Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
He said Labor would be judged on its failure to deliver, not its late-term promises.
"After eight years of inaction, Labor still believes it can promise its way into the third term rather than be judged on its previous failure to deliver," he said.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said the Rudd Government had prevented the State Government from having a revenue problem.
"You have rushed off to your federal colleagues and asked to be bailed out," he said. "It's a sorry state of affairs."
Mr Hamilton-Smith said a Liberal government would have kept better control of the state's finances including restricting growth in the public sector.
He said it would have directed more funding to the neglected area of stormwater harvesting and would have spent $400 million to harvest about 90 gigalitres of water a year.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said Labor had ignored tax reform, policies to overhaul land use and availability and where SA would get its future power generation from.
He said Labor had never delivered any major infrastructure projects and many other projects – such as expanding Mt Bold reservoir, an Upper Spencer Gulf desalination plant, and tram lines to West Lakes, Semaphore and Port Adelaide – promised in earlier Budgets had been cancelled.
Unfortunately the Rise scheme no longer exists. The rehabilitation company that was looking after "my file" reckon they took over rise. History now shows how successfull that was. The same rehabilitation company attempted me to do a WEA course in an industry I had no chance of obtaining my pre injury remuneration. In relation to the abover comment, they rely on us for their own employment. There has been over two thousand redemptions paid in over a year and I hear there are still ongoing negotiations.
- This unit no longer exists, but parts of the scheme are still there and can be used to help get ijured workers, I don't have the details in front of me but potential employers should be informed of these points when rehab consultants are looking for jobs for workers - unfortunately EML & WorkCover no longer believe in finding injured workers jobs (i mean lets face it, have they ever?), it's now about getting injured workers off the system or simply putting workers through SHIT and turmoil.
Redemptions
- Alot of them are happening at the moment due to the end of the financial year. If you want a redemption now is the best time to ask for me, if you dont and get offered one, dont take it - as WorkCover are trying to get injured workers to take EXTREMELY low redemption pay outs, which in the end will leave you worse off.
I also heard from an independant MP there are record number of redemptions being paid out at the moment. He told me most of the redemptions were pretty low. I think any "genuine" injured worker should not take a redemption until these new laws are tested. I would suggest if the figure of nearly 2000 redemptions have already been paid would help WorkCover as the time for redemptions for long term injured workers cuts off in June 2010. What we need to know is how many work capacity reviews have been completed and whether they were successfull in removing workers off the system.
$90 mil for injured workers across the boarder a fair and just super and more justice,$$$ for spinal injurys and since we adopted that unjust system are we still going to blindly listen to insurance companies who are only interested in the bottem line.NSW have also seen the light and made humane correction to that system. If any opposition to comrad Rann has the balls to start asking about this in Question time and not stuff it up maybe it could be the thin edge that will unsettle this anti worker mob and tip them out .
The above item appeared on teli tex between 12 noon and 1pm 17 /6 but disapeared at 1ock I searched the Vic papers but not a mention may be it was planted ?
The issue of WorkCover: we have been up hill and down dale on that. The reforms that this government brought in, initially opposed by the member for Morphett—
Dr McFetridge interjecting:
The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Excuse me, can I answer the question please? The WorkCover Corporation, with reform legislation, is on track to improve its performance substantially and, in fact, if we look at the operation, I think I am right, minister, in saying that in the last trading period (the last quarter) WorkCover produced a very good profit result in terms of its operating position. Its unfunded liability is still large—
Mr Griffiths interjecting:
The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: And that is why we changed the law—which you initially opposed—to bring the levy down.
Members interjecting:
The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We have had a global financial crisis and we have seen the investment—
That the regulations under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 concerning Claims and Registration—Discontinuance Fee, made on 26 March 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 7 April 2009, be disallowed.
As members will know, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, as extensively amended last year, provides a scheme for the compensation and rehabilitation of workers who are injured or incapacitated at work. It is a good scheme. Unfortunately, it has not been managed well in South Australia in recent years. In fact, it has been so badly managed under this government and this minister that last year the unfunded liability of the scheme was headed towards $1 billion, and the act had to be changed in order to get the government off the hook and save the minister's neck. Latest reports suggest, unfortunately, that once again the unfunded liability of the WorkCover Corporation is headed towards $1 billion.
As a result of last year's debacle the act was amended, and a number of new provisions were inserted which deal with many aspects of the scheme. These particular regulations deal with only one particular aspect of the scheme, but it is an important one nonetheless. A new section 76AA was inserted, headed 'Discontinuance fee', and this provides that an employer who ceases to be registered under the act and who seeks to be self-insured is liable to pay the corporation a fee calculated in accordance with the regulations. This particular regulation has been made pursuant to that section.
It has always been necessary that a payment be made by an employer who leaves the scheme and becomes a self-insured employer—and I will come to that in a moment. However, many members of the public who are not involved with WorkCover, or who do not have any claim or familiarity with the system, would not be aware that many companies in South Australia administer the workers rehabilitation and compensation system on behalf of their particular employees. So the WorkCover scheme in South Australia, contrary to what some people might think, is not a monolithic system; it is not one under which the WorkCover Corporation is the sole operator.
In fact, in South Australia there are some 70 major businesses—and probably more than that—that self-insure under this scheme, and I believe all are members of an organisation called Self Insurers of South Australia. Major companies such as BHP Billiton, Advertiser Newspapers Ltd, Clipsal, Coca-Cola, Coles Myer, Woolworths, the major wine companies, Flinders Ports, General Motors-Holden, OneSteel, Origin Energy, etc., are all self-insurers.
The performance of self-insurers, on all the benchmarks relating to workers compensation and rehabilitation—in particular, return to work rates—is better than that involving the scheme administered by the WorkCover Corporation. Not surprisingly, that is because a company which is itself running a scheme will have a greater incentive to ensure prompt return to work and prompt settlement of claims, it will have a better knowledge of its workers' capacity, and it will have greater flexibility in finding alternative work (perhaps light duties, etc.). Generally, the best part of our system has been operated in the self-insurance area, and it represents a significant part of the entire scheme. Contrary to the belief of some, the self-insurers are not a growing section of employers. If one looks at the figures relating to the proportion of remuneration between the scheme participants and the self-insured participants, one sees that, for example, in 1995-96, when significant amendments were made by the previous Liberal government, some 38.9 per cent of remuneration was earnt by self-insurers. It is a significant proportion, of course.
That proportion has been reduced slightly over the years. The latest figures I have (2006‑07) has it running at some 46.62 per cent. In 2005-06, it was 36.7 per cent, and the year before, 36.35 per cent. In real terms, the proportion of self-insurance has decreased, albeit somewhat slowly, primarily because the scheme itself has grown faster than the proportion of self-insurance. However, there are still companies and organisations which would be eligible to be self-insured, which would want to be self-insured and which have taken steps to get themselves ready, including implementing all the training and other organisational changes that have to be made, but the government has introduced a regulation which would make it very difficult, indeed, for those companies to become self-insurers because the fee that is being proposed in the regulations (which we seek to disallow) are extortionate.
Perhaps I can give some examples. The proposed discontinuance fee, for example, for a petrol wholesaler with some 500 employees, currently paying a levy of $570,000 a year, under this regulation would have to pay a discontinuance fee of some $1.08 million. I take another example. A furniture retailer with some 250 employees, currently paying a levy of some $456,000, would have to pay a discontinuance fee of $852,000. To become a self-insured employer, an employer in the air conditioning installing industry with, say, 1,000 employees, currently paying a levy of $2.7 million a year, would have to pay $5.1 million by way of discontinuance.
What we see here pretty transparently is an attempt by the government—and perhaps also by the WorkCover board—to prevent companies wanting to be self-insurers joining the other band of self-insurers by having to pay some penal and extortionate amount. I have had more recent information concerning that. A very well-known private hospital in South Australia, which has invested significant sums in preparing for self-insurance, has suddenly been hit with a $1.5 million discontinuance fee, which a private hospital organisation simply cannot afford to pay. A very well-known national transport group faces a fee of some $7 million in order to depart the WorkCover scheme. I believe that they wish to join the commonwealth Comcare scheme. Once again, that illustrates the magnitude of the issue we face.
It is my contention that it is all because of the hostility of WorkCover and this government to private employers and for no good purpose, other than extortion—in other words, keeping them in the scheme. Contrary to the claims made by anybody who says that the departing employers are being asked to contribute to the unfunded liability of the scheme, even these extortionate fees will make virtually no difference to the unfunded liability.
I have seen figures, calculated by Self Insurers of South Australia, which show that, even if they were to collect discontinuance fees at the rate of, say, $2 million to $3 million a year, and the unfunded liability stayed more or less where it is, the net benefit to the scheme would be negligible—something like .3 per cent of the unfunded liability.
In other words, the impact of discontinuance fees on the scheme as a whole is negligible, but the impost on individual employers is likely to be very significant and adversely affect how employers view their business and job prospects in South Australia. Why would you make further investments in South Australia? Why would you expand your business in South Australia if you knew that you were operating in an environment in which this type of practice persisted? So, from a cost-benefit perspective, this is a counterproductive measure.
It is said that employers continuing to subscribe to WorkCover are actually cross-subsidising the self-insurers. However, the fact is that there are already cross-subsidies within the existing levy pool; indeed, they are almost inevitable in any insurance pool, but the extent of cross-subsidy because of discontinuance fees is very small indeed.
We hear the Prime Minister intoning that it is all about jobs, and we hear exactly the same thing from ministers in this government, yet here is a measure that will directly affect employment and employment prospects in South Australia. It is not as though, as has been suggested by some, that there is a flood of companies either eligible or wanting to become self-insurers, but it is certainly true that there is a number who wish to do so and who ought to be able to do so.
An adjustment is already made, in addition to the discontinuance fee, when an employer becomes self-insured. I think it is loosely termed 'the 72 per cent arrangement', under which an adjustment is made calculated by reference to the levies the company has paid and the claim costs that are incurred over the past seven years.
So, if an employer departing the scheme has paid levies that exceed the claim costs, it will be entitled to 72 per cent of the difference. Of course, that amount is deducted from the discontinuance fee; notwithstanding that, these discontinuance fees are extremely counterproductive.
I will not go into the evidence, but it is abundantly clear, when one looks over the history and the reports of WorkCover and the statements of its recent ministers, that this bias against self-insurers exists, but the board and the government have been rather circumspect in admitting their true motives in relation to this aspect.
It has been pointed out that, at the rate of these discontinuance fees being charged and given the unfunded liability of the scheme and its likely unfunded liability into the future, it would take 200 years to recover the unfunded liability from these payments and, clearly, that is not the purpose. The fact is that WorkCover has not produced hard evidence to show that these fees are justifiable. They are not supported by actuarial evidence, and it has not been demonstrated that they measurably improve the funding position of the WorkCover scheme generally. As I have pointed out, the improvements are marginal at best. These regulations are also inconsistent with the much vaunted State Strategic Plan, by which the government says it will take action on compliance costs imposed on business in this state, because this measure will indeed discourage business growth and investment in South Australia.
There is other material I want to lay before the council on this matter. I will be seeking to conclude my remarks later, but I thought I would conclude at this point with a very pertinent observation made by Mr Robin Shaw, the manager of Self Insurers of South Australia Incorporated, which was published in the publication Workers Compensation Report on 7 April this year. In that respected publication, Mr Shaw is quoted as saying:
WorkCover ... loses in the long term. The funds it gains in the short term are a very small drop in a very big ocean of funding shortfall. There is no notable funding improvement for the scheme. But the loss of levies and the generation of long - term claims from the companies abandoned into failure because of its discontinuance fee system...make it a certainty in my mind that discontinuance fees represent a long-term loss to the scheme.'
The publication continues:
This represents an alarming lack of strategic vision by WorkCover, [Mr] Shaw said.
The publication goes on:
It's a classic case of penny wise, pound foolish. It also means that the reputation of a State Government that repeatedly talks of its policy of making the State of South Australia more business friendly is being unravelled by a regulator that apparently has had a complete failure of vision. It is clear that the Corporation is making such decisions in an entirely self interested way and cares nothing for the impact on the employees and employers that it notionally exists to se r ve, and on the economy of the State it is supposed to be part of.
I think it is important, in concluding this aspect of my remarks, to say that it is not only employers who suffer because of these discontinuance fees: ultimately, it will be injured workers and workers generally who will suffer because of the fact that injured workers employed by self-insured companies, or those who wish to become self-insured, will not have the benefit of their better claims management record and their better return to work rates and, more importantly, the wider workforce will have fewer opportunities because companies simply will not invest in a state where an oppressive regime of this kind exists. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.
Work Capacity Reviews After 130 Weeks of Entitlements
Published: 2 June 2009
From 1 April 2009, a person who has had an incapacity for work due to a compensable disability and an entitlement to income maintenance for an aggregate period of 130 weeks no longer has an entitlement to income maintenance if they have “a current work capacity”. (This is the effect of the new Section 35B of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.)
Does that mean that every injured worker who is only partially incapacitated for work and has received income maintenance for 130 weeks or more will have their income maintenance stopped? The answer to that is, No.
The first reason for this is that the worker’s income maintenance may only be stopped if the worker has “a current work capacity” and this has a special meaning under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 so that a partial incapacity for work does not always mean that there is also a current work capacity.
The Act defines “current work capacity” as “a present inability arising from a compensable disability such that the worker is not able to return to his or her employment at the time of the occurrence of the disability but is able to return to work in suitable employment”.
The concept involves being unfit for pre-injury employment but fit for other employment that is “suitable”. Again, “suitable employment” has a special meaning and is defined as “employment in work for which the worker is currently suited, whether or not the work is available, having regard to the following:
(a) the nature of the worker’s incapacity and previous employment;
(b) the worker’s age, education, skills and work experience;
(c) the worker’s place of residence;
(d) medical information relating to the worker that is reasonably available, including any medical certificate or report;
(e) if any rehabilitation programs are being provided to or for the worker;
(f) the worker’s rehabilitation and return to work plan, if any”.
So for a person to have a current work capacity they must not only have a fitness for work but also have fitness for employment in work for which they are suited. Even though the work they could do does not have to be available, it does have to be an actual job that exists.
In order for a compensating authority to show that an injured worker has a current work capacity, it will need to show that the worker not only has some capacity to work but that there is an actual job that is suitable for the worker to do (taking into account the factors in paragraphs (a) to (f) listed above).
If you are an injured worker who has no job and no identified capacity to work in any suitable employment, you will continue to have an entitlement to your income maintenance, even if, theoretically, you have some capacity for work.
The second reason that not all injured workers with only a partial incapacity will have their income maintenance stopped after 130 weeks of entitlements, is that even if they have a current work capacity, they can apply to the compensating authority to have their income maintenance continue on the basis that they are incapable of undertaking additional employment which would increase their current weekly earnings. In other words, if an injured worker has a current work capacity and is working to the full extent of their capacity, then their income maintenance (which in this situation may be called “make up pay”) will continue. (See Section 35C of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.)
Therefore, if you are an injured worker and there is employment in work that you can do, it is essential that you work to the full extent to which you are able (as certified by a medical practitioner) so that your make up pay is not affected.
Under Section 58B of the Act, your pre-injury employer is obliged to provide you with suitable duties that are as near as possible or equivalent to your pre-injury employment. If you have more capacity to work than what your employer is providing, you must insist on being provided the additional work up to your maximum capacity. If the employer still fails to provide you with the extra work, you can complain to the WorkCoverSA Return to Work Inspectorate (Phone 13 18 55) or to this Office.
Workers' Right of Access to Claims File
Published: 5 May 2009
A person who has had a worker’s compensation claim in the past or has a current claim is entitled to obtain a copy of all documents relevant to their claim from the compensating authority (either WorkCoverSA or the self-insured employer, depending on who managed the claim).
Section 107B of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 obliges the compensating authority to provide copies of the relevant documents within 45 days after the request is made. WorkCoverSA has an application form that can be completed and lodged (it can be printed off from the WorkCoverSA website: www.workcover.com). Many self-insured employers also have a form. However, if one is not available, a letter requesting a copy of the claims file should be sufficient. There is no fee payable for the provision of documents under this section of the Act.
If the compensating authority is unclear about what documents are being sought, they will contact the person applying to discuss it.
The compensating authority is not obliged to provide copies of materials if the material is relevant to the investigation of suspected dishonesty in relation to the claim or the material is protected by legal professional privilege. Therefore, it is probable that they will not provide copies of surveillance reports or film or their correspondence with lawyers.
What can you do if you have applied for a copy of your claims file and the compensating authority has either not responded to your request within the 45 day time limit or has provided copies of only some of the documents you think they have?
In the first instance, you should contact your claims manager to try to sort out the problem. If that does not achieve the desired result, you can contact the WorkCover Ombudsman’s Office. The WorkCover Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate complaints about breaches of section 107B of the Act. If a complaint is lodged, the WorkCover Ombudsman has power to obtain documents or require a person who has relevant information to answer questions under oath. If necessary, he can inspect the file to determine whether all relevant documents have been provided in accordance with the section.
