overcoming a work injury on workcover is a miracle.
Many injured workers find that overcoming a work injury whilst on WorkCover is impossible.
Please share your workcover experience here so others can know how the system has become so efficient at ruining injured workers lives and those of their families.
If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money, when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin', when the dealin's done
Every gambler knows that the secret to survive is
Knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keep
'Cos every hand's a winner
In Australia, and other Commonwealth jurisdictions, online material is deemed to be published each and every time it is downloaded – the 'multiple publication' rule.
Consequently, there is a potential for ongoing liability in defamation for any material that can be accessed via the Internet.
Each time material is accessed, it's considered to be a separate cause of action with a separate limitation period. This means that a publisher could potentially be exposed to liability long after the initial date of publication.
A recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights reinforces the need for online publishers to be alert of any defamatory material and be ready to remove it immediately.
While liability for defamatory material arises from the date of publication, material may not be in contempt of court when it is first published. However, subsequent events could render an initially innocuous article contemptuous. For example, an article reporting the release of a convicted murderer from prison could become a contempt of court if the person was later the subject of new criminal proceedings. The earlier article, still available on the internet, could prejudice the new trial by revealing the criminal record of the person to a potential jury.
At the time of writing, we are not aware of any reported cases in Australia where archived internet material has been the subject of contempt proceedings. The courts in Scotland have considered such a case in HM Advocate v Beggs, where it held that archived internet material containing an accused's prior convictions was not in contempt. It did not create a substantial risk of prejudice, because it was unlikely that the material would be easily accessed via a search engine (i.e. more thorough research would be required). Also, the jury could be expected to follow the trial judge's directions to decide the case only on the evidence and not by reference to any extraneous material.
The court did not rule that archived material can never be contemptuous, leaving open the possibility that, in a particular case, historical material that is accessible via the Internet could be a contempt of court.
Furthermore, this throws into question whether or not courts can order publishers to remove archived internet material if it consider that continued accessibility may prejudice pending proceedings?
Justice Cummins of the Supreme Court of Victoria has questioned whether such a power exists. However, other judges have taken a much broader view of superior courts' inherent jurisdiction to suppress.
Our experience has been that, in most cases, the courts consider the robustness of the jury system, coupled with new offences in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, which prohibit juries from conducting research, as sufficient protection from the potential prejudicial impact of archived internet material.
Historically, the courts have preferred the parties to make informal approaches to internet publishers to remove specific articles or items of concern, rather than making broad suppression orders over all internet material. The latter would require publishers to incur substantial time and expense trawling through their archives and removing relevant material. Also, it is not a simple question of pressing the delete button or disabling access and, given the nature of search engines and the internet, a copy of the material will usually remain available in some form.
However, in two recent Victorian decisions, the Supreme Court has decided it does have the inherent power to make such orders. In 2008, the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld a suppression order made by Justice King of the Supreme Court in relation to the Channel Nine Underbelly TV series. Justice King had ordered that the TV series not be shown, and that an internet site about the series be taken down, due to the potential prejudice to an accused about to stand trial. The Court of Appeal determined that the Supreme Court had the inherent power to make such orders in relation to extraneous material, where the court considered it had the potential to prejudice proceedings.
In a more recent case, the details of which are suppressed at this time, Justice Kaye held that the inherent power of the court extended to order the removal of archived material from the Internet. As a result, he has ordered two major internet media publishers to remove from their websites some 1500 archived articles relating to an individual who was about to stand trial, although thousands of these articles are still readily available via search engines and online publishers both in and outside of the jurisdiction. This order is currently on appeal.
Online publishers should be conscious of the courts' slow shift towards expanding the heads of liability for archived material. The risk of multiple liability for defamation remains unchanged. Accordingly, online publishers should be alert and remove defamatory material immediately after its been brought to their attention.
The law in relation to contempt of court and suppression orders remains in a state of flux and is likely to receive ongoing judicial consideration in coming years. The recent Victorian decisions are cause for concern.
We will provide an update on the outcome of the appeal from Justice Kaye order when the decision is handed down. It could have significant ramifications for all internet publishers.
Posted by http://www.minterellison.com/public/connect/Intern at 6:19 PM, 24/1/2010
One can only wonder how WorkCover or any of its employees assume that publishing anything about an injured worker is asssiting in their rehabilitation- especially when they publish convictions which are later overturned with findings that WorkCover acted in an oppressive manner and especially when they did not disclose evidence during the prosecution.
The above suggests only one thing- WorkCover is above the law. When you can stop injured workers income and then engage in unrestrained litigation with endless funding the results are almost guaranteed to be against the injured worker.
IT WAS a workplace injury test
that seemingly backfired.
Recovering hospital orderly Andrew
Loran was sent to a medical
evaluation by his employer - only
to suffer a second injury that has
kept him away from his job at Port
Augusta Hospital indefinitely.
During the 2008 test, to evaluate
a back injury he sustained while
lifting a patient in 2007, Mr Loran,
39, was made to bend over and pick
up a box - without being told it
had been weighed down.
He re-ruptured a disc in his
lower back, leaving him in
"agony" and causing numbness in
his right foot and buttock.
"I feel like I'm being cheated. It's
through no fault of my own that
I was injured a second time or that
I'm still not fit for work," he said.
Mr Loran said his injury had
prevented him from returning to
work on full pay and left him and
his partner Jill Stone, 39, and
teenage daughter Holly "struggling"
on compensation payments
worth only 80 per cent of his
regular wage.
He is now considering suing the
medical consultants, contracted by
Country Health SA to carry out
the evaluation, after speaking to
the WorkCover Ombudsman las tweek.
The original injury was
caused in July 2007 when he lifted
a patient at Port Augusta Hospital.
He had surgery in May 2008. In
November that year, he was put
through an evaluation test by Pinnacle
Workplace Consultants to
determine the extent of his injury.
Mr Loran said that, during the
test, he was asked to lift a closed
wooden box, big enough to hold six
wine bottles, which he assumed
was empty.
"I thought 'no worries, a kid
could lift that,' but when I did, I
felt a pop in my back and a lot of
pain and I put it down straight
away," Mr Loran said. "The therapist
then said she thought there
were weights in the box and
opened it up and there were
weights on a metal post, which
looked like they were from a
dumbbell. She said it was about
6kg."
Mr Loran and his partner, who
was at the evaluation test, immediately
went to his doctor. He underwent
surgery a second time in May
last year.
Mr Loran said he believed he
would have returned to work on
light duties by now, if it wasn't for
the second injury-
Workcover Ombudsman Wayne
Lines said Mr Loran could pursue
legal action under Common Law
Mr Loran said he would discuss
this advice with his lawyer with
a view to seeking damages.
Pinnacle Workplace Consultants
and Country Health SA declined
to comment on the case for privacy
reasons.
SA Unions said Mr Loran's
experience highlighted the
unfairness to workers of the controversial
changes to WorkCover
legislation by the Rann Government
in June 2008.