Please feel free to contact the Office if you have any questions about the process for accessing documents on a workers compensation claims file.
BUSINESS SA chief executive Peter Vaughan will continue in his role until July 2012 after his contract was extended today.
Business SA President Robert Atkins said the board had “unanimously agreed” to extend Mr Vaughan’s tenure by two years from the end of his current contract at July 1, 2010.
The appointment would ensure the smooth implementation of Business SA’s new three-year strategic plan, including the recent restructuring of the organisation at its most senior level, he said.
This includes the appointment of Nigel Turner as chief financial officer and Brett
Mahoney as chief operating officer in April.
Currently the longest serving chief executive of any Australian chamber of commerce, Peter Vaughan will have been at the Business SA helm for 10 years on July 1, 2009.
“It has been a decade of excellence for the chamber under Peter’s stewardship,”
Mr Atkins said.
“He has successfully repositioned and established the Business SA brand as the
‘voice of South Australian business’.
“There has been substantial growth in our membership, in services offered to
members and in revenues from all sources which we have in turn reinvested in the
form of benefits to our members," Mr Atkins said.
Business SA are nothing but rip-off merchants. They overcharge for their courses and materials and the rip businesses off of alot of money. All you have to do is take a look at their fees to see what a farce they are.
Time for change in SA - what about WorkCover. Every employer against a couple of injured workers?
Crackdown on wealthy litigants
Article from: AAP
By Julian Drape
June 22, 2009 07:18pm
THE Rudd Government is moving to crack down on wealthy litigants who attempt to win court cases by pumping so much money into them their opponents simply give up.
Litigants and lawyers before the Federal Court will be under an obligation to conduct cases efficiently under reforms announced today.
"Australia can't afford a legal system which gives to 'monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right'," Attorney-General Robert McClelland said when introducing the draft laws to Parliament.
He was quoting Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
Mr McClelland said the legislation would introduce "an overarching obligation to facilitate the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible".
The reforms follow other changes to the federal court system announced in May, which, if passed, will see the Federal Magistrates Court scrapped.
The attorney-general said recent civil cases concerning Alan Bond's failed Bell Group and the unsuccessful C7 sports channel cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
"This is money which could have been better used in many other areas of the justice system, not least legal aid," Mr McClelland said.
Under Labor's proposed changes, the Federal Court will have the power to impose cost penalties on parties and their lawyers if they fail to conduct their cases efficiently.
The court will also be able to limit the length of submissions, limit the number of witnesses and force parties to follow time limits.
Appeals pathways will be streamlined.
"These reforms are essential in enabling federal courts to deliver a fair, effective and affordable service to litigants," Mr McClelland said.
If you have a complaint of unlawful discrimination, you must first go to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The HREOC Complaints Infoline number is 1300 656 419. General enquiries can be made on 1300 369 711.
You cannot apply to the Federal Court to hear a complaint of unlawful discrimination unless you have a termination notice issued by HREOC.
If you do have a termination notice, use the links on the right to access information about human rights proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.
Human rights proceedings can also be heard in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.
If you do not have a lawyer there are organisations which may be able to provide free or low-cost legal advice or assistance.
WORKCOVER'S claims manager received a one-off $2 million payment to cope with legislative reform, even as they were renegotiating a new contract worth millions of dollars.
WorkCover chairman Philip Bentley also admitted yesterday the body would fall short of the $40 million savings it said it would achieve by appointing a single legal manager.
Chief executive Julia Davison yesterday defended the additional payment to a Parliamentary Committee
"What you need to understand is that the implementation (of the WorkCover reforms) has been a significant undertaking for both Employers Mutual and WorkCover that has required additional staff, it has required additional legal advice, it has required additional training, it has required rethinking modes of operation and substantial changes," she said.
But Liberal MLC Rob Lucas, who is a member of the committee, said the one-off payment was not "fair and reasonable".
"It is extraordinary at a time when (chairman Philip) Bentley was on the record that he had concerns about their performance, and the legislature actually makes conditions much better for the claims manager," he said.
"Ultimately it is going to impact on potentially everybody, particularly those who are reliant on the scheme."
Members raised concerns about the scheme's growing unfunded liabilities, which were reported at more than $1.3 billion at December. A new estimate is unlikely to be released until July, Ms Davison said improved claims performance and a recovery in the share market could see an improvement.
Mr Bentley also shed doubts over WorkCover's ability to meet forecast savings of up to $40 million from appointing a single legal manager, but would not disclose the expected savings.
"The old arrangement where a range of legal firms were sharing the work was a recipe for us spending too much money. We got rid of that and it caused a ruckus in the legal profession in SA," he said.
"They squealed, some of them are still squealing.
"We won't achieve that greater saving (of $30 million to $40 million) but we will have savings."
WorkCover appointed national law firm Minter Ellison in 2005 as its sole legal provider for all claim disputes and recovery actions.
Mr Bentley said savings under the fixed rate contract provided expected savings in the first couple of years, but had subsequently fallen off.
cant believe the claims agent received an extra $2 million as the scheme hasnt really improved since its inception as promised. They should be the ones paying as the high amount of redemptions has lowered the case management!
Posted by: John of Reynella 7:28pm today
Comment 7 of 7
How can WorkCover pay this when they behave in a miserly way to those who are in real need and pain. I can imagine that a lot of injured workers will be sickened when they read of this utter and complete waste of money; money that they could put to good use.
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 7:25pm today
Comment 6 of 7
Mr. Phillip Bentley the law firms may squeal but it is injured workers who are stuck with the pig! Sir you are a disgusting and not worthy of being the Chairman if all you can do is blame others and hand out money to EML. We need the State Aduitor to go into WorkCover and find out what it is that you are all hidding.
Posted by: Injured Worker of 7:01pm today
Comment 5 of 7
How convenient Minter Ellison also represented the Thoroughbred Racing of SA in the recent SAJC saga who Mr Bentley is also on the board.
Posted by: MMQ of Adelaide 7:00pm today
Comment 4 of 7
"Mr Bentley said savings under the fixed rate contract provided expected savings in the first couple of years, but had subsequently fallen off". A fixed rate contract is simply that, A FIXED RATE. Did the rate agreement change and shouldnt the legal company cover the costs due to "the contract"???????
Posted by: injured worker of Adelaide 6:55pm today
Comment 3 of 7
It is hardly right that EML gets paid an extra cent let alone $2million dollars when injured workers are pushed and prodded and punished just for going to work and sustaining an injury. EML want to be in the WorkCover industry, the entered into the system -ater the tender process had closed- however injured workers have no such luxury, they are injured and have no choice but to lodge a WorkCover claim and hope against hope that they will be able to return to their place of work at full pre-injury capacity before the end of 13 weeks or they will have their income dropped to 90% then at 26 weeks for no reason other than they are still injured and unable to return to work they are taken down to 80% of pre-injury income. And now we find that EML have been paid to help cover the extra costs they faced, injured workers have rights stripped away, they have medical treatments cut or ceased, they have no home help, they have to fight and run up at times huge legal bills but thair cries for help fall on deaf ears. There has to be a stop to this incessant destruction of injured workers lives and there has to be an admission from the WorkCover Board and the WorkCover managment that they have got it all wrong and instead of easing the burden on injured workers they have increased it. When is enough truly going to be enough. Yours in service, Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection 8410 0121
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Work Injured Resource Connection 6:52pm today
Comment 2 of 7
A recent freedom of information revealed there have been nearly 2000 workers been paid out (redemptions) in the last 18 months. That is a hell of a lot of workers off the scheme and this alone would Improved claims performance not the extra training.
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of Plympton 6:49pm today
Comment 1 of 7
Mr Bentley, can I suggest the ones who are squealing are the providers who have their snouts in the trough!
Posted by: George of Glenelg 7:44pm today
Comment 9 of 9
Back in December 2008 Mr Bentley said the contract with EML was being changed so it did not make a windfall from the changes. $2 million dollars is a windful in my books!
Posted by: Andrew of Burnside 7:38pm today
Comment 8 of 9
more comments (just incase Vaughn gets his contacts at the advertiser to remove them)
Totally nauseating, especially as i know several nurses at public hospitals who get shafted for legitimite claims, and labeled by management. Public hospitals might have a NO LIFT Policy but someone forgot to tell the patients.........then mechanical lifters that rare entity require 2 nurses to operate ......logistical nightmares.......and they wonder why there is a nursing shortage.
Posted by: maria, - outrageous of north adelaide 8:00pm today
Comment 13 of 13
Was it a gift or did WorkCover actually get something in return? Seems like a lot of money, lots of favours can be bought and sold with $2 million.
Posted by: Jamie Redden of Adelaide 7:57pm today
Comment 12 of 13
Deep pockets when they need them. Pity it is the injured workers and their families who miss out in the long run.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 7:55pm today
Comment 11 of 13
Posted Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:41pm AEDT WorkCover defends claims manager appointment (ABC News) The chairman of the WorkCover board has told a state parliamentary inquiry there was nothing improper about appointment of its claims manager. Employers Mutual Limited (EML) was chosen from eight tenders, in 2005, to be WorkCover's sole claims manager. State Parliament's Statutory Authorities Review Committee has questioned the appointment of the company, which was late in submitting its application.But Phillip Bentley, of WorkCover, says the late application was cleared with lawyers and an independent probity adviser."Significant evidence has been attached to the fact that Employers Mutual was awarded a contract for 100 per cent of the market. I am confident that the WorkCover board conducted the procurement process to the highest-possible standards and any suggestion of impropriety is wrong and without foundation," he said.The inquiry has been told WorkCover is acting to stop its claims manager from making a windfall from changes to operations. Legislation took effect in July aimed at reducing WorkCover's growing unfunded liability. Mr Bentley said the contract with EML was being changed so it did not make a windfall from the changes. "Let me put it this way - it was a very robust re-negotiation and we're happy with the outcome," he told the committee. Opposition MP Rob Lucas says previous evidence to the committee was that EML would not benefit from the changes. "We will be seeking details from WorkCover as to the reasons for the re-negotiated contract," he said. Mr Lucas says it would be unacceptable for EML to get more money for the same level of service. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2434662.htm
Posted by: George of Glenelg 7:46pm today
Comment 10 of 13
All the so called savings are somewhat smoke and mirrors. Workcover is a major liability, very inefficient for an employer and often very poor for an injured worker. While there is always a lot of rorting by injured workers, particularly the severity of injuries, there is no doubt that a lot of pernamantly disabled workers are sent back to work, or adbandoned. Either way that is shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic!! it will come back and bite harder eventually. It seems that Workcover knows more than senior medical specialists in relation to injuries and the workers ability to work after. I have seen this recently with friends and relations who are working in severe pain or are now on the dole or sickness benefits instead of workcover.
Posted by: ldn of 8:33am today
Comment 34 of 35
The WorkCover board and government stated from 2003 that they were going to improve the system. It is now 2009 and they are yet to declare they have succeded. The recent changes removed injured workers rights and entitlements only to see $2 million be paid to an intestate insurance company whose main business is Employers. All this under the watch of a Labor government!
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of Plympton 8:16am today
Comment 33 of 35
For over 20 years WorkCover has claimed their performance will improve. All the while its Unfunded Liability has spiraled out of control, they've cut benefits to injured workers and promised employers reductions in levies. Add to this the almost constant chopping and changing of the organisation itself - outsourcing claims management, making employees redundant and replacing them with more expensive consultants, etc. - which contributes to disruption and waste. Their annual reports are masterpieces of obfuscation and spin and meaningless "statistics". When will the chairman, board and executive finally admit it's a major fiasco?
Posted by: Ray Hogan of 7:51am today
Comment 32 of 35
This just stinks, I got a pitiful $25 grand for a permanent shoulder and knee injury, that affects my life forever. I had to fight tooth and nail for this..not only did it cause my marriage breakdown, but also caused me physical and emotional damage...Where the hell is the justice in this world. As for Workcover itself, it is an absolute joke. They constantly change your Case Manager, waste alot of money sending you to numerous Dr's when they all have the same conclusions. They forget to inform you of what you can claim, and when they do it is to late because you have misplaced reciepts. I hope I never have another work injury, because Workcover certainly screwed up my life.....Get rid of it all together
Posted by: Sue of Adelaide 7:16am today
Comment 31 of 35
One would think that WorkCover is trying to beat the past records with the State Bank Disiaster. Why else would they allow the corporation to let its unfunded liability blow out so much? And then on top of that they are handing cash payments of millions of dollars out to its agents, the public are clearly justified in thinking there is something seriously wrong down at 100 waymouth street.
Posted by: ICAC 4 SA of Adelaide 7:13am today
Comment 30 of 35
With all of the problems with WorkCover it seems absurd that there has been no real scrutiny of how the corporation is run. Perhaps thats because we do not have an ICAC. Cash bonuses of $2 million dollars is essentially a compensation payment because the legislatiopn was changed because of poor management. The unfunded liability has not turned around, injured workers are getting less benefits and there is more litigation. Would it be easier just to close WorkCover down and let the courts deal with workers Compensation instead of having workers and their families lives meddled and interfered with when they are injured?
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 7:08am today
Comment 29 of 35
More and more money wasted by work cover, it's a disgrace and a joke that they can hand out money like that, give their employees lots of perks, when the majority of injured workers especially those that are permanent struggle to live each day, firstly because of the pain that they live with, the depresion that usually follows, and the pure fact that they have bills to pay, morgages to try and keep up, all on a pay that drops after a time period. Meanwhile Eml seems to hand out money like this, does nobody care about the injured worker, they are the ones that are truely mistreated in all this other garbage
Posted by: Concerned of SA 6:58am today
Comment 28 of 35
If the management are getting paid like this, it is no wonder that Work Cover is in such a bad way with over 1 Billion Dollars in unfunded liabilities. This is just as bad as the corporate sector with exectives being excessively paid.
Posted by: David S. of South Aust. 5:41am today
Comment 27 of 35
Yet another example (as if any was needed) of the failings of privatisation. The Government should in-source claims management, close WorkCover and create a new agency providing a complete service with respect to workers compensation.
Posted by: ANOTHER failed privatisation of Adelaide 11:23pm June 23, 2009
Comment 26 of 35
If they made a $2 million dollar payment to EML how many other payments have bneen made to other companies that do work for WorkCover. I remember reading about an investigation where they spent $30000 following an injured worker and his family on a holiday in Europe. I wonder if any of the board members have been on such overseas trips claiming they are filming injured workers?
Posted by: Jeremy C. of Adelaide 10:34pm June 23, 2009
Comment 25 of 35
Will this end up being bigger than Labor's "State Bank Debacle "? ? ? Rann had a big hand in that too. So much for looking after injured workers from "working families".
Posted by: Robert Smissen of On the Moribund Murray River at Murray Bridge 10:17pm June 23, 2009
Comment 24 of 35
Business leaders today have joined AdelaideNow readers to launch an attack against a council they say has a "lack of interest in the growth and development of the CBD" due to the Adelaide council rejecting a development. So why doesnt these same Business leaders ask why their workcover levies have not reduced as promised!.
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 9:14pm June 23, 2009
Comment 23 of 35
This Labor government has allowed this to happen. They should have realised just be looking at the name. "EMPLOYERS" mutual limited was always going to screw injured workers over.
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 9:11pm June 23, 2009
Comment 22 of 35
Workcover has massive unfunded liability becuase it is abused by employees and doctors, not becuase of this one-off payment!
Posted by: Nat of Brighton 9:11pm June 23, 2009
Comment 21 of 35
There is no mention of the Industrial minister Mr Caica in this story. Was he aware of the $2 million "gift"? He should be responsible for allowing this to happen.
Posted by: Michael of Mile End 9:04pm June 23, 2009
Comment 20 of 35
So Phillip bentley how much is the replacement of IDEAS costing. Word is another $40 million !! Can you guys do anything right!
Posted by: Max of Darwin 8:57pm June 23, 2009
Comment 19 of 35
How did the figure of $2 million come about. Did EML ask for it and the board simply said yes or did the board offer it as a token effort for all the hard work EML did in achieving a $ Billion debt?
Posted by: Paul Richmond of Netley 8:45pm June 23, 2009
Comment 18 of 35
Is is no wonder WorkCover has such a massive unfunded liability. Any company that can simply hand over $2million in cash to a company because " the laws changed" demonstrates a lack of foresight and a "could not care less" attitude about how employers money is spent. Pity its the injured workers that miss out and not the members who are so frivolous with the money.
Posted by: Flash in the pan of Adelaide 8:42pm June 23, 2009
Comment 17 of 35
two million for EML and the community advocates for injured workers get nothing!!!!!!!
Posted by: sounds about right of 8:39pm June 23, 2009
Comment 16 of 35
When WorkCover SA went to tender for claims agents in 2005, EML decided to bid but as sole agent, because they felt that was the only way to bring about the cultural and systemic changes needed to turn the SA scheme around; WorkCover SA accepted that proposition and with it the continual unfunded liability and now huge costs due to the leglislation changes simply because EML failed on their agreement.
Posted by: Fred of Canberra 8:35pm June 23, 2009
Comment 15 of 35
Where did the money go? Pot plants in the smoko room? New Chairs in the office.? Or a free loan car for the Board members? A lot of money for a company that Bentley stated "did not get a windfall". The people of South Australia must know there is a need for a clean sweep across the board with WorkCover
Posted by: D. Simons of Adelaide 8:13pm June 23, 2009
Comment 14 of 35
Well if EML can get a $2 million dollar payment because the laws changed do injured workers get the same?
Any idiot would know that the $2mill has been clawed out of injured workers..
Article from: The Advertiser
June 24, 2009 11:18am
A TEENAGE apprentice took his own life after bullies at a State Government rail contractor set him on fire and threatened to rape him.
The death of Alec Meikle, 16, who worked with Downer EDI in Bathurst, New South Wales, has prompted the Federal Government to work with every state to fight workplace bullying.
Alec confided about the bullying to Bathurst Councillor Warren Aubin in the months before he died on October 13 while the councillor was teaching him to drive, The Daily Telegraph reports.
"It was horrible, he had stuff sprayed on him, he was set on fire a couple of times. They poured liquid on him then lit it up and they would stand back and watch him put it out," Mr Aubin said yesterday.
"He had glue put on him. He told me he was on compo."
The Federal Government brought his situation to the attention of a NSW inquiry into bullying of children and young people and the terms of the inquiry have been broadened to include apprentices and trainees.
WorkCover investigated the bullying and a spokesman confirmed yesterday the abuse of Alec included "setting him on fire and threats of sexual assault".
As a result of the inquiry Downer EDI was forced to implement a respectful behaviour policy.
"This is a troubling case. He was subjected to physical and verbal assaults," a spokesman said.
"This is a very big company and obviously things weren't done as they should have been."
WorkCover began paying Alec compensation on May 27 last year to cover counselling but Alec was so badly affected he first attempted self harm in August.
His family decided to move him to his native New Zealand in September but he was dead within weeks.
In its submission to the NSW inquiry into bullying of children and young people, the Federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations described Alec's case as extreme.
"The department responded to an extreme place of workplace bullying in NSW which led to the suicide of an apprentice," the submission said.
"The Commonwealth is undertaking discussions with state and territory governments to determine ways of responding to issues of bullying in the workplace relating to young apprentices and trainees."
The Meikle family has employed a Bathurst solicitor but declined to comment yesterday.
A spokeswoman for the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union said bullying was becoming rarer.
Diemould fined $72,000 for workplace death of Daniel Madeley
THE MOTHER of an apprentice toolmaker who died horrifically when his dust coat got stuck in a boring machine says employers should be sent to jail for workplace safety breaches.
Diemould Pty Ltd was today fined $72,000 - a South Australian record for an individual workplace death - in the Industrial Court over Daniel Madeley's death on June 5, 2004.
Speaking outside court, the 18-year-old's mother, Andrea Madeley, broke down in tears as she claimed the company's bosses had figuratively "walked away smiling.''
"I promised him (Daniel) I would do whatever I could to make sure his death would not go unnoticed and that those people responsible were going to be made to pay for it,'' Mrs Madeley said.
"I will fight to make sure that people who treat their workers like this, answer to a much higher cause than this.
"This is a joke, we put people in jail for embezzling money, we put such a high priority on other issues but when it comes to the life and safety of workers, and almost all of us are working in some degree, we would like to think somebody has our back.''
She said the Industrial Court had delivered her the "final blow'' by not enforcing its maximum penalty of $100,000 on Diemould.
"I was so sure the Industrial Court understood the severity of this and I am sorry but $80,000 doesn't come close.
"If he is saying there are worse (safety breaches) out there then there should be a jail cell.
"You cannot just exploit these young lives and walk away with such a pitiful fine.''
Industrial Court Magistrate Richard Hardy said Diemould had failed to put a protective guard around the machine, failed to prevent access to it, and did not provide instruction, training or supervision for its use.
He also rebuked the company for not banning the wearing of loose fitting clothing near the machines.
He said Diemould was "glaringly culpable'' and that he found it "difficult to envisage a more aggravated offence'' of workplace safety regulations.
The maximum penalty for such breaches tripled to $300,000 in January 2008, three and a half years after Daniel's death.
Spokesperson for SafeWork SA Peter Adams said South Australian law now has a penalty of reckless endangerment which can include jail time.
Magistrate Hardy fined Diemould $80,000 but reduced that to $72,000 on account of its guilty plea.
Mrs Madeley said she would be pursuing compensation through the District Court.
Anyone know if the medical panels are even set up yet? Does anyone know of any injured workers who have been kicked off the system? Despite the fact that there have been about 2000 redemptions over the past 18 months, there must still be a lot (1000+) long term injured workers currently on the system that are past 2 and a half years. So what about all of these injured workers who are rejecting redemptions? Have any of them yet been sent to a medical panel?
I am not sure if work capacity panels have been set up yet. The section 43 impairment rating panel has been set up and the list of Doctors are on the WorkCover site.
I believe the process in the work capacity review panel could be used in numerous ways. Case managers can rely on the injured workers Doctor or send you to the Panel. The Tribunal could send you to a panel. In the case of a case manager sending you to the panel opens up administration law as the questions asked could be mis leading or simply the wrong questions. It has been know and there is plenty of evidence. A tribunal seeking a medical panel opinion generally has an input by both employer and the injured workers lawyers and the question is agreed upon.
Another question regarding redemptions.
Has there been in cases where a redemption has been sought using the new system as workers who have been injured after a certain date can now apply for special circumstances to a Tribunal which would in turn use a process to calculate a figure. The decision by the Tribunal would also have to be published which could be used for ongoing cases. Just like case law.
The legislative provisions become effective on
1 July 2009. From this date, the new redemptions restrictions will apply to all claims with an injury date on or after 1 July 2006.
From 1 July 2010, the new restrictions on redemptions will apply to all claims.
In anticipation of these changes, from 1 July 2008 the WorkCover redemption policy will be revised so that all claims with injury dates on or after 1 July 2006 will be subject to the new redemption restrictions (unless negotiations have already commenced).
Any injury after July 1st 2006 will now have to go to the tribunal. So the vast numbers of redemptions will start to slow down and with it keep the unfunded liability on the increase.
The State Government has announced the start of a range of innovative projects designed to help people return to the workplace after they have been injured and off work for a long time.
Industrial Relations Minister, Paul Caica, says the WorkCover SA Board has approved $2.4m for the first round of Return to Work Fund projects, which form part of the Government’s reform package of the WorkCover Scheme.
“The Fund, totalling $15m, is being used to implement a program of innovative, yet practical solutions to improve return to work outcomes in South Australia, starting with this first round of projects,” he said.
“It can be daunting for people who have been injured and off work for a long time to return to the workplace. Statistics show that the longer a worker is away from work, the probability of their returning to work significantly decreases.
“We’re hoping that up to 250 injured workers will benefit from these initial projects and the positive impact will be broader, given that a number of projects are aimed at helping the business community assist injured workers to return to work.”
WorkCover SA is enlisting the education, training and coaching skills of a range of experienced organisations, to help injured workers feel more confident about returning to the workplace and show employers how to reduce barriers that may discourage workers form returning to work.
“A number of these approaches to employment and training have been proven in other environments,” Minister Caica said. “But it’s the first time they’ve been adapted and applied for the workers’ compensation scheme and we’re confident they will make a real difference.
“The Board has funded organisations such as Business SA, SA Unions, Registered Training Organisations to deliver the first seven projects. This will help WorkCover SA to build important partnerships and alliances in the quest to improve return to work outcomes.”
The first round of projects comprise:
•
A pilot project being undertaken by SA Unions to include training as an effective part of the rehabilitation of injured workers and their return to work;
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
•
An educational program, run by Business SA, for small businesses finding it difficult to provide injured workers with alternative duties;
•
The creation, by Interwork Ltd, of ‘whole of life’ action plans for injured workers, which takes them through five key developmental stages in securing employment;
•
A Next Step program, which will deliver employment plans for injured workers that are tailored to each participant’s needs. This will be run by the State Government’s Further Education Department, DFEEST;
•
Preparing injured workers for retraining or upskilling to new jobs, either with their existing employer or a new one. This is being run by the Business Services Industry Skill Board;
•
Business SA will also be approaching employers to source and provide work hardening and work placement opportunities for injured workers, providing them with an alternative pathway into new employment;
•
A program, run by ProActiv Life Solutions, which challenges negative beliefs and attitudes, and restores a positive mental approach to returning to work.
“These projects will require a concerted effort from all Scheme participants and the entire community to challenge existing mindsets and try new approaches, Minister Caica said.
The projects will commence from tomorrow – July 1.
The WorkCover SA Board expects to be seeking further expressions of interest for innovative ways to improve return to work outcomes for the Scheme as part of the continued roll-out of projects under the Fund.
Injured workers are bing given a real chance now..
With the interests that now arise and the professional backgrounds of these people
Business SA -Peter Vaughn
De Poi - Sandra De Poi
Janet Giles - SA unions
The above three have been or are currently board members and there has been lots of money and resources flowing from WorkCover to their organisation's or businesses in which they are involved to help injured workers..Its a good thing that the legislative changes are being met by more spending in the right places..
And who better to know how best to spend the money that the board members..
Can an employee be made redundant if he/she goes on work cover for a workplace injury.
a. The employer has in excess of 100 staff.
b. There is no justification for hardship on the part of the employer.
c. The employer received State and Federal government grants
d. The employee was made redundant within 14 days of being on work cover.
e. The injury has been recognised as directly related to the workplace.
f. The role of the employee taken by another employee.
g. Employee is still on workcover for over 18 months - under medical support.
h. The Employer did not provide any support whatsovever within the 12 month period.
i. Does this consitute unfair dismissal
j. Can unfair dismissal still apply under these circumstances.
k. What action can the employee take.
I have only been made aware that unfair dismissal may be relevant in this case.
Therefore, I am seeking your advice and help on the above.
All of the information provided is based on a real life scenario and the facts are true.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1986 - SECT 58B
58B—Employer's duty to provide work or pay wages
(1) If a worker who has been incapacitated for work in consequence of a compensable disability is able to return to work (whether on a full-time or part-time basis and whether or not to his or her previous employment), the employer from whose employment the disability arose must provide suitable employment for the worker (the employment being employment for which the worker is fit and, subject to that qualification, so far as reasonably practicable the same as, or equivalent to, the employment in which the worker was employed immediately before the incapacity).
Maximum penalty: $25 000.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—
(a) it is not reasonably practicable to provide employment in accordance with that subsection (and the onus of establishing that lies in any legal proceedings on the employer); or
(b) the worker left the employment of that employer before the commencement of the incapacity for work; or
(c) the worker terminated the employment after the commencement of the incapacity for work; or
(e) the employer currently employs less than 10 employees, and the period that has elapsed since the worker became incapacitated for work is more than 1 year.
(3) If a worker who has been incapacitated for work in consequence of a compensable disability undertakes alternative or modified duties under employment or an arrangement that falls outside the worker's contract of service for the employment from which the disability arose, the employer must pay an appropriate wage or salary in respect of those duties unless otherwise determined by the Corporation
58C—Notice of termination of employment to be given in certain cases
(1) If a worker has suffered a compensable disability, the employer from whose employment the disability arose must not terminate the worker's employment without first giving the Corporation and the worker at least 28 days notice of the proposed termination.
Maximum penalty: $15 000.
(2) However, notice of termination is not required under this section if—
(a) the employment is properly terminated on the ground of serious and wilful misconduct; or
(b) the worker is neither receiving compensation, nor participating in a rehabilitation program, for the disability; or
(c) the worker's rights to compensation for the disability have been exhausted or the time for making a claim for compensation has expired.
[In legal proceedings, the burden of establishing that an employer terminated a worker's employment on the ground of serious and wilful misconduct lies on the employer.]
"Business SA will also be approaching employers to source and provide work hardening and work placement opportunities for injured workers, providing them with an alternative pathway into new employment"
WHY EXACTLY IS THE ORGANISATION THAT ONE OF THE WORKCOVER BOARD MEMBER'S (PETER VAUGHAN) IS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFF BEING PAID TO DO THE WORK OF REHABILITATION CONSULTANTS? AND WHERE WILL THESE "LEADS" THAT BUSINESS SA GO TO? WHICH REHABILITATION PROVIDERS WILL BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THESE EMPLOYERS? FOR INSTANCE WILL DE POI CONSULTANCY SERVICES BE GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THESE EMPLOYERS WHILE OTHER REHABILITATION PROVIDERS BE FROZEN OUT?
All sounds rather dodgy. Surely part of a Rehabilitation Consultant's job is to source employers of their own for Work Hardenings.
WorkCover is dodgy. How can a corporation make injured workers attend medical appointments one day and then have the right to prosecute them the next.
What they do is cause injured workers to incriminate themselves. OK everyone says well if the injured workers are dodgy let them be prosecuted. Too true..
Howevermany injured workers are missing out on proper medical treatment because they do not want to discuss their problems with doctors because workcover may get their medical files and use all of it against them in the tribunal or worse in the courts,
Injured workers are also reluctant to engage in rehab for fear their attempts will be used against them..
What kind of a system is it?
Seems like workcover is all the government powers rolled into one..
Go back a step, even Burce Carter and the board were making recommendations about how they wanted the legislation changed, no worries it got changed how they wanted it and Bruce got out..
Now the Corporation has all of its legislation made within its ranks, collects information about injured workers with no restraint ie personal info not related to their injuries and then drives down their entitlements on the information the injured workers provided thinking it would be private and not used again..
THink again about the government and workcover..
stand up and tell them all to go get F;;;; as injured workers have nothing but all of their rights and lives taken away.
How could anyone say that a corporation that has a billion dollar unfunded liability is mis managed?
Proof is there in Black and White for everyone to see.
No wonder Rann and his cronies are so against an ICAC in South Australia when you look at the miserable workings of WorkCover. He modelled WorkCover in SA on WorkCover in Qld & VIc but guess what - he conveniently didn't include the rights of injured employees in SA to sue their negligent employers as in the other states. Your rotten dealings will do you in at the next election Rann.
Posted by: Brenton S of Adelaide east 10:21pm June 25, 2009
Comment 32 of 32
WorkCover have hardly kept to just the one legal firm, the sub-contract through Mintor Ellison to every major law firm just as it was predicted they would do. So the squealing isn't coming from the law firms, I suggest that the squealing is coming from behind the locked doors of the WorkCover Board Room.
Posted by: follow that squeal of 8:00pm June 24, 2009
Comment 31 of 32
Idn, please understand that WorkCover own figures indicate that less than 2% of injured workers rort the system, even less than that are charged with fraud. Injured workers can not get one cent more than the legisation deems that they are legally entitled to, even then the injured workers engage a legal representative who charges at various rates depending on the agreement entered into between the injured worker and the law firm. If you want to work out where all the money goes to then I suggest you look at the way claims are mismanged. Case managers send injured workers to get a so called independant medical expert - each of them has a contract with WorkCover and most of them no longer actually practice but are semi-retired consultants. In effect, case managers doctor shop. Look at the cost of a rehab plan, $1,000+ just to write a plan that the injured worker has to follow but the WorkCover process can ignore. There is a whole industry that has sprung up around the WorkCover process each of them gets paid regardless of how much or how little they do. It is time to shut this process down, the whole thing needs to have the State Auditor General go through it and we need to have everyone who is not an injured worker but gets paid via contract to actually publically detail the reason they are there and what is the best outcome they provide for the injured workers.
Posted by: Response for Idn of 11:38am June 24, 2009
Comment 30 of 32
why are we surprised???
Posted by: Craig of Hindmarsh 9:08am June 24, 2009
Comment 29 of 32
Posted by http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,2263 at 10:41 PM, 7/7/2009
These comments were removed from the Adelaide now site
Mr. Phillip Bentley the law firms may squeal but it is injured workers who are stuck with the pig! Sir you are a disgusting and not worthy of being the Chairman if all you can do is blame others and hand out money to EML. We need the State Aduitor to go into WorkCover and find out what it is that you are all hidding.
Posted by: Injured Worker of 7:01pm today
Comment 5 of 7
How convenient Minter Ellison also represented the Thoroughbred Racing of SA in the recent SAJC saga who Mr Bentley is also on the board.
Posted by: MMQ of Adelaide 7:00pm today
Comment 4 of 7
Mr Bentley, can I suggest the ones who are squealing are the providers who have their snouts in the trough!
Posted by: George of Glenelg 7:44pm today
Comment 9 of 9
Was it a gift or did WorkCover actually get something in return? Seems like a lot of money, lots of favours can be bought and sold with $2 million.