Union secretary Janet Giles said
the scheme seemed to "try to prove
injured workers are trying to rip
off the system". "Our experience
is they want to go back to work,"
she said.
Mr Loran said his injury had
completely changed his life.
"I have a lot less social interaction
now I'm not working," he
said.
"I used to go fishing and hiking
with my mates but can't do that
any more, although the therapist
suggested I get someone to cast the
bait and hold the rod for me."
Mr Loran said most of the household
chores were now done by Ms
Stone and he could no longer
garden or take his three dogs for
a walk.
"I just hope this story prevents
this type of thing happening to
anyone else," he said.
As a youngster I used to wonder what happened to all of the pirates and bushrangers. I was injured at work and went on WorkCover. Now it is as plain as day- they all became WorkCover lawyers..
Posted by Integrity above all... at 5:01 PM, 1/2/2010
A recent post in lawyers weekly has a similar ring to it as a recent case involving WorkCover.
Posted Feb 01 2010, 08:28 PM by Lawyers Weekly
Most lawyers would be unfamiliar with clients reacting joyously at the minimal size of their legal bill, but one firm in Massachusetts has managed to earn the ire of not just a client but also its local supreme court.
A family in Massachusetts, reports abovethelaw.com, objected to the plethora of legal talent that had been at work on their probate estate case when the bill was presented to them by law firm K&L Gates. They had been charged legal fees of $US800,000 ($896,585) to settle a probate estate of $US1.2 billion - a fee the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled was for a lot of "unnecessary lawyering".
The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Docket reported: In a ruling in the Matter of the Estate of Bartley J. King ... Justice Margot Botsford wrote for a unanimous court that "a total of eighteen attorneys and paralegals were representing [the client], a remarkable number especially when one takes into account the motion judge's view that the theories advanced by the contestants were not 'overly complex'."
Folklaw figures the judge interpreted it as a case of overkill rather than overskill.
Posted by Thompson found not guilty at 2:05 PM, 2/2/2010
If we can not fund workcover how is Australia going to fund all our new immigrants retriement?
While the government seems keen to keep me in the workforce past retirement age, it needs to consider that Workers' Compensation cover ceases one year after retirement age. As I am now 67, and still working four days a week, I am not covered should I have an accident at work. I wrote to Workcover NSW and it advised that ''No changes to the legislation are planned at this time".
A ''salary continuance'' policy I had as a benefit was also removed when I turned 65. While there are policies that will cover you until you are 67, my organisation said it was too expensive.
In both instances the attitude seems to be that there is no need to provide cover over the age of 65 as "you can go on the pension". If the government is serious about keeping people in the workforce, it needs to ensure that legislation in all the states, and insurance cover, reflects that fact.
Sydney Smith Forestville
Posted by Stop the rot - dismantle WorkCover at 7:24 AM, 3/2/2010
Thompson is in the WCT again today. Obviously workcover have not given up harrassing him. The mentality of a corporation that treats injured workers oppressvely for so long a time is obvious. About time they gave him and other injured workers a break and concetrated on their real job- rehabilitating injured workers not relentlessly litigating them
Went to my Doctor the other day to get my script filled and as he had moved to a different clinic to practice I had to give my particulars at reception and when they saw that I was on Work Cover stated loud so all could here that they did not treat Work Cover people here and that she would give me the address of Work Cover Doctors who will treat me.Know I am lucky my Doctor was in ear shot as the receptionist was adamant that I was not going to see a Doctor while she was there and he ushered me into the room without me having to suffer any more embarrasment, but then I had to make my next appointment she started again, a room full of people listening, that she didnt know how to bill me as WE DONT DEAL WITH WORKCOVER PEOPLE HERE.Thanks to the government in this state for allowing such a mean spirited attatude to prevail in what was once a place for humans in need,to turn into a place where to be made to feel so bad as to almost loose dignity and hope as an honest tax paying all my life, "South Australian".
If you are on work-cover long term you can expect to see up to 30+ Specialist all that are being paid for by your insurer, you will probably go to Concilliation over a dozen times and if you are lucky you may even go before the Medical Panel 4 times as I have done and also expect that you will be followed and filmed and dont ever think that the insurer is doing you any favours no matter how they word their offers. Its all about money and they dont like giving it back. MMMMM!!!!! How does anybody really cheat this system? Be real or find yourself on suicide watch!!
Territory Insurance Office specialises in providing workers' compensation cover in the Northern Territory.
FIVE people are in the high dependency unit at Royal Darwin Hospital after a bomb went off in the TIO building.
It is believed the man loaded a trolley with jerry cans full of fuel and fireworks before wheeling it into the TIO office.
Posted Wed Feb 3, 2010 2:06pm AEDT
courts graphic
The High Court has upheld Graeme Kirk's appeal against WorkCover. (ABC News)
The High Court has delivered a stinging criticism of the WorkCover Authority over its prosecution of a New South Wales farm owner.
WorkCover took action against Picton farm owner Graeme Kirk after the death of his farm manager in 2001.
The manager Graham Palmer drove an all terrain vehicle down the side of a hill on the property, it overturned and he was killed.
Mr Kirk was fined for breaching occupational health and safety laws but he appealed the matter all the way to the High Court.
Today the court has upheld Mr Kirk's appeal, finding that it was absurd to have prosecuted him over the inexplicable recklessness of the manager, who had skill and experience much greater than his own.
In its judgement the court said it was time for WorkCover to "finish its sport with Mr Kirk."
It ordered WorkCover to pay his costs.
Workers' comp row led to fiery attack
NICK CALACOURAS
February 4th, 2010
A DISPUTE over workers compensation payments is believed to have led to the fiery attack on a Darwin insurance office that sent 15 people to hospital.
Police yesterday alleged the 45-year-old bomber was a "disgruntled claimant" of the Territory Insurance Office.
The Northern Territory News understands the bomber - who goes by the name "Bird" - allegedly blamed the insurer for his loss of earnings that forced him to leave his three-bedroom home in Humpty Doo and move into a shipping container.
Bird is a former security guard who worked at a Darwin pub.
He was injured on the job while ejecting a drunk patron in October 2007.
But when calculating his workers' compensation payments for this incident, the Work Health Court dismissed his claim to include the part-time work he did on the side.
This reduced him to a quarter of his former wage, forcing him to find a new job.
TIO then stripped the man of his payments.
He later quit this job after claiming psychological damage from the original pub injury, but TIO refused to resume payments of his workers' compensation claim.
The bomber has blamed the insurer for his subsequent poverty that caused him to move into a shipping container.
The NT News understands the man has since made threats against TIO, and his solicitors in this matter, Ward Keller.
Police Commander Colleen Gwynne confirmed the 44-year-old man in custody was a dissatisfied claimant - and not a terrorist.
"I can tell you he is a Darwin resident. It appears he is dissatisfied with TIO for whatever reason and he seemed to respond by carrying out what seems to be a callous act," she said.