Posted by: Jamie Redden of Adelaide 7:57pm today
Comment 12 of 13
Where did the money go? Pot plants in the smoko room? New Chairs in the office.? Or a free loan car for the Board members? A lot of money for a company that Bentley stated "did not get a windfall". The people of South Australia must know there is a need for a clean sweep across the board with WorkCover
Posted by: D. Simons of Adelaide 8:13pm June 23, 2009
Comment 14 of 35
If they made a $2 million dollar payment to EML how many other payments have bneen made to other companies that do work for WorkCover. I remember reading about an investigation where they spent $30000 following an injured worker and his family on a holiday in Europe. I wonder if any of the board members have been on such overseas trips claiming they are filming injured workers?
Posted by: Jeremy C. of Adelaide 10:34pm June 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
WORKCOVER SA says the state government’s reform package of the WorkCover Scheme includes $2.4m for Return to Work Fund projects.
The Fund totals $15m. Part of it will be used to implement a program of practical solutions to improve return to work outcomes in South Australia.
According to WorkCover SA, it can be daunting for people who have been injured and off work for a long time to return to the workplace. Statistics show that the longer a worker is away from work, the probability of their returning to work significantly decreases.
The initial projects are expected to help up to 250 injured workers. A number of these projects are aimed at helping the business community assist injured workers to return to work.
WorkCover SA is enlisting the education, training and coaching skills of a range of organisations, to help injured workers feel more confident about returning to the workplace and show employers how to reduce barriers that may discourage workers form returning to work.
The SA Unions will undertake a pilot project which includes training as an effective part of the rehabilitation of injured workers and their return to work. Business SA will run an educational program for small businesses finding it difficult to provide injured workers with alternative duties.
Interwork will create ‘whole of life’ action plans for injured workers, taking them through five key developmental stages in securing employment. The Business Services
Industry Skill Board will prepare injured workers for retraining or upskilling to new jobs, either with their existing employer or a new one.
The projects commenced from 1 July 2009.
According to our source, the files are important as until now the workers compensation arrangement between insurers and the government has not been transparent.
Victoriaˇ¦s injured workers will continue to have the most comprehensive support in Australia following the release of a $90 million reform package to boost support for Victoriaˇ¦s injured workers and families dealing with the tragedy of a workplace death.
Key elements of the reform package include:
„h
$20 million per year for superannuation contributions for eligible injured workers;
„h
$20 million per year for increased weekly payment benefits for injured workers;
„h
10 per cent increase in no-fault lump sum benefits for workers with spinal impairments;
„h
almost doubling of lump sum death benefits and improving access to pensions for dependants of the deceased; and
„h
less red tape for employers and more support and advice on the calculation of premiums.
The reform package is the culmination of the most comprehensive review of Victoriaˇ¦s accident compensation legislation since the Accident Compensation Act was introduced in 1985.
Premier John Brumby said the reforms balance the needs of injured workers while ensuring Victoriaˇ¦s scheme remained the national benchmark when it came to business competitiveness.
ˇ§The improvements we are making to Victoriaˇ¦s WorkCover scheme will ensure it remains the best in Australia, offering generous benefits for injured workers without resulting in higher premiums for employers,ˇ¨ Mr Brumby said.
ˇ§In the last five years, the Government has delivered successive cuts to employersˇ¦ premiums with cumulative savings of over $2 billion. At the same time we have maintained worker benefits at levels amongst the most generous in the country.
ˇ§The package provides even more support for the most disadvantaged; families of deceased workers, workers with a permanent impairment and long-term injured workers.ˇ¨
The Government received an independent review in 2008, the Hanks Report, and has consulted widely with employer groups, unions and other key stakeholders.
WorkCover Minister Tim Holding said getting injured workers back to work was helping them to lead a full life, which is good for workers, their families, employers and the scheme as a whole.
ˇ§Victoriaˇ¦s injured workers will be the first in Australia to receive superannuation contributions while away from work. This recognises that superannuation is a key component of an employeeˇ¦s remuneration,ˇ¨ Mr Holding said.
ˇ§The reforms aim to strengthen return to work obligations without a one-size-fits-all approach.ˇ¨
The reforms will be introduced into Parliament later this year. The majority of the changes will come into effect for injuries occurring after commencement of the new legislation in early 2010.
Recommendation 71 of the Hanks Report which relates to the common law statutory offer process will apply to all serious injury applications lodged with WorkSafe on or after today. It will not apply to any serious injury application that is withdrawn and re-lodged on or after today.
The Governmentˇ¦s response to each of the 151 recommendations in the Hanks Report is available at www.worksafe.vic.gov.au
Media contact: Fiona Macrae 0412 693 182 or Luke Enright 0409 952 447 www.premier.vic.gov.au
Wednesday, 17 June, 2009
Finding The Right Balance On Workers’ Compensation
Finding The Right Balance On Workers’ Compensation
Reforms to Tasmania’s workers’ compensation system announced by the State Government today strike the right balance between the needs of employers and the rights of workers.
Announcing the changes following approval by Cabinet this morning, Premier David Bartlett said the Government had arrived at a package that provided a cost-effective workers’ compensation scheme for employers and also achieved fairness for injured workers and their families.
He said the reforms would give business a system it could work with to keep employing Tasmanians – which had been a critical consideration.
The changes will also bring an added focus on supporting injured workers to return to work.
“We are finding the right balance on workers’ compensation,” Mr Bartlett said during a visit to the Derwent Park operations of Hazell Brothers, a large local company that is a previous winner of the Department of Economic Development’s Employer of Choice Award.
“This is a very complex and serious matter and prevention is much better than cure when it comes to workplace accidents.
“Ultimately, our policy goal is to encourage an outcome where every Tasmanian that walks into a workplace on any given day walks out again in good health.
“We have taken expert advice from the WorkCover Board and others and arrived at a position today that I think strikes the necessary balance between supporting workers – and supporting business to keep hiring workers.
“This has not been an easy balance to strike.
“I’ve met Tasmanians who have suffered some terrible workplace injuries that I think have not been as well cared for under the current system as I think they have a right to be.
“Equally, I am very aware that many Tasmanian businesses work extraordinarily hard to make their workplaces safe, and that a blowout in workers compensation costs would add an extra burden to their bottom line.
“That’s why we are announcing today a package of workers compensation reforms that balance those competing interests.
“Some people will say we’ve gone too far; others will say we haven’t gone far enough.
“Our job as a State Government, and my job as Premier, is to find a way through competing demands, to make a fair and balanced decision for the future – and that’s what we’ve done.”
Workplace Relations Minister Lisa Singh said the changes would vastly improve the current scheme.
The reforms are based on the work of Victorian consultant Alan Clayton and were released for public consultation in 2008.
Ms Singh said Tasmania had led the way with its handling of workers’ compensation.
“Premiums have fallen by 45 per cent and Tasmania has the best rate of return to work in Australia for injured workers with a return-to-work rate of 91 per cent compared with 80 per cent nationally,” Ms Singh said.
“These changes will further enhance the scheme.
“To better meet the needs of injured employees the step down provisions have been lifted from 85 per cent of normal weekly earnings at 13 weeks to 90 per cent at 26 weeks.
“Access to common law claims will be improved by reducing the whole person impairment threshold from 30% to 20%.
“Based on advice from employers and the insurance industry these changes will take effect from 1 July 2010 which gives employers and insurers a year to prepare for the changes.
“To get overall better outcomes from return to work, the Government will legislate to implement the comprehensive Return To Work and Injury Management Model developed by the WorkCover Board.
“The package is expected to increase premiums from 1.97 per cent of wages to 2.26 per cent of wages for businesses.
“But as the Tasmanian experience has shown, with the proper focus on safety and strong return-to-work program costs can come down.” Ms Singh said
In summary the proposed reforms will:
o Foster and reinforce a return to work culture among employers ,workers and other stakeholders;
o Provide greater income security for workers by increasing the level of weekly compensation and extending the period of entitlement.
o Provide additional financial incentives for workers and employers to participate in rehabilitation and return to work;
o Increase the level of lump sum compensation for permanent impairment and death to levels more comparable to those provided in other Sates and Territories.
o Provide access to counselling services for the family of a deceased worker.
o Ensure that before a claim for compensation or damages is settled the worker has received appropriate legal and financial advice and all reasonable return to work, rehabilitation and retraining options have been exhausted.
o Provide a power to extend a workers entitlement to medical and related services where a worker requires further surgery or treatment to remain in employment.
o Improve access to common law by reducing the whole person impairment threshold from 30% to 20%.
Ref:David Bartlett, MP Premier
Lisa Singh, MP Minister for Workplace Relations
Monday, 13 July 2009
Tasmanian Government Communications Unit- Media Release
I dont get it. The above comments are suggesting reforms from their old legislation in which South Australia copied. We are already behind the rest of the states and our new legislation has just kicked in.
Isnt it funny how the other stated have kept common law and their levies are so much lower?
It does not make any sense that South Australia does not have any common law rights for injured workers.
Not only does it reduce the liability of the Corporation it also puts an onus on Employers to protect their employers from serious Injury.
Surely a system which puts penalties in the way of compensation to injured workers is a responsible tool in management of negligent employers. As many would know the fines are often inadequate when somebody gets killed or injured at work..
I've been following this blog for quite some time. I find it fascinating to read the other side of the story, as I worked for EML previously.
Personally, I think the biggest strain on the system, are the workers who don't need to be there. Not the legit claims, but, the claims for things like a dislocated finger, or similar mild injuries which are still on the system six months later.
A lot of the comments here say things along the line of "Why isn't my rehab consultant getting me back to work" Or, why haven't they done this? where is my rehab etc.
What you have to be aware of, is the fact that if you sit back, and try to get your RC to do ALL the work, you wont get anywhere. The best way to get better, is to help yourself.! The RC is there to make sure you are getting the right treatment, to ensure that you are coping, to provide the necessary advise and to liaise with the Medical professionals and EML.
Their role isn't to do everything for you.
I don't agree with the way that EML works, there is much too much emphasis on the wrong things, but the majority of statements here of poor management of the claims are seriously a massive massive waste of time. EML can only do what the legislation says.
I know a lady who was on WorkCover for five years. Getting a nice weekly income for a sprained wrist. She claimed it never got better and had it operated on etc.
She never went back to work and stayed on until she got her payout which was about $30000 for her injury.
What amazed me was why it took so long to pay her out and get her off the system in a matter which could have been settled within 6 months.
To me this case is obviously where all the money is dribbled and especially in her rehab, medcial travel and income maintenance. So yes there is a lot of money wasted one way or another..
It is similar for whistleblowers who find themselves unwitting players in the WorkCover scheme. Labor and Liberal governments have campaigned heavily to ensure that public opinion regards all WorkCover claimants first as rorters of the system. They are regarded as little more than parasites, freeloaders, malingerers, liars and bludgers. Television campaigns for decades have called on the public to dob in the cheats when, in fact, the rate of fraud amongst injured workers has been proven to be far less than 1 per cent. However, both the government and opposition validated that perception by voting for last year's bill, stripping people of basic income, rights to health care and common law protections, while still richly collecting on the levies.
For years, I have spoken about the scheme critical list. Before that, the issue was featured in June 2000 on the SBS Insight program, and I am informed by injured workers that there could not possibly be a member of this place or the other place, and no member of the legal fraternity or judiciary, who could not have known about the practices that were going on within our courtrooms. However, the story would get no coverage from any media in this state and had to be compiled in Victoria to get any media air time. It took two journalists to vigorously pursue this story to even get it screened after the producers became fearful of retribution and almost pulled the story.
Not one member in this place has picked up on the issue to offer their support to that particular cause affecting countless injured workers. It scandalises our courts, but we remain silent. It demonstrates that there is a strong hold by the executive over the judiciary in violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Does any member in this place actually care? I can only ask and wonder.
We should all care. The judgments and outcomes in each of the scheme critical cases will prove the corruption but, when the time comes to examine them more closely, corrupt decisions will no doubt be explained away as resulting from little more than judicial discretion or put down to some other legal or technical anomalies. Commonly, when we speak with whistleblowers, it is often only to offer excuses, justifications and platitudes. The most common one used for ignoring the scheme critical cases, I am told, has been, 'WorkCover is not an election issue.' This was a standard line given by countless members from Labor, Liberal and the Democrats when the scheme critical list was first exposed in the mid 1990s, but that has been the case, whether in government or opposition, since that time.
When public authorities refer to whistleblowers they invariably refer to them in derogatory terms, using terms such as 'self styled'—the term used by the senior legal officer of the Attorney-General's Department who was himself the architect of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
Like the verballing of witnesses among WorkCover and its various agents, I have become aware of another common and accepted practice among government agencies to remove letterheads, signatures, names of primary decision makers and other relevant markings when releasing FOI documents. Thus, not only are members of the public, seeking truth and answers to pertinent questions affecting their everyday lives, left to continue their quest for answers but, should they complain to the media, no media would be likely to report on their stories without credible documentation as to the sources of their information.
This is a corruption of the spirit and intent of the FOI act through and through. Once upon a time we would have expected the right to know and be able to access information about ourselves held by government departments through the FOI act but, under the previous government and, more so, under the current one, this has been eroded to the point of rendering the FOI act benign and little more than a white elephant.
This was also the template used in the Angela Morgan case, after she had alleged fraud by the wife of a senior WorkCover auditor. I have previously referred to Ms Morgan's story during my speech on ICAC on 26 September 2007, and in my motion on WorkCover corruption on 14 November 2007. Ms Morgan's disclosures alleged corruption by senior executive officers of the WorkCover Corporation who she alleges had set out to silence her public interest disclosures by actively but unlawfully assisting a private defamation suit against her with the full use of public resources and access to protected information.
In summary, Ms Morgan was successfully sued for defamation by a senior WorkCover auditor after she had revealed a WorkCover fraud by the senior auditor's wife. However, her appeal against the finding was then blocked by the denial of relevant documents, which are known to exist, to prove the truth of her disclosures. She was unable to secure access to those documents under either freedom of information or discovery.
In May 1993 Ms Morgan befriended the proprietor of a local seafood and chicken shop, and another shop employee, Sandra Mallard. At the time, Sandra was fully aware that the Pelican Plaza seafood and chicken shop was not WorkCover insured and she was working for undeclared wages. Sandra had a history of working for undeclared wages and had specifically requested of her employer that this be a condition of her employment for the takeaway shop on both occasions of employment with this proprietor.
The WorkCover fraud department would later commence investigations regarding the same proprietor through a separate WorkCover claimant—an investigation involving another restaurant. The worker involved in this claim was the subject of a covert surveillance operation which revealed that he was employed with the restaurant after allegedly sustaining an injury through working with a different employer.
Consequently, the corporation approached the proprietor of the restaurant to establish the wages this claimant was earning whilst on WorkCover benefits, and established from this contact that the restaurant was not WorkCover insured and that the same proprietor owned the Pelican Plaza pizza, seafood and chicken shop, which also was not insured.
By this time in the investigation process it was well known to the fraud department that Sandra Mallard, wife of a WorkCover senior auditor, was also an employee at the seafood and chicken shop and working for undeclared wages. As events unfolded, Ms Morgan came to believe that the senior auditor was himself aware of his wife's fraudulent activities and not merely a bystander, despite initially giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Amid these allegations, it did not take long for the corporation's executive rapidly to become aware of the implications of her allegations for the reputation of the WorkCover Corporation; that is, Ms Morgan claims the corporation closed ranks to protect its own and to persecute and destroy her and her son, Sean, in the process. Sean later committed suicide for reasons which suggest they were closely linked to her own persecution.
Although Ms Morgan initially declined to provide any testimony to WorkCover against the shop proprietors, she was issued with threats by the corporation under section 110 compelling her to give evidence, at which time she sought assurances of confidentiality to which she was entitled under the Whistleblowers Protection Act. Indeed, it would be many years later that the state ombudsman would make such a finding and table this in parliament to no effect—not enough to enable Ms Morgan's swift or timely justice. Neither did the then state ombudsman demand the corporation to produce documentation or hold it to account in any way.
After being promised such confidentiality, Ms Morgan met with the fraud officers, only to find herself, she says, being pressured into changing the nature of her evidence against the senior auditor's wife due to the scandal this would have uncovered for the corporation. When she refused to do so, the corporation began its persecution by delivering details of a confidential and legally protected disclosure to the fraud section against the Mallards directly into their hands for their private defamation suit.
It is significant to Ms Morgan's vindication that only Rod won his suit; Sandra subsequently lost, and Angela even had to pay her own costs. In breaching their obligations and Ms Morgan's legal rights to confidentiality and protection (amongst other laws), the corporation breached section 26 of the Freedom of Information Act, sections 110 and 112 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the entire Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993.
However, these breaches by the corporation are the tip of the iceberg; yet, even once the executives became acutely aware of their unlawful conduct, rather than set about making it right, they redoubled their effort to conceal their illegal activity. What makes this case so scandalous is proven through written correspondence by WorkCover executives showing their acute awareness of their own grossly unlawful conduct.
However, this did not deter them from knowingly continuing to conceal their wrongdoing from Ms Morgan, the state ombudsman and the courts with the clear intention of obstructing justice for Ms Morgan; concealing evidence of corporate negligence, malfeasance and corruption; and actively misleading the courts, often with judicial complicity in this conduct by the corporation.
I shall speak in more detail about this a little later, but suffice to say that Ms Morgan, to date, has paid in excess of $55,000 plus interest to the senior auditor for the privilege of helping South Australians detect fraudulent WorkCover claims and spent her life savings defending herself from defamatory and malicious allegations by the corporation and its officers ever since.
That the WorkCover Corporation and its board are actively and knowingly behaving in this manner is chronicled in the following memorandum, which I would like to read to the chamber in order for it to be put on the record so that the WorkCover Board members cannot claim plausible deniability at some future time when an ICAC is eventually established. Make no mistake: these pieces of correspondence are the smoking gun that vindicates Ms Morgan's allegations.
In a memo, dated 19 November 1996, it is suggested that Mike Terlet (Chairman of WorkCover Corporation) was handed a four page memo by Fred Morris (Chief Adviser, Legislation). In her disclosures, Ms Morgan claims that a copy of the four page memo, eventually obtained through FOI, is a forgery possibly carried out by the then acting CEO, Garry MacDonald. Evidence suggests that pages 2 and 4 were fabricated and that only page 1 may be the original content, but this would not be the only document suspected of being manufactured by WorkCover executives.
The purpose of this forged document is to suggest retrospectively, and with the intention of misleading the ombudsman's office, that an investigation into Ms Morgan's allegations were well underway. Suspected forgery aside, the memo dated 19 November 1996 states:
As can be seen despite a guarantee which was sought and given Ms Morgan's statement was placed in the hands of Mrs Mallard. The Problem: the current activity of The Advertiser and Mrs Robyn Geraghty will most probably mean that Ms Morgan will also go down that path. She has already started making extensive FOI requests seeking all her files other than her claim file. If The Advertiser gets hold of this story—
and, remember, this is an internal memo—
and they are true to their current approach then we will have a perception that we will have to manage. Fortunately the defamation decision is a public document and we could point them to the decision without any breach of confidentiality.
True to this intended management strategy, the corporation's defence against Ms Morgan's allegations of corruption throughout all these years has relied wholly and solely upon magistrate Hiskey's decision in the private defamation suit, which the corporation actively backed, to discredit Ms Morgan and mislead his court. Consequently, magistrate Hiskey's judgment ignored:
(a)that the WorkCover Corporation had lost its actions against Pelican Plaza Seafood and Chicken on appeal;
(b)that the court previously refused to grant Sandra's restraining order; and
(c)that Sandra was found to be lacking in credibility in her own defamation suit against Ms Morgan and therefore lost her suit.
In summation the memo confesses that:
· the corporation had a problem on its hands if Ms Morgan complained to the Ombudsman;
· the corporation's handling of her matters was clumsy and compounded at each step;
· Lew Owens did release Ms Morgan's letter to Rod Mallard;
· the fraud department had never investigated or reported on Ms Morgan's allegations as stated to the Ombudsman's Office;
· assurances to Ms Morgan of her confidentiality had been breached;
· Ms Morgan's personal and confidential details were leaked on multiple occasions to and by various parties; and
· the corporation's failure to discover all documents relevant to the defamation matter were crucial to the corporation's victory in court and Ms Morgan's subsequent finding of guilt.
Also, on 13 December 1996 Fred Morris, Chief Adviser Legislation, wrote to Mike Terlet, Chairman of WorkCover Corporation, in summation confessing that:
· the corporation was deeply concerned that Ms Morgan would seek to contact her local member, Ms Robyn Geraghty MP, who would raise these issues;
· the corporation was concerned that injured worker advocate groups were asking questions about why the suspected fraud by a spouse of a senior WorkCover auditor was not being investigated;
· there was a reluctance on behalf of the fraud department to allow for a proper investigation of Mrs Mallard's WorkCover claim;
· the corporation believed that the Ombudsman's investigation of the release by Lew Owens of Ms Morgan's letter would vindicate Mr Owen's actions; and
· Mr Mallard's response to the allegations by Ms Morgan required further investigation by the corporation, but not until after the Ombudsman's investigation was concluded.
This correspondence raises many questions, not the least of which are:
· Why was the corporation so sure that Lew Owens would be vindicated by the Ombudsman before any findings were handed down?
· Why would the corporation investigate Mr Mallard only after the Ombudsman had cleared Lew Owens?
· If Lew Owens had acted illegally, why would the Ombudsman not make such findings known, but choose to turn a blind eye, given that he has royal commission powers?
· If, as Ms Morgan suspects, documents have been forged, why did the Ombudsman not address this concern when it was before him, and why did the Ombudsman fail to pursue Ms Morgan's FOI request vigorously at the time, knowing how pertinent those documents would be to her appeal against the defamation case?
On 27 March 1997 Fred Morris, Chief Adviser Legislation, wrote to Keith Brown, Chief Executive Officer, a damning four-page memo stating, amongst other things, that:
· Lew Owens confronted Rod Mallard with Ms Morgan's letter and gave it to him;
· Lew accepted Rod's response and no further action was taken;
· fraud prevention also provided Rod Mallard with Ms Morgan's confidential letter;
· Rod Mallard's statements were questionable, and probably even false;
· the fraud report was 'lost' and never read by Lew Owens;
· it seriously questioned the conduct of Lew Owens, who readily accepted Rod Mallard's flawed explanations and was all too keen to assist Rod Mallard in any way to discredit Ms Morgan's allegations;
· Lew Owens' actions were 'less than professional';
· Ms Morgan's account of events was more chronologically correct than that given by the Mallards; and
· Ms Mallard was a liability to WorkCover.
Significantly, the memo also reads:
The Problems: the corporation appears to have protected Rod. Ms Mallard has been proven to be a bigger liar than Ms Morgan .
Again, an internal memo. Documents exist that appear to indicate that fraud prevention has protected Ms Mallard's claim from appropriate investigation and that officers of that department have been implicated in various ways against the proper conduct of the corporation's business. I quote this, 'Shit sticks to a blanket.' It is not the management of the facts but the management of the perception—the positives. Most of the corporation's questionable actions are questionable with the value of hindsight. Many of the allegations could have been pursued through the various litigations, but lawyers for Ms Morgan—and employers—declined to do so.
By 1997, the corporation breathed a sigh of relief knowing that Ms Morgan's ability to expose and sue the pants off the corporation was not realised much sooner, but this would not stop it from incapacitating her attempts to expose it over the next decade. If it was to be the corporation's defence in 1997 that it did not have the benefit of hindsight, since then its malfeasance has been self-evident, even to the corporation itself. If this conduct does not constitute corruption, I would like to know what does.
It is abundantly clear that, over and over again, the corporation did not see the Morgan matter as one needing resolution but 'management', presumably until they could wear her down for her scandalous allegations. Indeed, these comments were also made by Justice Olsson in the Supreme Court before striking out her matter. According to one eyewitness, Justice Olsson is said to have stated something along the lines of, 'Ms Morgan, do you understand what you are saying? What you are suggesting is that a senior WorkCover officer of such high rank is corrupt and dishonest. That's preposterous and outrageous, therefore it couldn't have happened', and ruled accordingly.
Years later, she would uncover documents to prove that the senior auditor and the CEO had actively colluded to secure her fraudulent defamation suit. These documents were concealed under FOI by the ombudsman's office for many years and by other judges who would not order their discovery.
What is scandalous is that corruption of this kind cannot be exposed. In 2000, when Ms Morgan set out to sue the WorkCover Corporation for disclosing her confidential statement, it was aided and abetted by two of the most senior executives of the corporation: the chief legal adviser, Mr Fred Morrison, and the chief executive officer, Mr Lew Owens. Once becoming aware of the gravity of their indiscretions and appalling malhandling of the entire case, the corporation did not sit down to negotiate a quiet way out of its humiliating mess. It did not set out to apologise or settle the dispute with Ms Morgan as amicably as possible but, instead, became ever more determined to use the courts to crush her financially and morally at taxpayers' expense.
In total, at last count, Ms Morgan has spent over 140 days (over almost 11 years) in court on just one action alone—Morgan v WorkCover Corporation—in the District Court of South Australia (action number DCCIV00960, entered on 17 July 2000), with more than another seven actions, only to have her affidavit struck out by Master Norman on the grounds that the allegations contained in her affidavit would scandalise the corporation, as she was seeking, among other things, that the CEO be imprisoned for tampering with documents and concealing evidence after having waited for five years for discovery of documents.
Judge Kevin Nicholson dismissed Ms Morgan's appeal but, nine years on, she is still seeking that Master Norman rule and demand once and for all that WorkCover fully complies with the court rules and orders. Why after nine years is Master Norman still having such difficulty when the court rules require discovery within 21 days of pleading?
As in Mr Smith's case, when Ms Morgan was advised of the Whistleblowers Protection Act and how she might seek its protections, she was informed of the need to make a public interest disclosure to a responsible officer under the act. It was a requirement at that time that all government departments had such a person nominated and trained. WorkCover, not having such a person, sure enough promptly appointed the very senior auditor against whom Ms Morgan sought to testify.
As shown in the Morgan case, the template used in countless scheme critical cases has been the protraction of litigation and misleading of the courts through the suppression of information until an adverse judgment against a whistleblower is secured. Then the authorities regurgitate the adverse judgment ad infinitum to their own advantage. Invariably, these same judgments are relied upon by ministers and the Attorney-General as reason to do nothing to remedy wrongful or corruptly acquired court convictions or decisions. It is also—
Question 1: If I make any earnings through my own business, do I have to declare it? If I declare it, they will deduct my weekly EML payments.
If you do not declare it you may be charged with making a false or misleading statement under S110 of the workcover act. A police officer was once charged like this who had a second job and did not declare it..
Question 2: If I am required to declare it and have my weekly payments deducted, then why didn't they reimburse for the losses from the first place?
Because they are arseholes and the legislation is designed to rip you of not compensate you. Why else would Liberal and Labor set up a corporation that has no controls over how much it spends on litigation with injured workers and employers.
If you are well enough to have a second job perhaps you should consider taking a redemption to finalise your medical etc and get on with your life instead of hanging on to workcover like a baby hangs on to his mothers apron..
Workcover is really only designed as a compensation scheme but it has lost its direction and now is an agency of harrassment, litigation, media spin, rehabilitation, compensation and a the time operates with interests of employers on one hand and the workers they injured on the other..
Pity it is a them v us relationship that the corporation has successfully developed over the many years of litigation and ripping off and depriving injured workers of their proer entitlements..
WorkCover manager gets $2m
Article from: The Advertiser
July 23, 2009 12:01am
THE company managing WorkCover's claim management was paid $2 million to cope with changes to the scheme - without even asking for it.
Employers Mutual received the payment as an "implementation fee" after its contract was renegotiated to cope with the need for more staff and training.
An email from WorkCover SA chief executive Julia Davison said the fee was to cover the costs of the new system.
A their name suggests, Employers Mutual Limited supports "EMPLOYERS". Thankyou Mr Rann!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 10:13am today
Comment 10 of 10
EML is a joke, I cant believe MORE money is being given to these "consultants". They are certainly a big problem behind work cover, like a leech they suuuuck money out of our pockets
Posted by: mine the state and get us off the planet of Adelaide 9:47am today
Comment 9 of 10
Unbelievable. Maybe A Current Affair or Today Tonight can do one of their investigative reports into this.
Posted by: My opinion.. of Adelaide 9:43am today
Comment 8 of 10
Let me get this right. EML were appointed in 2005 away from the tender process on a performance based contract. Three years later as the unfunded liability sky rocketed, this government with the help of Business SA pushed in draconian compensation reforms blaming injured workers. So nearly two years after these laws were passed and no sign of improvement, the government turns around and gives EML a gift of $2 million because of the "changes". What happened to the performance based contract?
Posted by: Andrew Pascoe of Burnside 9:42am today
Comment 7 of 10
I am disgusted. I was injured at work, through no fault of my own. and was subject to disbelief and ridicule by the so called rehabilitation system, was told I was "just a truckie" and "not able to do anything else" so here I sit in a crappy minimum wage job with little future all because workcover were too lazy to pull there collective finger out to assist, I said assist me to better my self. I, off my own back and own expense am studying part time, but making ends meet is nigh on impossible. Workcover forced me onto the minimum wage, where if it wasn't for my saviongs I would be on the street, and the chiefs of workcover live it up with huge bonuses.
Posted by: disgusted of 8:56am today
Comment 6 of 10
I just hope that one day some investigative journalist will do a story on the whole Workcover saga including details of how EML was first appointed as Claims Manager in this State, on how the Government and EML have totally mismanaged the Scheme leading to the blowout in unfunded liabilities and on the Government's and EML's ruthless trestment of injured workers in this State.
Posted by: Kym of 8:12am today
Comment 5 of 10
What does the minister responsible think of this or do they even know that it happened?
Posted by: Andrew of Broadview of Broadview 6:56am today
Comment 4 of 10
And people wonder why Mike Ranns Labor Government is broke!
Posted by: Robert of Morphett Vale 6:09am today
Comment 3 of 10
What can I say...I am dumbfounded!! Perhaps those who are suffering on cut wages due to negligence of employers just might want to comment.
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 12:47am today
Comment 2 of 10
I can now see why people are asking for an ICAC. It's ok if its not your money.
Posted by: Wendy of Adelaide 11:11pm July 22, 2009
Comment 1 of 10
I attended the Parliamentary enquiry where WorkCover Board Chairman Mr. Phillip Bentley and WorkCover CEO Ms Julia Davison spoke over each other in order to answer the question of the $2 million given to EML as a part of the cost required by EML to help with the changes to the legislation. It should be noted that giving evidence at this Parliamentary investigation means that one is expected to speak the truth -I have also given evidence at this enquiry- Last week at the Injured Workers Stakeholder Meeting I was again present when as a part of the CEO's update Ms Davison said "EML did not come knocking on the door asking for the $2 million, we gave it to them without request." There seems to be a lot more to than has been admitted either in the Parliamentary enquiry or at the Injured Workers Stakeholder meeting. With that in mind I have lodged and FOI into the money as well as other money that WorkCover has paid out on behalf of EML in the way of advertising for case managers or other incidental expenses. My anger in this is twofold, the $2 million dollars gifted to EML is from the levies the employers of South Australia pay to cover the cost of workplace injured workers, that money is hard earnt by the employers and paid as a matter of legal requirement to the WorkCover Corporation. At the same time this money was being just gifted away, Work Injured Resource Connection was fighting to get basics rights in place for injured workers. I am angry because of what I see every day, I am angry because of the calls for help that come into this office from injured workers who have committed no crime. I am angry because for far too long no-one has been allowed to know just what is going on behid the locked doors of the WorkCover Board Room. The question of the $2 million is one thing, but we the public also need to know just who it was that decided that it would be wise to gift EML $2 million, and why $2 million, we also need to know what if any guidelines were put in place for the expenditure of the $2 million and what proof has been provided back to the WorkCover Board of just how the $2 million was spent. We also need to know why the contract needed to be redone, the excuse put forward was the change of the legislation, that may be correct or it may not be, none of us are allowed to know. Under the orginal contract the Minister had the right to bring in another claims agent, we don't know if that is still a possibility under the new contract. All I know is like every one else I have far more questions than I will get answers for. I also know that it is now possible for the State Auditor General to go into WorkCover, however for that to happen it would require Treasurer Foley to ask for that to happen. I am aware that should this be printed I will anger a great many people within the WorkCover Corporation and EML, however my duty of care goes as it always has done to the injured workers of South Australia. For far too long there has been no accountability or credibility coming out of 100 Waymouth St Adelaide. I have watched SA WorkCover go from being an International leader to a laughing stock and that just has to stop. Yours in service, Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection 8410 0121 wirc@bold.net.au
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Work Injured Resource Connection 7:59pm today
Comment 20 of 20
Get ready for the SPIN to start..Rann the master of spin will no doubt have an almost airtight story to placate the punters by the six pm news
Posted by: Andrew of Broadview of 5:27pm today
Comment 19 of 20
If Peter of Goodwood comments are correct and there has been 2000 redemptions where the liability ceases. Maybe this is why the claims manager received this money as it lost a considerable amount of work. How many more injured workers are left on the system?
Posted by: Harry of Reynella 5:17pm today
Comment 18 of 20
Who gets paid a bonus for failing to do their job?
Posted by: Harry of Reynella 12:04pm today
Comment 17 of 20
The new WorkCover reforms were based from Victorias WorkCover system and was claimed to be the best system in the nation. And as soon as South Australias was put into place Victoria realised thier system needed reform and are currently implementing new changes. Where does that leave WorkCover SA?
Posted by: Andrew Pascoe of Burnside 11:59am today
Comment 16 of 20
WorkCover has become a huge cash cow for the government in employer levies. It is just another tax. Last year they had $650 million invested all over the place but were still willing to claim an unfunded liability figure to set a levy. There has been nearly 2000 redemptions of liabilities in the past 18 months and still no lowering of the levy. Businesses should be outraged and should also be asking questions.