In its judgement the court said it was time for WorkCover to "finish its sport with Mr Kirk."
It would seem that WorkCover treat their sport very seriously and unfortunately the injured workers are the losers.
Many injured workers would relate to this comment.
Police Commander Colleen Gwynne confirmed the attacker had made threats to police and TIO prior to the attack. "There has been some history between this person that we have in custody and TIO," she said.
"It's clear he wasn't happy with a service he was being provided."
TIO chief executive Richard Harding described the attack as an "isolated incident".
"It doesn't appear to be an ongoing threat," he said. "Of course, it's absolutely concerning that he's a disgruntled complainant."
Commander Gwynne said it was unlikely the man would be charged by this morning and a team of 50 police was investigating the attack.
Posted by more than one unhappy customer at 4:48 PM, 4/2/2010
Whilst headlines such as "Shopping trolley bomb wounds 15 in Australia" might be worthy of reporting it is not appropriate to promote violence against Authorities.
The question will always remain though, is why the system is fialing injured workers and what drove an injured worker to retaliate in such a manner. There must surely be something wrong with the way in which claims are being handled if people are resorting to such measures.
It seems about time there was an overhaul of the whole Workers Compensation system.
SECURITY cameras that could have been used to stop the alleged TIO bomber before he struck were switched off at the Darwin Police Station on Wednesday because officers had been using them to perv on schoolgirls.
If Police are perving on schoolgirls just imagine what the lack of scrutiny of WorkCover's surveillance operators allows them to do - unchecked when they make observations and film injured workers, their wives, girlfriends and children.
Posted by Biased input has adversely influenced legislation at 11:46 AM, 5/2/2010
I was injured on 07/09/2006 while scaffolding all I know is hard physical work. 2 failed shoulder operations later, it is now 05/02/2010 no retraining E.M.L. told by surgeon I would need retraining can not do physical work again. Have done nothing, I found my own opportunity E.M.L. told me Dr. dont approve my payments will stop ?? bullying I think
Yea back in 1997 or there abouts if you were injured and it was deemed that you would not be able to return to any long term work you would be payed out fairly so as you could get on with your life with family intact and finances secure.Some bright spark in the insurance industry did the sums and said to thier reptilian masters "We can get our claws into some of this" and we can see the results. We have all an alloted amount calculated when our claim is accepted and by the time they have sucked and cut us too peices made probibly a third if not more out of the original claim they reluctantly spit the rest out at us saying "Workcover was never designed to be a long term benifit" here take this we cannot suck any more out and still smile at our masters and morally get away with it.
Tribunals- How Parliament attempts to manipulate the outcomes
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1 (3 February 2010).
Heydon J refers to Walker, The Rule of Law, (1988) at 35.
122. time. A writer in the late 20th century said:
"History teaches us to be suspicious of specialist courts and tribunals of all descriptions. They are usually established precisely because proceedings conducted in accordance with normal judicial standards of fairness are not producing the outcomes that the government wants. From the Court of Star Chamber to the multitude of military courts and revolutionary tribunals in our own century, this lesson has been repeated time and time again."
Courts, Tribunals and En-Actments are a GAME! Don't Play!
The above comments are correct, the courts are not here to help You, they are there to serve their masters and were never intended as a means for serving the common people.
In the case of disputes with Government Corporations just ask yourself two things.
1) Who is presiding over this dispute?
2) Where does the legal allegiance lay with this entity who sits in judgement, and why?
There in lies the answer as to why nobody can win in a legal battle against such Corporations.
The above doesn't mean that all members of the Court are crooked, just to clarify this is not what I'm advocating.
Should you or your representative find a loophole which Corporation can not get out of, they will usually offer to settle "out of court" and avoid any possible public humiliation.
This could very likely be one reason that courts will order "all documentation to be made available to, and by both parties at least 7 days before any hearing", but as I am not a practising member of THE BAR, the truth of this mystery may never be known to me.
I have a riddle for you all to solve, do you have an Eye for seeing?
What is it when something looks like the image on this page,
"http://www.workcover.com/site/workcover/career_opportunities/vacancies_at_workcover.aspx#1197*Behaviours%20we%20value" and also looks like a One US dollar bill?
* actively listen and confirm our understanding of the matter
* meet agreed actions and deadlines
* address matters impartially and sensitively
* maintain confidentiality and privacy in accordance with legislative requirements
* provide clear explanations for any decisions we make
* be accountable for our decisions and actions
* inform you of your review and appeal rights
* provide advice and information clearly and to a level that is appropriate for the situation
* be courteous, considerate and respectful
* ensure easy access to our services, information and resources
* provide services and information in your preferred language and format as required
* be respectful and responsive to cultural beliefs and values
* provide an interpreter when required
* consult with stakeholders to improve products and services where appropriate.
The Workcover Corporation Act clearly States in Sec10—Validity of acts and immunity of members
(1) An act or proceeding of the board is not invalid by reason only of a vacancy in its membership or a defect in the appointment of a member.
(2) A member of the board incurs no civil liability for an honest act or omission in the performance or exercise, or purported performance or exercise, of the member's or the board's functions, duties or powers under this or any other Act.
(3) The immunity conferred by subsection (2) does not extend to culpable negligence.
(4) A civil liability that would, but for this section, attach to a member attaches instead to the Crown.
Hang on what was Item 5 in the service charter again?
" * be accountable for our decisions and actions" But this is invalidated by Sec10(2) (3) and (4) of the Act! Oh Well, more lies for the sheep that believes our government!
NewsCore
February 7, 2010 9:36pm
LAWYERS in the battle over Ground Zero worker compensation could bag up to half of the $US4 billion ($4.6 billion) available to pay September 11 recovery workers for toxic injuries, the New York Post reported today.
The New York Post reported today that defence firms hired by New York to fight some 10,000 claims already raked in close to $200 million. A further $US75 million ($86.4 million) was spent on administrative expenses by the end of 2009.
Lawyers for the workers, who are still unpaid, stand to reap 30 to 40 per cent of all settlements or judgements, based on their retainer agreements with World Trade Center (WTC) emergency responders.
How much money was up for grabs was the big question, now that the first trials for a dozen 9/11 workers were set to start May 16 in Manhattan federal court.
The two sides were said to be in secret intensive discussions that Judge Alvin Hellerstein hoped would settle as many cases as possible.
At stake is a $US1 billion ($1.5 billion) taxpayer fund and as much as $US3 billion ($3.5 billion) in liability insurance coverage.
The WTC Captive Insurance Co., a nonprofit governed by mayor Michael Bloomberg, managed a $US1 billion ($1.5 billion) fund.
The money was awarded by the U.S. Congress to pay claims stemming from the Ground Zero cleanup.
The fund paid only a total of $US320,000 ($369,000) to five workers with minor injuries.
Workers were livid.