Posted by: Peter of Goodwood 11:55am today
Comment 15 of 20
This is appalling when there are so many injured workers out there who have been forced to get less pay, or are forced in to early redundancy. My father in law hurt his back at work and is he now worried that he will be getting less money or forced into retirement. Wheres workcover for him - they couldnt care less what happens to him.
Posted by: lorraine symonds of 11:31am today
Comment 14 of 20
One thing I like about this website is you can learn alot about subjects you know nothing about. If these postings are correct how come not more has been said or even done. It seems to me like it has been pushed under the carpet. Where do the unions sit on this subject. Do they support the current situation?
Posted by: Wendy of Adelaide 11:26am today
Comment 13 of 20
Hahaha, my opinion, aca or today tonight doing an actual proper investigative report. They can put it between "the latest how to lose weight" and "the neighbour from hell" stories.
Posted by: mo money of 10:31am today
Comment 12 of 20
This just shows there was no intention to reduce injured workers of the scheme when they were appointed. How can they receive a payment without even asking for it? There must be more to it than what is reported. Firstly they were appointed outside of the tender process and now given this gift. Why so many favors?
Posted by: Peter of Goodwood 10:28am today
Comment 11 of 20
A reason I support an ICAC in South Australia Ms Davison CEO WorkCover Corporation said the $2 million given to the claims agent EML was an "implementation fee". Yet the $2 million was not asked for by EML it was decided by the WorkCover Board and Senior Managers to simply give away $2 million under the terminolgy of an "implementation fee". If it had not been for the persistant questioning at the Parliamentary enquiry, the public of South Australia would have never known that the money was gifted to EML without request, it would have simply been accepted as a part of the new contract as a "implementation fee". not that the public of South Australia would have ever seen the full budget workings, only the auditors would have seen them and maybe they too would have accepted the term "implementation fee". Maybe the best place to take my concerns to is the Police Anti-Corruption Branch, because I simply can not accept that a $2million gift can be written up as an "implementation fee" Yours in service, Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Work Injured Resource Connection 11:17pm July 24, 2009
“The growing list of unresolved cases involving the Rann Government includes the debacle of the SA Jockey Club, dubious appointments to high-paying board positions and other perceived conflicts of interest. These should all be the focus of a South Australian ICAC.”
Ask Peter Vaughan why "Employer" levies was paid to fund a $2 million gift to EML. Business owners should be asking more questions.
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of Plympton 3:20pm today
I really dislike Rosemary. Mainly because just like the reahb providers and workcover workers, shes only in it for HERSELF.
As Rosemary about the sweatshop she used to run in the city around 10 years ago where she used to get injured workers to do FREE typing work for her own business interests.
All Rosemary cares about is one thing... Rosemary.
It's a shame she has pulled the wool over so many of your eyes. And it's even shameful she is using injured workers to future her own business and personal interests.
Fascism is defined as a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Any reader will see many similarities between the manner in which WorkCover is governed.
One classic example is wherever an injured worker speaks out about the system they are focibly suppressed. either by way of confidentiality agreements, media spin, or ill treatment of them in respect of their claim.
All this sounds exactly like the amount of money that the claims agent was going to save WorkCover along with that promise was the promise of better return to work outcomes and lower legal costs. Instead what we have is the unfunded liability on unmanned skyrocket heading out past $2 BILLION. Runner Rann and Fluff Foley want us to believe they can be trusted. I wouldn't trust them with my piggy bank let alone my vote next March.
Posted by: mirror and smoke of 3:04pm today
I have been treating work injuries for more than 25 years. Problems caused by independent opinions and surveillance continue.
Workers are often unfairly assessed by "fly in" doctors who, in a single consultation, can deny the existence of an injury or reject necessary treatment, effectively overruling the treating practitioners' opinion. A worker's income and treatment can be stopped based on a single assessment.
Surveillance causes intrusion into family lives while useful information is rarely obtained. There are privacy concerns for family and children, such as filming at schools. The distress caused changes the worker's focus from recovery to the injustice. Recovery is extended and medical resources are wasted on legal arguments.
A co-operative approach, promoting recovery and rehabilitation, will get better results than confrontation and disputation.
WorkCover's "Injury Management Model" is a start. Codes of practice should be developed on the use of independent doctors with mechanisms to redress non-compliance.
Surveillance should only be undertaken where sanctioned by an independent authority to determine there are reasonable grounds and ensure individual privacy.
Dr Peter Sharman.
Occupational Physician
In a media release dated 30 March 2009, WorkCover Corporation Chief Executive Julia Davison confirmed poor investment performance and tumbling interest rates had caused a further deterioration in the Scheme’s
liabilities, and that internal financial monitoring confirmed the unfunded liability of the scheme had risen above $1.3 billion.
This figure was revealed after an actuarial evaluation of WorkCover conducted for the year ended 31 December 2008.
In June 2007 the unfunded liability was $843 million and the Scheme was 64.7 percent funded. By June 2008 the unfunded liability had risen to $984 million and the scheme was 60.8 percent funded.
Now we know the unfunded liability has soared to over $1.3
billion, with the Scheme probably less than 60 percent funded.
This comes at a time when Victoria is reportedly dumping moves to introduce provisional liability into its Scheme, because market losses have “pushed” the Government fund deeply into the red.
Time will tell if our State Government should have been
equally cautious and dumped or deferred the operation of the amendment which introduced provisional liability into our system from 1 January 2009.
We understand that the operation of provisional liability is currently being reviewed by the Government and WorkCover.
SA RETURN-TO-WORK RATE STILL LAGGING
The deterioration in the Scheme’s financial performance mirrors a continuing deterioration in South Australia’s return-to-work rate.
The State continues to have a return-to-work rate of 75 percent, significantly lower than the national average of 85 percent.
Nationally, two in three injured workers who return to work return to the same employer and carry out the same pre-injury duties, compared to 57 percent in South
Australia. In addition, South Australia has the highest rate
of injured workers receiving compensation payments – 47
percent – with 30 percent of injured workers in South Australia reporting worker’s compensation payments as their main income source, compared to the national
average of 15 per cent.
At the same time, there is growing dissatisfaction among both injured workers and employers regarding claims management. South Australians are facing further
uncertainty with the introduction of Medical Panels SA, which commenced operation on 1 April 2009.
In particular, we don’t know how the Medical Panel will go about determining whether or not workers are in suitable employment and working to their maximum capacity.
These changes, coupled with the current financial position of WorkCover and the deep global financial crisis, suggest a “perfect worker’s compensation storm” is looming in South Australia.
Politicians are already attempting to chart their course.
IMPLICATIONS FOR WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS
So what does this all mean for injured workers and employers?
Injured workers in receipt of income maintenance payments who have not had their entitlement to lump-sum compensation for permanent impairment determined will, in most cases, experience a significant reduction in the value of the entitlement, because of the introduction of a new methodology of assessment for permanent impairment entitlements from 1 April 2009.
Some may find they have no entitlement at all, while others
will find their entitlement is less.
Those with serious injuries may be better off. The introduction of work capacity reviews, affecting all workers
from 1 April 2009, will certainly cause workers affected by those reviews a good deal of anxiety.
There are likely to be many workers who are currently in
receipt of “top up” income maintenance payments following
a partial return to work who will be subject to a work capacity review and a risk that the entitlement to top-up payments will cease as a consequence.
Others who have not made a return to work at all will have
payments ceased. Employers too have reason to be
anxious. The Government’s terms of reference for the Clayton Walsh review, commissioned by the Government to review the Scheme and WorkCover Corporation proposals, included the aim to reduce the average
levy rate (paid by registered employers) from 3 percent to
within the range of 2.75 2.25 percent by 1 July 2009. The
average levy rate is set annually.
The WorkCover Board has recently decided that the levy
rate should remain unchanged at 3 percent. Whether it remains at 3 percent next year will largely depend upon the performance of the Scheme in the next 12 months.
The Scheme will remain under pressure because it will take some time before the effect of work capacity reviews is felt, if indeed they have a positive effect. In the meantime it can be expected that rising unemployment will result in lower levy collections and more claims.
In addition, employers with more than 30 employees are now required to employ a rehabilitation-and-return-to-work coordinator.
Training such personnel costs up to $1,000 and there will be other ongoing costs associated with the role.
PROVISIONAL LIABILITY CAUSING GREAT UNCERTAINTY
The introduction of the concept of provisional liability is also causing a considerable degree of uncertainty. A worker can lodge a Claim Form and make it clear to the employer that he or she is not making a claim for compensation, but in some circumstances still receive
provisional payments for up to 13 weeks. If a claim for compensation is subsequently made and rejected, the provisional payments cannot be recovered unless dishonesty is proven.
If Employers Mutual, the sole claims manager for WorkCover in South Australia, maintains the approach of accepting all new claims for provisional liability, some registered employers will have their viability threatened. Currently a registered employer has the obligation
to pay income maintenance payments for the first two weeks of incapacity and those payments do not affect the levy calculation. In some circumstances it can be envisaged that the provisional liability payments for the first two weeks of incapacity will impact upon the levy and could be the difference between the employer being
adversely affected by the bonus penalty calculation or not.
The obligations imposed upon employers by Section 58B of the Act to provide suitable duties to injured workers will be more onerous in the current environment because employers are trying to trim less productive areas of their businesses.
BOTTOM LINE – STAY ALERT
What is clear is that in this perfect storm of change and
financial challenge, the next 12 months will prove a
difficult period for employers to weather. Levy notices will soon be going out to registered employers and they and their accountants would be well advised to scrutinise them closely and review the claims which are impacting
upon the levy to ensure that the levy rate is appropriate.
In recent times Donaldson Walsh has successfully challenged the Corporation’s assertions and achieved substantial levy savings as a result.
Self insurers, whilst equally affected by the economic crisis and some of the uncertainties associated with the legislative amendments, at least have the advantage of maintaining control over claims management and rehabilitation initiatives.
How odd that an occupational physician like Mr Sharman can see the obvious problems with WorkCover but all of its clever, so called educated employees can not.
Quote "Surveillance causes intrusion into family lives while useful information is rarely obtained. There are privacy concerns for family and children, such as filming at schools. The distress caused changes the worker's focus from recovery to the injustice. Recovery is extended and medical resources are wasted on legal arguments.
A co-operative approach, promoting recovery and rehabilitation, will get better results than confrontation and disputation. "
For me it all seems to be due to incompetence within the ranks, its little wonder with such incompetence at the helm injured workers are left to rot for decades on the system.
While I in no way support WorkCover as a corporation, not it's claims agent, I fully 100% support surveillance.
Recently a claimant I know of was caught out partying hard while claiming a very serious injury that would have prevented him from doing so , there were hours of video footage of him. This claimaint has been on ths system for nearly 10 years costs thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So yes, I very much support surveillance. After all if you have nothing to hide what is the problem?
Why has a claimiant been receiving payments for 10 years?
Thats a long time to have been on WorkCover. They could have recovered or anything in 10 years.
Surveillance is only used as a means of scaring people into submission. It has not real value and why should anyone be subjected to the intrusion into their private life by an ex-cop who could not hack being "on the job" and who does not care whether they film their family members or not. Quite often it is not passive filming of an injured worker by a surveillance operator sitting in a car but surveillance operators following people around with camers hidden in suitcases, bags or their jackets..
Sometimes poeple are followed for weeks, months and years in the hope of finding just a small slip up or a day where they are better than their worst..
Stop the rot...pay injured workers out in reasonable time and the savings would be enormous.
The money saved by paying injured workers out within 2 years would far outweigh the benefits of keeping injrued workers on the system for 10 years just so they could be caught our partying..
I for one was subjected to my wife being filmed by some weirdo with a video. The doorknocking of all the neighbours is something I could not understand but most of all seeing them sitting in the car from dawn till midday on so many occasions and then sitting at the school gate waiting for the afternoon pickup just showed me how desperate they were.
Perhaps he was hoping my wife was going to miraculously cured after the operation on her arm and wrist..
Article from: NEWS.com.au
August 03, 2009 09:45am
POLICE could once again be sprayed with capsicum spray during training to give them a better understanding of its effects.
The NSW Police Association is lobbying for the return of the training following concerns officers are being hit accidentally in the field.
In the latest incident about 2am yesterday, two officers accidentally sprayed each other in the face breaking up a brawl outside a karaoke bar in inner-Sydney's Bathurst St.
The two were in visible pain as they tried to wash the irritant out of their eyes. They were treated by paramedics. Two men were arrested and later charged with offensive conduct.
Until about two years ago, officers were sprayed with capsicum spray and had to show they could keep their weapon away from an attacker and fight back. WorkCover ended the training when an officer was injured in the eye.
Association assistant secretary Greg Black said changing from a chemical base to a water base meant while the burning sensation remained there was less chance of an eye irritation.
"It's necessary this occur in training, in controlled circumstances, so police know its effects on them if they are ever sprayed when on the job and, anecdotally, this is a common occurrence,'' Mr Black said.
He said the new water-based spray was tested two weeks ago and a report was being prepared.
Mr Black said officers usually used water to wash away the effects on people sprayed but that paramedics these days carried baby shampoo in case they were called to an incident.
Injured workers take a reduced wage whilst on WorkCover. That gives them a right to sit on here and write whatever they want.
I think it is common knowledge that a lot of suicides occur after "partying". So to say injured workers are not allowed to party is wrong.
bludging workers who pretend to be injured CHOOSE to take a wage cut and they choose to spend the rest of their wage on the internet so they can sit on here whine whine whining
A Federal ICAC is ridiculous. Will they have the powers to investigate the SAJC, Families SA or WorkCover which happens to be a state issue?
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 8:08am today
The Paradox named Security & Private Investigators
Hands up anyone who encrypts emails? Hard drives? Attachments?
What? No one?
Seems it's time I get onto my hobby horse again. Security and privacy. Or lack of it when it comes to people and organisations who should know better. I am speaking of private investigators. And their company clients.
What is encryption? Encoding data in such a way that no one, no one at all, can decode it to read it. Unless the correct passcode is used.
Imagine you have done an investigation and your client, some big insurance show, asks you to email the report urgently. Being a true pro, you package up the report nicely and click SEND. And a week later the confidential report starts appearing on forums all over the place. Or on the desk of the plaintiff's solicitor.
Or, you have a very cool website with a special client interface. You make a big deal telling everyone about your latest technology and how clients access their reports, invoices, video etc through a special web-based interface.
But you forgot that many people use generic passwords.
"Hacking" often means nothing more than guessing a username and a password. And suddenly some stranger on the other side of the world logs into your important client's special section on your site and grabs a whole pile of DOC files. Nice reports. Guess what he's going to do with them?
Get the message?
How can your client decrypt your encrypted reports? You create a self-decrypting archive which is basically the encrypted data which includes a decryption mechanism. You email the file to the client and then the passcode in a separate email. Or personally hand him the passcode for future use.
Let's say you're updating your PC so the old one is going out. You've done the right thing and formatted the hard drive before flogging off the computer on eBay. And the buyer uses some readily available little program and restores the majority of your hard drive content. Some incriminating accounts? Juicy client reports? Can't be done? You bet! I can recover files from a hard drive that's been formatted three times. And so can most other people.
And what about your USB memory stick? Ever lost one?
How to wipe data? Most encryption programs, certainly PGP, includes a wiping component which overwrites data in such a way that it is not possible to recover it.
How come that the very people who should know better don't bother to secure data on their computer or when using the internet?
I've been running this site for many years. And been in the investigation business for many more, yet I am yet to come across a single person, a single agency, a single company, that asked me to encrypt before sending a report by email. No, not right. Actually about 10 years ago or so an agency in Israel insisted on encrypted email attachments. That was the only time.
Installing and using something like PGP doesn't take a degree in IT. Exchanging attachments with clients is quite simple even if the client does not have PGP installed.
I accept that emailing reports and invoices is not a daily event for most private investigators. But using the PC is. And most are online most of the time, therefore exposed to serious risk of attack. The attack does not necessarily have to come from the outside. It can easily come from within by way of some Trojan or keylogger which is often slipped into your computer by infected software downloaded from who knows where. Or through visiting some sites which, well…. You don't want to admit to.
At a minimum you should get PGP and install it. Then encrypt all your sensitive data. And wipe deleted files so they can never be recovered. By anyone.
I am an injured worker and have no fear of surveillance, in fact I believe it is an important part of any insurance claim. The problem I have with surveillance agents however is their reputation of corrupting and manipulating files. I have a friend who practises insurance law and a favorite "past time" of his is discrediting surveillance in a court of law.
If you have ever been threatened by surveillance dont back down and fight it in in court (tribunal). The practise of corrupting files are common and easily found out!
My wife is on WorkCover and after applying for her FOI file found out that she had surveillance on her. One of the things they must have missed was the fact she attends Adelaide Clinic for her work related claim as we claim through private health insurance because simply it is much easier. They have never asked for a report from her Doctor so we simply do whats right for her health. Wouldnt it be so funny if they now thought she wasnt suffering from anything and wanted to use it in court without all the information?