"How do you justify earning $US275 million ($317 million) without a settlement or trial?" asked ex-NYPD detective John Walcott, who battled leukemia after working for months at Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills landfill, where debris was shipped.
Posted by Enjoying the ride.. at 9:10 PM, 7/2/2010
Re:9/11 or (Dial 911 for Emergency Response!) Payouts
Something that should be remembered is who launched the attacks, and how many $billions they spend on defence each year. If they spent half that same amount on feeding and clothing the needy of the world there would be no need for a defence budget. Simply put if they stopped the bloody wars there would be no people in need of help!
As for "liability" like here with the "unfunded liability" too, people have forgotten the meanings of words, probably due to the crap sprouted by the media everyday, and the gullibility of people to believe what they see and hear on TV. I haven't watched the thing for nearly 10years and don't miss it at all, it's all hyped up, screaming gameshows, and "reality" crap anyway!
A "Liability" means A "Credit" don't take my word for it, ask any accountant or banker!
I'll bet most think it means a Debt! Right?
When Rann was talking about the "unfunded liability" in a sense he was telling the truth, but got the media put a spin on it so people would think it a debt! What he is really saying is "injured workers have caused a unfunded credit of blah$$$". Meaning that this is money they have, but want to allocate it elsewhere. Kevin Foley then publicly stated that the State was broke, so they could not borrow from the international banks (IMF) to fund projects and parliamentary payrises!
Now that injured workers are no longer drawing on the credit that was allocated to the scheme, the State is no longer broke, and they now are free to borrow from the banks again.
Ask yourselves this question, Rann has publicly wanted a tram-line to Port Adelaide for a about 4 years, but they never had the finance to do it before now.The quoted cost to build it at the time was $600million, also the same as the "Unfunded Liability" at that time. Is it a mere coincidence that the total cost of constructing this line, which coincidently they also started in 2009 is now $1.1 billion almost exactly the same amount as the Workcover "Unfunded Liability" Again?
If I'm right, Injured Workers Entitlements and the Employer Contributions are now paying for Rann's new tram-line. But Rann or whomsoever gets elected will still raise levies and taxes to make everyone pay for it twice! This is why the March 2008 changes went through parliament unopposed from either party, also this explains why employer's levies have not been reduced!
Also it's very likely that this is why no one has won a case against the changes in the Tribunal no matter how underhanded their determination was or will be!
And the moral of this story is;
A Tram to Rann is far more important than Workers, or their Employers! How could it be possibly be anything else?
My experience with WorkCover can be summed up very briefly.
The case managers and employees of WorkCover have vindictive desires to screw injured workers over. The whole case management system is biased against any injured worker who does not get proper service and complains about it..
Too many shortfalls in a system where nearly every WorkCover employee conditions every claimiant to be a victim of the system so they can be easily manipulated
and made to conform..
Posted February 9, 2010 11:00:00
Calls have been made for the New South Wales Government to review all prosecutions over workplace deaths after a High Court ruling last week.
Under state law, Graham Kirk was fined $200,000 and received a criminal conviction over a colleague's death on a farm at Picton.
He won an appeal to the High Court and WorkCover has been ordered to pay Mr Kirk's legal costs of more than $1.3 million.
Ken Phillips from Independent Contractors of Australia has told the ABC's Counterpoint that laws on workplace deaths should be considered invalid.
"There's been a hole string of these," he said.
"If the NSW Government had any moral integrity, they would certainly turn around now and order a review of all prosecutions to see which of those there should be a quashing of the convictions, and have a good look at voluntarily refunding all of the costs to all of the people involved."
Mr Kirk says he has not had all his costs covered but he is glad he pursued the case.
"I not only got justice for myself, I got justice for all small employers and just people in NSW," he said.
Tumut Shire Council is among the authorities that have been fined and convicted under the laws on workplace deaths.
The High Court ruling comes before this year's planned move to a national occupational health and safety system.
When the WC&R Act was written it was clearly mean't to cover all workers in Australia regardless of which state they reside in. During election campaigns and other public events political figures can often be heard referring to "One Australia", saying we are all Australians, One and All! Clearly this is not how they truly see Australians at all, let me explain further.
If a Law or Act is written for ALL Australians, then state governments should not be allowed to legislate in a way that (as it always does) erodes the rights of those the Act is mean't to protect and guide. To do so makes a clear distinction between those in State A compared to those in State B,C or D. With this being the situation, how can any government lay claim to One Australia?
The claim has absolutely no standing nor foundation while the States continue to legislate against Federal Laws or Acts in a way that literally discriminates against those within it's governance, compared to those residents of another state.
ie The recent changes to Sec 25 of the WC&R Act in Sth Oz are as follows.
25—Amendment of section 44—Compensation payable on death—weekly payments
(1) Section 44(1)—delete "compensation is payable" and substitute:
compensation in the form of weekly payments is payable
(2) Section 44(1)(a), (b) and (c)—delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and substitute:
(a) a dependent spouse or domestic partner is entitled to weekly
payments equal to—
(i) in the case of total dependency—50%;
(ii) in the case of partial dependency—such lesser percentage as may be fixed by the Corporation having regard to the extent of the dependency, of the amount of the notional weekly earnings of the deceased worker;
(b) a dependent child (being an orphaned child) is entitled to weekly payments equal to—
(i) in the case of total dependency—25%;
The changes seem to have one obvious purpose, and one more ambiguous purpose!
The obvious purpose is to award less compensation to family members who are left behind in the tragic event of a worker being killed at work.
The 2nd and possibly not so clear, is an apparent assumption by both the SA Labor & Liberal Parties as both agreed with the change, that workers are indeed worth more Dead than Alive! Certainly to those who are elected to represent the public's interest in the parliament.
Maybe the Honourable (lmao) Member Kevin Foley would care to explain this to the voting PUBLIC. No?
The new changes to this section of the Act, and it's ambiguous meaning also SHOUTS LOUDLY, as to why so many injured workers have NOT been properly rehabilitated, if at all! RTW hardly seems to be the goal of the scheme to me after reading that modified part of the Act!
(legal disclaimer) USC18 Blah Blah Blah lol
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That of the above is merely my own personal POV, and while it brings into contention the validity of the changes in the Act, ie The Act vs The Value of Any Life, nobody should accept this POV as their own based solely on that which I have blogged.
AN INQUIRY into WorkCover that took more than two years has recommended the corporation stop charging fees for companies to leave the scheme and become self-insurers, which can save them up to $7 million a year.
But members of Parliament's Statutory Authorities Review Committee are divided over the recommendations with the Liberals accepting the fee cut but Labor MPs opposing it.
Both Labor and Liberal MPs on the committee have put in minority reports opposing several of the seven recommendations.
The only thing that all MPs could agree on, according to committee chairman Carmel Zollo, was "the report is an accurate summary of evidence".
Ms Zollo and another Labor MP, Ian Hunter, said in their minority report that "unfortunately, in our view, the proximity of publication to the state election has encouraged a partisan politicisation of the report and specifically some of the recommendations".
Among the recommendations released this week are:
ALLOWING two or three companies to manage compensation claims instead of the monopoly situation now operating.
AN INDEPENDENT review of WorkCover, due next year, should also review the performance of the corporation's board.
WORKCOVER should report every year on the level of savings achieved by having only one claims manager.
DISCONTINUE the practice of significantly increasing fees designed to discourage companies from leaving WorkCover to become self-insurers.
The committee was presented with evidence that self-insurance led to lower lost time claims, lower average claim numbers and companies saving up to $7 million a year.
But Labor MPs - Ms Zollo and Ian Hunter - put in a minority report saying such a move would put upward pressure on levy rates for those employers who remained registered with WorkCover.
Liberals Rob Lucas, and Terry Stephens' minority report strongly opposed the refusal of the corporation to release more detail about the claims management contract.
They also said the committee's report showed Premier Mike Rann had broken another key promise by not reducing the WorkCover average levy rate by June, 2009.
Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica said the Government would consider recommendations in relation to claims management, exit fees and cost reporting.
EMPLOYERS in NSW are demanding a royal commission into the state's workplace safety laws following a scathing High Court ruling last week that found the application of the laws was oppressive and unjust.
And bosses who have suffered a similar fate to that of hobby farmer Graeme Kirk, whose appeal to the High Court led to the landmark ruling, are seeking restitution from the state's workplace safety watchdog, WorkCover.
Rockdale Beef, an abattoir at Yanca in the Riverina district of southeast NSW, has written to WorkCover, demanding a refund of more than $200,000 in fines levied after accidents in 2001 and 2003. It is also demanding WorkCover desist in its demands for a further $320,000 in costs.
Both accidents involved independent contractors who were not employees of Rockdale.
The first involved a worker injured by a machine in the boning room and resulted in a $100,000 fine after WorkCover appealed against an initial acquittal of Rockdale in the Industrial Relations Court.
In the second accident, a truckdriver making a delivery to Rockdale fell from his truck, breaking his neck.
In laying charges against Rockdale, WorkCover did not specify what the company could or should have done to prevent the accident - the feature of Mr Kirk's case the High Court found repellent. In its decision, the High Court cleared Mr Kirk of responsibility for the death of his manager in a vehicle accident on his property at Picton, southwest of Sydney.
Mr Kirk had no farming experience and left the running of his farm to his manager and friend Graham Palmer.
However, Mr Kirk and his company were found guilty of failing to provide a safe workplace and fined $121,000 after Palmer was killed in 2001 while incorrectly moving heavy steel using an all-terrain vehicle.
Like Rockdale Beef, Mr Kirk fell foul of the absolute duty of care and "reverse onus of proof" that applies to employers under workplace safety laws in NSW.
But the High Court found WorkCover had to specify what Mr Kirk had done wrong and how he could have acted in order to prevent the accident.
A WorkCover spokesperson said yesterday the agency was "reviewing prosecutions currently before the courts to determine whether any amendments to the charges are required, following the Kirk decision".
But "review of past convictions is a matter for the courts".
Garry Brack, from the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries, said it was too late for most employers burned by WorkCover to use the Kirk decision as grounds for appeal: "A royal commission is the only way (to) overcome legal limitations and examine those past cases."
A57yearold from Adelaide has been kicked of Workcover here in good old SA and said he feels like Workcover just wanted to get me off their books and he has been sent to the dole office to survive A notice of dipute has been lodged. Why are the news out lets not keeping the voting public informed of these things are we so brain washed that we beleive this is right or do these people do lunch and hush it over a chardies.
A recent decision in relation to Work Capacity notices.
The worker’s income maintenance payments were discontinued after service of a notice under s 35B and s 36 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 – Application by the worker for summary judgment – Whether the compensating authority failed to give the required period of notice or otherwise failed to comply with the statutory discontinuance procedure – Whether there were irregularities rendering the notice voidable – If so, whether despite the notice being voidable the Tribunal should exercise its discretion not to grant summary relief – Consideration of new entitlement provisions – Held that the worker has not established a case for summary judgment for an alleged failure to give the appropriate period of notice – Held however that the worker has established that the notice was voidable due to a confusion of the statutory assessment and review processes under s 35B of the Act - In the circumstances it was appropriate for the Tribunal to grant summary judgment and set the notice aside – Sections 3, 35, 35A, 35B, 35C, 36 and 85 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986; Schedule 1 cl 4(2) of the Transitional Provisions of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Act 2008; Regulation 7 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (General) Regulations 1999.
You can find the full decision here Webb v Employers Mutual Limited [2010] SAWCT 4
12-02-2010
http://www.industrialcourt.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=51CF7B64-E7F2-2F96-3A3C118FA354104C
Injured John Posted at 7:07 AM Today
The workcover system needs a complete overhaul with the primary goals to be focused heavily not only on the impacts on companies and employers, but the detrimental impact it has on those who through no fault of their own have their injury claims tangled in the murky web placed upon them. The system sells false incentives towards injured workers, not only returning to work, but receiving adequate and timely treatment for their injuries. Eliminate the bureaucracy and they'll automatically assist all concerned.
Comment 1 of 12
Veritas Posted at 7:50 AM Today
Work Cover is only another form of revenue raising. If the governements were serious about work safety, then each employee would pay his own insurance (as per car 3rd party) and claim it as a work expense. Watch the number of claims plummet when they become responsible for their own actions and stand to lose their no claim bonus etc.
Comment 2 of 12
Christian of SA Posted at 9:40 AM Today
Privatise Workcover Now! When it used to be private it was better run and the levies were half what they currently are - without the massive unfunded liability.
Comment 3 of 12
Gazza of Subsisterville Posted at 9:51 AM Today
Mean while the injured workers in this state continue to live uncertain lives with no future to plan for except the constant threat of a life on the dole and the dreaded medical review panal are we living in east Berlin O no its Rannastans South Berlin.
Comment 4 of 12
Waz of Adelaide Posted at 10:19 AM Today
A recent employee of mine who had a reoccurring back problem went back to workcover only to be told that he must take out a claim against his current employer "me", Fortunately for me the employee stood firm and told Workcover that his back injury was part of an old claim and had nothing to do with me and that they'd better open up the existing claim and take it up with his old employer. Typical wasteful lazy Government departments.