Rann & Hill have done to Public Health what Rann Wright & Cacia have done to WorkCover, none of you wanted to know what we were telling you about WorkCover, now you can see for yourself what they are doing to Public Health you are screaming, injured workers lead by Rosemary from Work Injured Resource Connection have been screaming for the past 7 yrs. WorkCover Corporation only care about the advertising of how well they are doing, Public health just alters the way the lists are put together. Time to get Rann out of Government!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mirror image of WorkCover of 7:07pm today
Comment 57 of 60
Max, its good to see WorkCover concentrating more on petty issues like watching blog sites than actually returning injured workers back to work.
This is the exact reason the scheme is the way it is and has no way of improving!
Dr John Talbot is one of them doctors who only does compensation work for Workcover or ComCare. He disregards any reports you have from practising professionals, and makes claims that he himself won't support by signing a PMC! Then sums up his report to EML with; I trust this report meets your requirements regarding Mr/Mrs Blah. The requirements being an "IME????" for a 130wk review. How long will this bloke be allowed to continue this kind of malpractice, which is by his own admission bias, unethical, and in noway related to medical facts!
Posted by Not rehabilitated but kicked off anyway at 4:15 PM, 10/8/2009
In 2006 before EML took on Workcover the "unfunded liability" was $600million! In Dec 2008 the "unfunded liability" had risen to $1.3 billion.
So since it's inception in 1986 to 2006, a period of 20 years, the Workcover "unfunded liability" rose to $600million, then in just 2.5 years EML blew this out to more than double that figure.
A figure that is blamed on entirely on injured workers alone rorting the system, not only by Workcover and EML but also by Media Mike and his chronies.
So what these liars would have everyone believe is; That from Jun2006 to Dec2008 20years worth of new work related injuries have occurred in South Australia! Agent 86 what are you doing about that?
Being that this can be the only plausible reason for the doubling of such a huge debt, in such a short period of time given workers alone are to be blamed for the liability!
And why have employer levies been reduced? Given their apparently shocking track record over this 2.5year period! Can you answer that MAX or MIKE, and still keep to your original explaination?
NO you can't! Why? Because everything you've said, is all LIES!!!!!!
Don't try to blame the blowout on the current world economic crisis either because; According to EML team leader and Workcover award winner Alexandra ***********, there is no such downturn affecting the economy, nor the employment opportunities for injured workers in South Australia!
Though Julia Davidson does state in her Mar2009 media release that the "Unfunded liability" Increased by approx $300million, this is due to a lower investment return rate caused by the world economic crisis. But Alexandra knows better! Also this would still leave an unacceptable $400million blowout addition in 2.5years under EML, even after taking Julia Davidson's report into account! So what's going on?
As a TaxPayer and registered voter in SA, I demand a proper explanation without the spin and bull. Because so far I just see a picture painted by lot of criminals fattening their purses at injured workers, and the public's expense. This must not be allowed to continue! Those directly involved should be facing charges of treason. Is it any wonder they don't want an Independant Commission. Treason against the Commonwealth (which also means the public) still carries a death penalty here in Australia!
Why do you think John Bannon stood down when instructed to take the stand during the State Bank Affair in 1991? It was very likely that his own testimony would have confirmed his treason, and if found guilty, he could have been executed under Commonwealth Law!
Posted by I'm following you home each night! at 5:38 PM, 10/8/2009
If you want to blame anyone, blame these so-called UNIONS who are supposed to be "fighting for your rights" meanwhile because they get offered nice positions in the Rann Government they push you people aside.
Janet Giles is too busy having her expensive lunches and dinners with Sandra De Poi to give a shit about your pathetic little lives. Anything she and her Unions do is nothing but a token effort to make it look like their doing something.
As for Rosemary Ferguson, you will find she gets financial support from WorkCover itself (she even goes as far as putting in for WorkCover contracts) to run her little business, so don't think she gives a shit about you. It's all about her.
Instead of leaving messages on here why not write your letters of complaint to your MPs and workcover and claims supervisors. Give them more paperwork to do..and while you are at it do a 107 B and get some free paper for your kids to draw on..
The Labor Parties media coverage for the new Wokcover legistslation in the past worked a treat.Can any one tell me what the new blow out figure is to what it was twelve months ago and how much was spent on media/advertising.I imagine both figures will come up very ugly!!
Posted by: John of Cheltenham 9:23am today
Comment 57 of 72
John of Cheltenham 9:23am today Comment 57 of 111WorkCover has reached a guesstimated combined unfunded liability of $2 BILLION. That is the registered and the Government WorkCover process. This is why we need Rosemary from Work Injured Resource Connection to have a louder voice than she already has, Rosemary works for injured workers the WorkCover Corporation would like nothing more than to have her go away. As for the advertising that WorkCover Corporation does it is a pitiful thing to know that the advertising implies everything is warm and wonderful when the truth is nothing like that at all. WorkCover Corporation have even paid for the advertising for case managers for the claims agent. That is on top of WorkCover Corporation giving the claims agent $2 million for no real reason. Mike Rann would have no idea as to who Rosemary is, but he needs to pay heed to her knowledge and that more and more injured workers now know that she isn't going anywhere even though she gets no support for the work she does.
Posted by: Injured Worker of 2:16pm today
Comment 115 of 123
Hahaha the above comment. Take note: Rosemary does not give a shit about ANY of you. She is in this for herself, has always been in this for herself and only cares about her OWN business interests. If Rosemary REALLY cared about injured workers she wouldn't be taking financial payoffs from WorkCover and the like!
A ROLLER door manufacturer has been fined $300,000 over an incident in which a man was killed by a falling 350kg drum almost two years ago.
Mervyn Jacobs died after a seven-metre-long drum, a component in industrial roller doors, fell on him as it was being moved by a crane at the Victorian Kilsyth factory of manufacturer B&D Australia on November 28, 2006.
The company pleaded guilty to two breaches of occupational health and safety laws.
Victorian County Court Judge Damian Murphy convicted and fined B&D Australian $300,000, describing the breaches as in the mid-range of seriousness.
He said the company had failed to undertake a risk assessment of the specific duties Mr Jacobs was performing.
Mr Jacob's wife Valme provided a victim impact statement to the court describing her grief and that of her two young daughters.
"There are days I am just an emotional wreck," she said in her statement read out in court.
"Every day I ask God to give me strength so I can go out to work to support (my daughters)."
Judge Murphy said he would give the company two months to pay the fine.
He said had B&D Australia not pleaded guilty he would have fined the company an additional $100,000.
I have been on WorkCover for a few years. To help me in the future I often wondered whether I should write a short victim impact statement about my injury and a long victim impact statement of how being on Workcover and the system has severely impacted on my life.
the injury I could handle, but being on WorkCover is something else, it surely is not in the best interests of injured workers to be on Workcover as it does little to rehabilitate or comepnsate them for their injuries.
I hope they film the WorkCover tribunal so everyone can see how much money is being wasted!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 10:40am today
Comment 66 of 68
Hey John Richards I agree with you, the number of times that concilliation has to be adjourned because EML just aren't ready or they haven't remembered to brief the lawyer or that they are not even sure if the claim has been accepted or the employer suddenly remembers that the weekly wage is at the amount the injured worker has been able to prove via bank records, or the case manager has not read the specialist report that supports the injured worker. And the list goes on, the whole WorkCover process needs to be re-done.
Posted by: Calling Fire Engine Fred of Broken Promises 11:11am today
A large number of people who call this office for support and information in regard to workplace bullying and harrassment of all types are government employees who are too terrified to lodge a WorkCover claim because they know that that would only target them more than they already are. All I can do is sit and listen, I can give the callers all the information they need to lodge a claim I can offer to go to all manner of appointments, but the answer is always the same, the fear of being identified is greater than the abuse they face as a result of just going to work. All I can do is offer to help, but with so many in fear of what could happen it is going to take a major effort just to get the claims lodged then an even bigger effort to get the mess resolved. Yours in service, Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Work Injured Resource Connection 2:31pm today
Comment 20 of 20
Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson, I know exactly what you are talking about as complaining about a WorkCover issue just puts a black mark on your "file". I have found the "new" scheme has not improved in service and the public would not know simply because injured workers are just too scared to speak out!
Posted by: injured worker life of hell 3:28pm today
JAMES Hardie former chief executive Peter Macdonald has been banned from managing a company for 15 years and fined $350,000 for breaching the Corporations Act.
In the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Ian Gzell singled out Mr Macdonald for the harshest penalty as he imposed fines and bans on former directors for breaches of the Act.
In April, he found that Mr Macdonald, two former James Hardie executives and seven non-executive directors breached the Act during the creation of an asbestos compensation trust in 2001, and a corporate restructure in 2003.
A press release approved by the board of James Hardie in February 2001 was found to contain deceptive and misleading comments about the company's capacity to meet its compensation liabilities for asbestos sufferers.
The Australian Securities Investments Commission had asked the court to disqualify Mr Macdonald for up to 16 years and fine him between $1.47 million to $1.81 million.
Justice Gzell disqualified Peter Shafron, the former general consul of James Hardie, for seven years and fined him $75,000.
Former chief financial officer Phillip Morley was fined $35,000 and disqualified for five years.
The non-executive board members, including Meredith Hellicar and Telstra director Peter Willcox, were each fined $30,000 and banned from managing a company for five years.
James Hardie NV was fined $80,000.
Victims disappointed
Asbestos disease campaigners have urged James Hardie's board members to visit the bedsides of dying sufferers, saying former executives had treated sufferers only as financial statistics.
Outside court, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union secretary Paul Bastian told reporters he was disappointed with the penalties and the length of the bans.
"Corporate law in this country needs some geniune revision about putting some balance back into it, making sure there are proper sentences and proper penalties imposed,'' he said.
"I don't think it will have much impact on any of them, I suspect many of them will continue to enjoy their lifestyles at the south of France or in the US.''
Mr Bastian said the current James Hardie board should learn from their predecessors' mistakes so they could understand their legal and moral obligations to victims.
"What today's decision did was expose the extraordinary lengths James Hardie's previous board went to, to avoid victims, to avoid paying the compensation,'' he said.
"They did that because they saw them as no more than a line item on a balance sheet, they didn't see them as real people.
"I think what the current board should do is have a dialogue with victims, they should attend a bedside hearing of a sufferer who's about to die from mesothelioma, so the next time they look at a line item they know that there's a real person behind it, that there are real families behind it.''
Asbestos disease sufferer Mike O'Donnell said the fines would not hit the directors' hip pockets very hard.
``These guys come from the top end of the city, they're all well heeled, the fines are peanuts, they won't be paying them anyway - they'll be paid by an insurance company or James Hardie,'' he said.
You could always be a workcover lawyer and earn heaps of money and still be hated!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 4:19pm today
Comment 18 of 31
Does this include those people that have had their wages dropped to 80% by EML. I'm expected to support three people on just over $400 a week.
Posted by: Fed up of Workcover of Southern Suburbs 4:28pm
Comment 21 of 31
My family and I have been dealing with workcover for the past 3 years and believe that it is now time to stand up for our rights, not only because of being injured, but also being Australian Citizen's which have a right to a FAIR GO and to be treated with DIGNITY and RESPECT. Please come visit my website, tell me your story Let us stand together to fight injustice.MY website is www.workcoverstories.webs.com
I would like to share some information with others that are on the system, particularly those who have or are to go through a Sec 58B! Workcover or should I say your rehab provider, may at some stage after this present you with the option of retraining by means of doing a security course. DO NOT accept this offer, what ever you do!!! I did and I'm now sorry, it was used against me in the 130wk review and is not a suitable option, as the only work that has been available since is hotel/pub work. Something which is neither a safe return to work, nor full time long term employment. Your chances for being injured in this role are far greater than any other job, except the army, and remember you have already been injured! The course is run by a respectable Adelaide training company, what you are not told of is the fresh intake of about 30 trainees every 2 weeks. This has been running for at least 2 years that I'm aware of, so just do the numbers and you'll soon realise that your competing with 1,000's of others put through the course at no personal cost by, the State Government including those who worked at Mitsubishi and Holdens, many of which have no injuries.
This course is filled every fortnight and is just a way for corrupt EML case managers to say that "A suitable Job exists because you have a Security Licence", when your 130 week review comes up! They did it to me, and they'll do it to you!
Yet in all the time since obtaining a licence, neither I nor any rehab provider was able to secure a placement! How is this then considered to be rehabilitated? There are literally 1,000s of people already with licences and no work, but Crooked Rann and Co are still training people for jobs that do not exist, as a means to shelter their true aim! Being, you kicked off the system un-rehabilitated, and handed off to the Federal Government to be their problem, and Rann keeps face when unemployment figures are released!
SO YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!!! So if you accept this training as a part of your rehab then it's your own fault, when EML says "bye bye no more support for you ha ha... SUCKER!"
Posted by Disgruntled and Bitterly Angry at 7:42 PM, 22/8/2009
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)
DAVID NANKERVIS
August 23, 2009 12:01am
A DISABILITY pensioner says he was forced to sell the family home after Centrelink accused him of fraud - only to later admit he was entitled to income support.
Oswald Bruggemans, who now lives with his wife and three children in a rented two-bedroom flat in Blackwood, said it was bittersweet that the government welfare giant was refunding him almost $100,000 after earlier withdrawing his pension.
"I got a letter on Monday from Centrelink saying they would refund me $92,000 - I have gone from crying with frustration to crying with happiness because I can go forward with my life," said Mr Bruggemans, who can now pay his overdue energy and telephone bills and register his car.
"But I'm still furious because I lost my house and this refund won't buy it back.
"I still go back to the old home I lost after living there for 19 years - it's indescribable how upsetting this has been."
Mr Bruggemans's bureaucratic nightmare started in August 2007, when Centrelink decided he no longer qualified to continue receiving a disability pension for a back injury - as new information apparently showed he had undeclared assets, in the form of a financial interest in a property owned by a son from a former marriage.
Mr Bruggemans - who has two sons aged 10 and seven and a two-year-old daughter with his second wife - protested he had no interest in the property and that his name did not even appear on the title deed.
With no income and unable to work due to his disability, Mr Bruggemans said he had no choice but to sell his home - a three-bedroom house on seven hectares at Ironbank - a year ago to raise the cash to support his family.
Just five days before settlement, Centrelink informed him it would seize about $100,000 from the property settlement to recoup the pension money it believed he had claimed but was not entitled to.
The 52-year-old said by the time he had paid off the mortgage, debts, settled with his former wife and Centrelink, he was left with only enough from the $510,000 settlement to support his family for less than 12 months.
"We have been living on the proceeds of the sale but this money has run out and we have had to sell the furniture to pay for groceries," he said.
Centrelink, which has refunded most of the seized money, has now invited Mr Bruggemans to re-apply for a disability pension.
Mr Bruggemans thinks otherwise - "I don't trust that Centrelink won't turn around and try this on me again" - and instead he has sought legal advice with a view to suing Centrelink.
He alleges its actions have cost him his house, loss of income and an extreme emotional stress.
"I have to talk to my lawyer but I intend to retire on the amount of money I get from compensation," he said.
Centrelink said an investigation had "determined that Mr Bruggemans owned the property from the date of purchase (February 5, 1997) but had never disclosed it to Centrelink" and the onus was on him to prove it wrong.
Information later supplied by Mr Bruggemans's lawyer to Centrelink did demonstrate he was not the owner, Centrelink general manager Hank Jorgen said.
"A refund of $92,089.79 is to be returned to Mr Bruggemans," he said.
Posted by Could be workcover at 9:22 AM, 23/8/2009
"Mr Bruggemans - who has two sons aged 10 and seven and a two-year-old daughter with his second wife - protested he had no interest in the property and that his name did not even appear on the title deed.
With no income and unable to work due to his disability, Mr Bruggemans said he had no choice but to sell his home - a three-bedroom house on seven hectares at Ironbank - a year ago to raise the cash to support his family. "
This statement contains one big glaring hole of misinformation! They stopped his disability pension, this would not have included child support and endowment payments which would amount to more $$ than his pension, particularly with 3 kids in tow! I can't see a whole truth in this story, as he states he owed money everywhere on his house, it sounds more like he just thinks the public should pay for the debts he had accrued which were clearly unrelated to his disability. Even the closing statement of "I plan to retire", he doesn't work anyway! How can he retire from something he apparently hasn't done for a great many years? that's assuming he has ever worked!
What exactly does he mean by retire? Go off the disability pension onto an aged pension? There are way too many holes in this story, so sorry I can't buy into it!
Posted by What does this have to do with Workcover? at 1:04 AM, 24/8/2009
I understand where the above comment comes from, but everyone has a right to retire at some stage of their lives. Being on WorkCover makes it very difficult to acheive this as not only dealing with an injury, but a reduced salary and removal of superannuation makes it very hard to plan a retirement. Unfortunately this was never really dealt with by Clayton in his reforms.
Ah just to have the freedom of an injury free body, nobody really understands!
The Clayton review has obvious flaws that will show up in time..
If Clayton did his job properly he would not have simply pushed injured workers to the brink with his proposals on cutting income maintenance.