Comment 5 of 12
George of Gawler Posted at 11:37 AM Today
Why is it that Workcover can charge private industry exhorbitant fees and adhere to strict work practises; yet the Health Department are able to send text messages to their employees removing them from their place of work??? The Health Department also withholds employees pay for no specific reason, forcing the employee to seek work elsewhere. Minister Hill is aware of this practise and considers it to be reasonable. It is obvious that private industry is paying for the ineptitude of the public sector
Comment 6 of 12
Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Work Injured Resource Connection Posted at 11:58 AM Today
I gave evidence to this inquiry, as yet I haven't read the full report, I am hopeful that within the report there are recommendations that injured workers are treated with respect instead of the disdain that many injured workers are now experiencing. I am glad that it has been recognized that the current claims agent monopoly has to change. When the current claims agent was introduced to the Stakeholders of the WorkCover system I asked the then WorkCover Board Chairman -Mr Bruce Carter- if the experiment of a solo claims agent proved to be wrong was it possible to open the claims agent arena up to other claims agent to come back into the process, Mr Carter was at the time very "cross" with me for asking the question, however it has become exceedingly clear that the solo claims agent experiment has failed every part of the WorkCover system. Yours in service Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson, Work Injured Resource Connection 8410 0121.
Comment 7 of 12
Jennifer Edgemore of Mum of an injured worker Posted at 12:21 PM Today
What we all need is for the complete WorkCover system to be put into the nearest rubbish bin, then a fresh new set of legislation written. What we have now is a mishmash of changes to the original intent of the people who sat together for the benifit of workers who went to work and became injured. What we were given was a system that was a no-fault system, that was meant to be lawyer free, instead what we have now got 30 yrs later is a system that bankrupts injured workers, has injured workers taking their own lives and families breaking down due to the mismangement of their compensible claim. I have had to relocate from my home in Victoria to care for my son who is trapped within the SA WorkCover system. The only good fortune I have had is to have met Rosemary from Work Injured Resource Connection who has helped and guided the WorkCover process. It is my hope that within the pages of the inquiry there is a solid recommendation that Rosemary get funding and support that is so desperatly needed to give back to the injured workers of South Australia the dignity that is stolen from them.
Comment 8 of 12
disgruntled employer of Adelaide Posted at 1:11 PM Today
WorkCover = Cash Cow
Comment 9 of 12
Jennifer Edgemore of Mum of an injured worker Posted at 1:31 PM Today
Christian of SA Posted at 9:40 AM Today WorkCover was never private, it has always been a Public Corporation, what you are seeing now is the direct result of Minister Wright withdrawing his support for Keith Brown when he was the CEO.
Comment 10 of 12
Simon of St Peters Posted at 2:02 PM Today
Try getting out of the System!!! i had a small business paid my levies via direct debit always on time etc etc.Now the business is no longer ( closed for 2 years) i still get late payment notices for non payment of levies and an audit letter even though i have contacted WC over the last 2 years to say that the business is no longer running!!! Dear oh dear i really feel for the injured worker stuck on the lousy treadmill of WC like rats in a cage.
Comment 11 of 12
Dissident of Rannistan Posted at 3:23 PM Today
Just like with the MAC, WorkCover needs to be opened up to competition. There's no reason why it can't be done.
Corporations now dictating Laws and Lives in Australia.
Employers could save $9 million a year if extra bonuses of $2million weren't being paid to the claims agent for undisclosed reasons!
So there you have it a $2million dollar employer saving without even thinking about it! I wonder how much the investigator team received to come up with the other $7million, certainly it wasn't free, like my suggestion above!
Opposition finance spokesman Rob Lucas at a press conference specifically set up to satisfy TV's need for "a talking head" also talked about trust and since has put out a statement on WorkCover which had the heading "TRUST. Who can yah?"
I had to chuckle when I read the above comment, if Rob is correct, then no one will win the election, because none of the bastards can be trusted!
It's not only the Workcover hierarchy that needs a good shot of penicillin, but the state's political parties need disinfecting too. Is there anyone that we can trust? They lost my trust long long ago, actually when I was 13 and we visited parliament as part of a school excursion, that was in the Dunstan years. I'd never seen so many adults behaving so badly in my life! I thought to myself then, "this is our government? What a bunch of boring spoilt brats!"
There has been no doubt in my mind ever since that day that in this state, the colonial convict's descendants are now running the bloody joint!
Posted by Heddy Lamar. That's Headly!!!! at 8:41 AM, 13/2/2010
One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a
well. The animal cried piteously for hours as
the farmer tried to figure out what to do.
Finally, he decided the animal was old, and the
well needed to be covered up anyway;
it just wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey.
He invited all his neighbors to come over and
help him. They all grabbed a shovel and began
to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the
donkey realized what was happening and cried
horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement he
quieted down.
A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally
looked down the well. He was astonished at what
he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his
back, the donkey was doing something amazing.
He would shake it off and take a step up.
As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel
dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it
off and take a step up.
Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey
stepped up over the edge of the well and
happily trotted off!
Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds
of dirt. The trick to getting out of the well
is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of
our troubles is a steppingstone. We can get out
of the deepest wells just by not stopping,
never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.
Remember the five simple rules to be happy:
Free your heart from hatred - Forgive.
Free your mind from worries - Most never happen.
Live simply and appreciate what you have.
Give more.
Expect less
NOW .
Enough of that crap . . . The donkey later came back, and bit the farmer who had tried to bury him.
The gash from the bite got infected and
the farmer eventually died in agony from septic shock.
MORAL FROM TODAY'S LESSON FOR ALL THOSE VINDICTIVELY AMBITIOUS WORKCOVER EMPLOYEES AND CLAIMS MANAGERS.
When you do something wrong, and try to cover
your ass, it always comes back to bite you.
Posted by Injured worker -Treated like a donkey at 8:35 AM, 14/2/2010
Issues arising from another WorkCover Corporation. The names of the corporation has been changed for the benefit to show the similarities.
A message to all members of Injured Workers All Across "South Australia"
Dealing with the Workers Compensation in "South Australia", is a very strenuous psychological challenge, many crimes may be committed in the name of profit, considering that they are a non-profit organization. We call them crimes as the actions of this Organization, violate the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights, in "South Australia" our Charter of Rights is very much violated as well; not to mention the criminal actions of Fraud, Threats, Blackmail, Medical Malpractice, Social Discrimination and countless accusations of untruths.
It is bad enough with the lies, manipulation and being spied on by this Corporation, that they also send their paid workers too infiltrate groups of person’s that have been disabled while on the job and causing disruptions to the point of total paranoia amongst these emotionally fragile people, that they no longer trust each other and begin to question their own thoughts and actions, due to the frustrations of their attempts for gaining a little self esteem and self worth.
From the employers attempts to have us not file a claim on the accident or their attempts of preventing proper medical treatment and in some cases, denying that you the employee even had an accident at work or that the employee is faking the injury, just to save them from paying out to the Workers Compensation Boards.
So people in our situation find it very hard to trust anyone, even members of our own families; friends are lost due to arguments as they have not walked in our shoes, which makes them unable to realize how much control this corporation has on our lives, while these same people have no-one to control them as our Governments have allowed for free reign with Judicial protection that prevents them from being held accountable for all that they do.
With Billions of dollars in the accounts of these non-profit corporations across South Australia and the Millions of dollar’s being handed over to different committees and organizations from a fund that was originally set in place for the injured and disabled, by the employers of South Australia, which includes our respective Governments, while those for which this was originally created for, live in poverty, medically untreated, abused financially, physically and psychologically.