How come injured workers did not get their super entitlements also?
How come the top cats did not have their benefits capped? ( thats a clear case of leaving the rich to rort the system on their high wages)
One big issue is that it is not sound legislation to impose upon the WorkCover Ombudsman the responsibility of finally deciding whether injured workers should have their income maintenance stopped or not.
If a wrong decision is made by WorkCover then the Ombudsman then confirms the decision who is liable if there is a mistake? Passing the buck is all that has been done there.
The cessation of income maintenance whilst disputes are being decided in the tribunal is a problem the tribunals and WorkCover should sort out by being more efficient. If a decision gets overturned thats up to workCover to claw the money back a injured worker should not have to sell all of their assets and have their families go without in the meantime, especially when WorkCover have the resources to overpower them with their legal resources..
If Clayton did his job properly he woudl have made one recommendation. That injured workers are paid out in fair time.
WORKCOVER'S sole claims management company is operating without a chief executive - and must wait for Workcover to approve a replacement.
Former Employers Mutual SA chief executive, Anthony Fleetwood, is on "extended leave", but the company must wait for Workcover, a government corporation, to authorise his replacement - despite the company being responsible for its own corporate actions.
State industrial relations minister Paul Caica said Workcover's contract with Employers Mutual allowed the agency "some control" over the people responsible for the company's South Australian operations.
"It's entirely fitting that the contract to provide these vitally important services to SA's injured workers and business community has appropriate governance arrangements in place," he said in a supplied statement.
Workcover chief executive Julia Davison would not agree to an interview but said in a statement the agency played "an active role" in the company's recruitment process and succession planning.
"Given that the contract is about providing a public service to injured workers and employers on behalf of WorkCover, it is entirely appropriate for us to be closely involved with the recruitment of senior personnel," she said.
Injured workers advocate Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson said the arrangement showed there was something fundamentally wrong with the state's Workcover system.
"It says the system itself is on shaky ground," she said.
"Without a chief executive heading up a vital part of that system, then there is no direction. The ship is floating without a rudder."
Employers Mutual was appointed the sole claim agent for the Workcover system in 2006 on an expectation it would save up to $100 million a year.
Those savings have not yet eventuated, and Workcover gave the company a one-off $2 million payment last year to help it cope with legislative changes.
Employers Mutual did not return calls made by The Advertiser.
Expressions of interest – advertising services
If you're an advertising agency that excels in delivering creative and engaging campaigns, relishes the challenge of driving key social messaging and affecting change then this could be the opportunity you’ve been waiting for.
We are calling for expressions of interest from advertising agencies to provide advertising and creative services to WorkCoverSA. South Australia has the worst return to work rate in the nation and we need your best creative ideas to help drive the social message that return to work is better for injured workers, better for employers and better for the State.
An opportunity exists for an advertising agency to provide impactful advertising creative, manage production of creative concepts and deliver services such as despatch of functional advertising.
You will not be required to undertake media planning or buying but will need to work effectively with the Government's Master Media agency, Starcom.
If you want to tell us why you think you're the agency for us then send an expression of interest response by post or place it in the ground floor tender box. Responses by email or facsimile will not be accepted. The address is:
WorkCoverSA
Ground floor, tender box
100 Waymouth Street
Adelaide SA 5000.
It is blatantly obvious that a corporation that is paying millions of dollars to a claims agent, controls who their CEO is and dictates to them how to run their business is not even close to being independent. This is just another department of WorkCover that is set up as a separate body to avoid scrutiny. Its not a very transparent scheme at all in SA..
Perhaps the million dollars could have gone to setting up an injured workers superannuation fund- something that is lacking in the South Australian system.
Hey Duane can we just have an emergency election to get rid of this lot of pollies and then roll the Auditor General in and then the Royal Commission?
Posted by: Q for Duane of 1:40pm today
Comment 20 of 20
I can only think of 2 people who can have any impact on the current sitaution of WorkCover and EML, but it will take a change of Government for that to happen. Love him or hate him, bring back Keith Brown former CEO. Love her or hate her allow Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson from Work Injured Resource Connection in to the system. Simple answer to a complex question. These 2 people are Internationally recognized for their work and for their understanding of what needs to be in place.
Posted by: Way Forward of Broken Body 1:28pm today
Comment 19 of 20
Validation for everyone who has been pointing out faults, deficiencies, and gross mis-management within WorkCover aver the past few years. Way past time for an Audtor General's investgation, Royal Commission, ICAC, and an election.
Posted by: Duane of Adelaide 11:53am today
Comment 18 of 20
John of Cheltenham the unfunded liability keeps going up inspite of the mass payments of redemptions. The advertising of the WorkCover Awards is a farce, a number of people nominated Rosemary from Work Injured Resource Connection but she didn't qualify because she is not an accepted part of the WorkCover industry. The WorkCover Awards are only for the employees of WorkCover and EML kinda like internal backside kissing. Time the lid that has been kept on all of the WorkCover box was lifted, the politicans aren't interested in telling us what is going on, and the Advertiser only gives us bits and pieces, and there is even less on the talkback stations.
Posted by: Answer for John of 11:11am today
Comment 17 of 20
Can someone tell me how much money has been saved since the new W/C legislation has been introduced.I suspect the figure has blown out even further.Probably due to the economic down turn and not Workcovers incompetence being a major factor!!
Posted by: John of Cheltenham 10:41am today
Comment 16 of 20
workcover and this government are an absolute joke....!
Posted by: Mark of Cain 10:41am today
Comment 15 of 20
Not just an election issue but one of many many nails to be hammered into the Labor coffin in March 2010... FREE Australia... Starting with SA...
Posted by: the real Media Mike of Rannistan... 10:14am today
Comment 14 of 20
Reply to Grahame of Elizabeth, the answer as to who is already holding these political liars and the schematic liars to account is Rosemary from Work Injured Resource Connection, the sooner every one gets behind Rosemary the sooner the fiasco of WorkCover will be revealed and that will change the smirk on Premier Rann's face. What everyone needs to know is that without Rosemary a great number of people connected to the WorkCover process would be in deep water. Forget funding the WorkCover Ombudsman, that office is a waste of time and effort as one would expect as the funding comes from the Premiers Office.
Posted by: Answer for Grahame of 10:02am today
Comment 13 of 20
Don't worry! Be Happy! - it's just like the government health departments economic cost cutting strategy? If you reduce staffing level - you would save money and work productivity increases. Stop bloody whinging and if you still got any more concerns phone Mike and ask - "where the bloody hell are you" - dreamin in California?
Posted by: IdiotsHaveMoreSense of Adelaide 9:28am today
Comment 12 of 20
The following 5 items of business are where this government has revealed that it is incompetent: 1. Workcover, 2. Traffic, 3. Education, 4. Health and 5. Law & Order. I could probably ad to the list, however these 5 have been a constant bugbear that the general public is sick of hearing about. All 5 have longterm histories of substandard management and its the taxpayer whom has to pick up the bill for this governments "errors". The ministers of each of those departments should be summarily "sacked" and the appointment of an oversight committee to run the operations until changes can be effectively made. We can no longer afford the respective minister to act in the taxpayers interest as "party politics" has all but removed that focus from our decision making at the government level. In plain english, this government is doing what it wants without a care for what the community requires. Lets not forget that "spin doctoring" really is nothing more than "lies" painted up to look good. That would mean that Mike Rann has employed the most collective group of liers ever to be on the government payroll. ITS TIME FOR A HUGE CHANGE
Posted by: Dean McQuillan of Findon 9:05am today
Comment 11 of 20
$100 million in unseen savings and who is going to nail these political liars to this fact and harass them over and over until they squirm and admit that the savings were never going to eventuate all they wanted to do was pass the buck, this is the way that the opposition tackle these slippery silver tongues, remind people of the promises and deceptions, I watched foleys response to the oppositions statement on tax reform the other night, his reply was, how can they do this there is no money left (after ten years of record growth plus the extra gst revenue), and this man is our treasurer.
Posted by: Grahame Jones of Elizabeth Grove 9:00am today
Comment 10 of 20
What a joke! WorkCover itself can't manage it's own charter and has applied the dead hand on the organisation it contracts to provide claims management. Is this evidence that WorkCover, not Employers Mutual SA, is really still in the claims management business it was not able to deal with in the past? WorkCover's continual reliance on cost-cutting over the past 20 years has done nothing at all to control the thing they fear most - their Unfunded Liability, which continues to rise. It's time for a major rethink of the whole circus.
Posted by: Ray Hogan of 9:37pm August 25, 2009
Comment 9 of 20
'Employers Mutual did not return phone calls made by the advertiser'. Not exactly surprising the red tape is unbleievable the system has many failings and is sadly not a very efficient system, from an injured workers point of view. I'm not convinced outsourcing was the saviour that it was supposed t obe!
Posted by: Not Surprised of SA 9:21pm August 25, 2009
Comment 8 of 20
Is this type of mucking around the same level as our injured workers get? If it is WorkCover has a whole lot of explaining to do to the people of SA. The current State leadership should also join them in the explanations as well. This is just not right.
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 9:03pm August 25, 2009
Comment 7 of 20
It would appear the Government has made this rod for their own back and will deserve all the critisicm directed their way. Why on earth would they have ever dreamed of appointing only one Claims Management Company? Then to be so foolish as to act on that stupid dream!
Posted by: Rob Burne of Woodville 8:39pm August 25, 2009
Comment 6 of 20
South Australia has the worst return to work rate in the nation and now WorkCover are looking for a new Advertising to help drive the social message that return to work is better for injured workers. Wouldnt it be beneficial that rehabilitation with a $15 million fund to retrain workers would be a better option? Injured workers dont want flashy advertising or to get kicked off but rehabilitation.
Posted by: Wayne of Camden Park 8:05pm August 25, 2009
Comment 5 of 20
Simon of Adelaide Hills, unfortunately workcover will not be an election issue but together with the teachers dispute, the debate with the hospital, a new drag strip, glenside hospital, stormwater, cheltham racecourse and many other issues just adds to whether the voters really want their say. Unfortunately anyone who is employed should vote against Labor as they should realise that the new leglistaltion stripped away their rights and protection if an injury should occur.
Posted by: Paul Stone of Greenhill 7:34pm August 25, 2009
Comment 4 of 20
Will WorkCover and its problems ever improve. It seems there are so many people who rely on it other than injured workers who are quite keen for it to keep going the way it is. Its unfortuante for the business owners who keep on getting slugged a levy to support a scheme thats out of control!
Posted by: Michael of Glenelg 6:55pm August 25, 2009
Comment 3 of 20
Is he on extended leave or has he actually left?
Posted by: Wayne Mattner of Plympton 6:42pm August 25, 2009
Comment 2 of 20
Will the Workcover debacle be an election issue Mr media Mike - Yes I thinks so
Posted by: Simon of Adelaide Hills 6:33pm August 25, 2009
Comment 1 of 20
Seems to be an awful lot of EML employees on this leave system ever since that $2mil was thrown at them for doing such a good job of tripling the debt, while kicking un-rehabilitated workers off! Could be that a few serious threats have been made to their personage and they are now running scared! If so then the Yellow Bellied, Bloodsucking Freaks deserve everything that's coming to them, as does the States No1 Paedophile Protector!
Seen all the Advertisements for A new influx of Case Managers? If you've been on Workcover don't even bother applying, because they don't want you either! Things that make me laugh are the requirements and benefits, like an "Employee well being program!" What the Fuck is that? The ability to get injured workers back to work without delay! Why don't they just say what they really mean?
To have a Medical Background! Do they really think any Doctor would apply? They're too busy getting $1000 a visit per patient, oh please the corruption is so open in ya face now!
The Governor must do something about this NOW, not just go around eating cake and cutting ribbons! She should get off her ass and Sack Rann, and this mob of organised Criminals, before there's nothing left!
Posted by I won't roll over for EML! at 1:44 PM, 1/9/2009
Great news, Jeff Thompson has absolutley rolled WorkCover in Court.
Each and every South Australian Worker, injured or not owes a vote of thanks to Jeff for having the strength to fight the fight on behalf of everyone.
The judgement is damning of WorkCover is so many areas and we can only hope that the Media expose the hypocrisy and malfeasance Jeff has experience in great detail.
I would have been great to see the face on Davison and Carter when they read the judgement and saw the judge all but mention their meddling and personal vengeance being directed at an injured worker.
lets hope that the Union Delegates that so proudly represent all workers on the Board resign in disgust at their continued support of the oppressive practices of the Corporation.
When the 09 Annual report is finally released we will finally get the chance to show just how clever Bruce and his buddy's really were and maybe even expose a few little porky pies that were told to mislead the Government.
WELL DONE JEFF!
Posted by the ghost of PhilM at 12:57 PM, 5/9/2009
Hi to all the injured people that had to fight against workcover to get its rights, I'm one of them.
If you would like to do something to change all this. If you want to know more please e-mail me.
Man swears 93 times in one half-hour SA court hearing
Article from: The Advertiser
SEAN FEWSTER, COURT REPORTER
September 07, 2009 12:15pm
A COMPULSIVELY profane litigant who served jail time for his "primitive, petulant, uncivilised" courtroom behaviour swore and cursed at a judge 93 times in 27 minutes.
Just five months after his release, Markham Moore-McQuillan has resumed his verbal assaults on court staff and lawyers, beginning with the Worker's Compensation Tribunal.
The 47-year-old became agitated when lawyers for WorkCover – whom he has been suing for almost two decades – produced evidence with which he disagreed.
"I, Your Honour, am not a f---ing lying piece of s--t like these other people you're used to talking to," he said.
"You are not interested in the truth, the only truth you're interested in is what this lying piece of s--t can produce to you.
"What you've actually allowed done is allowed them to use dishonest and illegal methods to produce evidence that you consider honest, and that's because he's a filthy f---ing little a--hole."
In April 2008, Moore-McQuillan received a suspended jail term for calling the late Justice John Perry "corrupt" during a hearing.
He breached that suspension by calling another judge "biased" and a lawyer a "f---wit" just one month later.
In December, Supreme Court Justice Margaret Nyland activated the three-month sentence and sent Moore-McQuillan to jail.
She agreed with prosecution descriptions of his conduct as "primitive displays" of "intimidation and petulance" that "cannot be seen as civilised".
In a transcript of a hearing last week, Moore-McQuillan utters 93 swear words.
His tirades continue despite requests – and warnings – to stop.
The Advertiser understands the Crown Solicitor's Office – who prosecuted Moore-McQuillan's last case – is investigating the incident.
I have been following MMQ story for some time now and believe he has some terrible illness as he will not give up. I actually thought he dug himself a hole in which he cant get out off and has found a way to get back at everyone who crossed him.
Funnily enough, after reading the Thompson case in the Sunday Mail made me realise maybe WorkCover did do wrong by him!
"In December, Supreme Court Justice Margaret Nyland activated the three-month sentence and sent Moore-McQuillan to jail.
She agreed with prosecution descriptions of his conduct as "primitive displays" of "intimidation and petulance" that "cannot be seen as civilised". "
Given the track record of Workcover and their lawyers and the tatics used within the scope of unlimited PUBLIC funds, adjournments and the perjury often committed by that side of the fence , I think he was well within his rights to say the things he did! Rather I question Workcover as acting in a civilised manner, as anyone who has had to deal with them knows all to well, the law is on their side, allowing them to do whatever they wish whilst restricting anyone who challenges them. In such cases the lawbook should be thrown out as heresy and taking the law into ones own hands is warranted. Unjust laws and crooked judges and lawyers should be made to feel the burden of that which they gleefully place upon others, stating they are only doing their job is no excuse, this is what the injured party was doing when they became faced with such imputence, and yet that is not seen as a valid excuse for one becoming naturally frustrated with a system more interested in protecting it's own rather than justice!
Down with the Legal System it's far too corrupted and one sided anyway, it's been long and widely known to be run by some "The Family style" paedophile supreme court judges and magistrates in South Australia. And those are without question lacking in any form of Honour or moral standing, regardless of what all the Crawlers around them profess! Every conviction ever made by those who sit in judgement upon others, who are not squeaky clean themselves, should be declared mistrials also the sentences they inflicted be overturned immediately. By not doing so, shows the public just how corrupt and one sided the legal system really is in SA!
Posted by Mike & Mal (The Leyland Bros) at 9:42 PM, 14/9/2009
It's claimed that around 20,000 workers are injured eachyear in SA, and EML have been handling things for over 3years now! I find it strange how they can pat themselves on the back with such a tripling blowout in the "unfunded liability". But more to the point, the positive testimonials on their website from injured workers that are mean't to convince everyone to believe their claims of excellent performance! Of which they can only muster the mighty total of 3 un-named statements, not totally really a resounding number out of the 60,000 or so that are claimed to be injured at work for this period!
Link "https://www.employersmutual.com.au/south-australia/about/testimonials.htm"
Well done EML, that's only 19,999 workers each year that are not satisfied with the treatment they receive from you, but let's just sweep all them under the carpet with the rest of the trash shall we? Hmmmmm!