Some have been driven to suicide, some to criminal acts, others left to rot in the confines of their minds, while contemplating their next move towards the life they once had and knowing that they are in need of assistance, of which they will never get, in order of gaining it all back
This alone is no less the Money laundering, taking from the employers that is meant for the employees and using it as if it their right too control and distribute as they seem fit, from their own wages to their pensions, with incomes of hundreds of thousands, the people in charge make their living from robbing the vulnerable and being praised for their actions amongst their peers.
We ask that you refrain from comments of violence, or suggesting that we should have others do dirty deeds to satisfy our anger, along with keeping control of our words that reflect any such suggestion that may demean our mission of social justice.
We are adults here and we are capable of being more mature of our actions then those who we seek justice for, so let us not be self serving in pity, taunting, ridiculing and spreading the anger we each have within us as it will only undermine the efforts of all involved and chase away those that come to assist us in our battle.
Note:
As you can see, there are "some" similarities, and it is up to each individual to determine their own conclusion!
Mr Anthony Fleetwood, Chief Executive Officer (SA) from EML explained some of
the problems encountered by EML since commencing the contract including the loss of
a third of its case managers:-
The combination of the need for change and the development of a strong culture
resulted in some of these people deciding that Employers Mutual was not the right
environment for them and also our management team identifying people who were
not appropriate for Employers Mutual.120
Mr Fleetwood conceded turnover of staff had been high, but explained that this
approach was consistent with the companyˇ¦s operations in New South Wales.
The Company believes it is critical for the development of a capable team delivering
services both to employers and injured workers, subsequently, leading to financial
improvements for the scheme.
During the commencement of the contract EML experienced difficulties overcoming
some of the ˇ§negative elements in the cultureˇ¨ and this has led to increased staff levels
that are 25% above what was originally anticipated.121
In December 2008, Mr Phillip Bentley, Chair, WorkCover Corporation informed the
Committee of the Corporationˇ¦s efforts to improve the concerns with EMLˇ¦s
performance:-
There are some key issues that we are working on with Employers Mutual, and
these include:
„h staff turnover and impact on case management outcomes;
„h customer service standards;
„h ongoing training and support to case managers following induction; and
„h ensuring return to work is the priority focus across the scheme.
Management is working closely with Employers Mutual on these issues and
progress is being made, which gives me confidence that the positive signs we are
beginning to see in terms of claim outcomes will continue into the future.
Mr Fleetwood conceded turnover of staff had been high, but explained that this
approach was consistent with the company's operations in New South Wales.
Those statements of Mr Fleetwood are nothing more than a piss poor attempt at making EML sound like victims! If he wants to know what being a victim of his company is all about, then I'd be only too happy to give him some fucking permanent injuries, and then throw him on the dole like a piece of shit, like his administration has done to so many of us.
If an injured worker has a complaint they must take it to the courts and fight lengthy and costly battles in there, meanwhile this asshole and those around him hide like frightened rats behind bullet proof glass, and out of public earshot. Any worker who has tried to personally see their case manager when they have an issue would know exactly what I am saying.
Bottom line is they are an insurance company, and like any other insurance company if they can find a way to get out of paying, they will! THIS IS THEIR #1 PRIORITY The only difference being the funds don't come from EML's bank accounts.
This is such a pathetic attempt at justifying what THEY ARE doing to injured workers lives. I note they had no problem accepting that $2million bonus earlier last year, which by what Mr Fleetwood is stating, they could not have possibly earned, but they still took it anyway, didn't they?
Doesn't accepting something which you are not entitled too, make you guilty of fraud or at the very least theft? Well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please go spin your bullshit elsewhere amongst those you have brainwashed into believing your victim status, you'll find no sympathy here among the injured workers which you have treated like dirt!
I hate it when a Manager says; I will pay you, or I paid you blah. No they didn't, not one of them ever! Managers in Australia don't even know the meaning of the noun "I" because I've never seen a manager or anyone else put their hand into their own pocket to pay anyone from their personal funds!
So who is this "I" which they often refer too? Another classic is, " I will fix that for you" This usually means they'll delegate it to someone you'll never see, to fix! However they will take the credit when it's done! They never actually did anything for anyone, but themselves!
Even one of EML's lawyers tried this "I" thing on, stating "If I won(me), He'll pay me what EML owes!" Like the money paid to injured workers is coming out of HIS pocket! But when I ask him to pay, I bet his hands won't be going anywhere near HIS own pockets!
So much for the great Australian Business Philosophy on the use of the noun " I "!
What did I say here last weekend? A Liability is a Credit, not a Debt!
No mention of injured workers being at fault either, but rather Workcover's management itself!
This report could be used by anyone with the money to fight against the changes introduced into the Act in 2008 on the basis that Mr Rann had misled the public and parliament by openly and knowingly promoting the "unfunded liability" as a debt incurred by injured workers!
Shame on Mike Rann, Paul Garcia, Jay Weatherill and others, along with Workcover Board members who supported the changes. You should all resign immediately!
This report shows them to have all been lying while occupying public office, and cannot be trusted in any such positions of power!
They like to call themselves Honourable, but will they now do the Honourable thing?
The report also makes reference to
The mix of investments at 30 June 2009 was as follows:-
Cash 2.0%
Fixed interest 13.0%
Inflation-linked securities 20.0%
Australian equities 19.0%
Overseas equities 21.5%
Property 7.5%
Real return growth assets 17.0%
Who knows what an Inflation-linked Security really is, and how this differs from "Australian equities" & "Overseas equities" ?
Well somebody must, because it accounts for 60.5% of the corporations investments, but I could only find 40.5%!
So what does EML have to say about the Unfunded Credit?
Let's see below;
As at 30 June 2008 WorkCover's unfunded liability has increased to $984m, after a loss of $140m for 2007-08. The Scheme is 60.8% funded. This compares with an unfunded liability of $911m at 31 December 2007, when the Scheme was 63.4% funded.
OK HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!
See how they are directly relating the increase in the "unfunded liability" to $984m to a $140m loss?
Now as we have already established a liability is a credit, how can a loss increase a credit? Well, It can't! Therefore EML is directly misleading the Public! Lets continue---
WorkCover collected more in levies this year, received fewer claims, and claims performance has improved. But, like other investors, we were impacted by the global downturn in investment markets, which contributed significantly to WorkCover's loss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on this is EML making this statement, notice how the so called negative financial aspects of the scheme is only being attributed to Workcover, not themselves?
Claims Management has improved? Try telling that to all the injured workers EML, you won't get very far!
What is Improved Claims Management anyway, Sending workers to the doghouse by whatever means you can devise?
Mr Fleetwood tries to convince us- "We are such victims at EML!"
Fuck! I hate you lying bastards with such a burning passion !!!
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.
Quote"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."
Public Service to injured workers........My arse, what a load of utter crap. What self serving workcover employee would agree with that statement? How does lining ones own pockets and that of the workcover board stack up to anything which even remotely resembles being a public service. It is obvious that Julia does not have any idea about how the system is rorting employers to line the pokcets of the insurers and lawyers and rehab consultants and everyone else on the workcover gravy train. Unfortunately its the injured workers that have the money leeched out of them day by day until there is nothing left.
If this were not true then injured workers would not be forced to sell their family homes when they find themselves on workcover.
Posted by Dave C/- Marion caravan park at 5:07 PM, 15/2/2010
* Imre Salusinszky
* From: The Australian
* February 16, 2010 12:00AM
PETER Garrett could find himself prosecuted under workplace safety laws as a result of the four fatalities and 86 house fires linked to the federal government's ceiling insulation rebate scheme.
WorkCover in NSW confirmed yesterday it was investigating two incidents connected with the federal government's insulation program, including the death from heatstroke last November of a 19-year-old worker who had been installing insulation at St Clair, in western Sydney.
"The investigation will focus on the systems of work in place at the time of the incident and WorkCover will prepare a report for the coroner," a spokesperson for the workplace safety watchdog said.
Experts say the likelihood of the federal Environment Minister being charged with occupational health and safety breaches would depend on the degree to which workplace safety authorities deemed he was in control of the circumstances under which faulty installation occurred.
In NSW, which has the toughest occupational health and safety laws in Australia, a successful prosecution would leave Mr Garrett with a criminal record.
"Mr Garrett could be one of many considered within the responsibility loop for the insulation deaths," OHS expert Ken Phillips told The Australian yesterday.
"It would be for a court to decide, based on the facts as to actual liability, given what could have reasonably and practically been done to prevent the deaths."
But leading OHS solicitor Malcolm Davis said it was "very difficult to see how Mr Garrett or his department had control over a workplace."
"It comes down to whether it could be regarded as their undertaking," said Mr Davis.
"I can't see how anything they've done would go so far, but that's not to say people may not have a go."
Mr Davis, who advised hobby farmer Graeme Kirk in his landmark successful appeal to the High Court against WorkCover in NSW, said he found it hard to imagine state-based workplace safety authorities under Labor governments launching a prosecution against a federal Labor minister.
He also pointed to numerous precedents in which ministers of the crown had not been prosecuted for negligence, even after royal commission findings detrimental to them.
Mr Phillips said new draft national workplace safety laws, being negotiated between federal Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard and her state counterparts, would make it easier to prosecute someone in Mr Garrett's position.
Unlike state laws, which are based around employer-employee relationships, the draft federal laws focus on who has "control" of a business or undertaking when an accident occurs.
Workers’ Compensation becomes an election issue in South Australia
Workers’ Compensation becomes an election issue in South Australia
By Kevin Jones Leave a Comment
On 12 February 2010, the Greens parliamentarian, Mark Parnell, accused WorkCover Corporation of failing injured workers in South Australia. In response to the release of the Parliament’s Statutory Authorities Review Committee (SARC) inquiry into WorkCover, he said
“The Greens have been saying for a number of years now that the outsourcing of WorkCover’s claims management is a failed experiment, and must be reversed….. Until WorkCover fixes up the poor management of injured workers, it will never get out of its financial mess.”
“WorkCover can no longer outsource this essential responsibility. The Greens call on WorkCover to take back claims management, and ensure there is a much greater focus on retaining and re-equipping of workers to enable them to return to productive work as quickly as possible. Ensuring a safe return to work for injured workers is a core WorkCover function, not an add-on.”
Parnell goes on to mention a $A10,000 donation to the Labor Party by the monopoly workers compensation insurer in South Australia, Employers Mutual Limited (EML). This emphasises the electioneering element of the media release and distracts slightly from the meat of the SARC review.
Parnell’s comments and the review report identify some of the challenges that will hit the workers’ competition sector over the next few years as the Federal Government cranks up the formal review of the nation’s workers’ compensation structures.
The SARC review findings are:
1. “WorkCover should continue the use of satisfaction surveys of workers and employers. The executive summary of the satisfaction surveys should continue to be published on their website and on request the full report should be supplied to interested stakeholders.
2. WorkCover establish a more open and consultative management style with injured workers and interested stakeholders such as the Work Injured Resource Centre (WIRC).
3. That WorkCover’s survey results allow for identification of those workers who return to work and that information be collated on a nationally consistent basis to allow comparisons between jurisdictions.
4. WorkCover should stop its practice of significantly increasing fees, such as its ‘exit or discontinuance’ fee designed to discourage companies from becoming selfinsured. In particular, WorkCover should not proceed with the current fee increases outlined in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Claims and Registration) (Discontinuance Fee) Variation Regulations 2009, gazetted on 26 November 2009. (See Minority Report of Members Hon C Zollo MLC (Presiding Member) and Hon IK Hunter MLC.)
5. When the claims management contract is next put out to tender the number of claims managers be increased to 2 or 3 to remove the monopoly element of the current system. (See Minority Report of Members Hon C Zollo MLC (Presiding Member) and Hon IK Hunter MLC.)
6. WorkCover should report every year in its Annual Report the level of claimed savings in legal costs under its sole provider contract. (See Minority Report of Members Hon C Zollo MLC (Presiding Member) and Hon IK Hunter MLC.)
7. The independent review to be conducted in 2011 of the impact of the recent changes to the legislation should also review the performance of the WorkCover Board and management in implementing these changes. In particular, the review should consider WorkCover and EML’s performance in the critical area of claims management. (See Minority Report of Members Hon C Zollo MLC (Presiding Member) and Hon IK Hunter MLC.)”
Its seems extraordinary that there are two minority reports from the panel. These are included in the SARC report as appendices and, in effect, illustrate the party political sensitivities in the review of (only one!) State workers’ compensation system. The report by Ian Hunter and Carmel Zollo notes that the release of the report so close to an election campaign has provide an unwelcome partisanship to the recommendations.
Part of the reason for their position is that the workers’ compensation scheme has undergone changes throughout the two year inquiry. The inquiry findings have been built on shifting sands.
There are plenty of media stories about the SA WorkCover system but almost nothing in the past week when the SARC report was released. One article at AdelaideNow.
Worker Injury
One of the most interesting recommendations is number 2. This also illustrates the importance of delving into the report itself and not relying on the summary as the report contains many quotes from the Committee’s Hansard.
It seems the committee took to heart the evidence from Ms Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of the Work Injured Resource Connection (WIRC). The report quotes McKenzie-Ferguson’s concerns over the lack of communication between EML and the injured worker.
“For an injured worker to build up any kind of rapport or trust, the case manager needs to be in place. We understand that maternity leave happens, we understand that holidays happen and we understand that bereavement leavehappens. It happens in everyone’s life.
However, what should not happen is that a case manager should not be there for six or seven weeks and suddenly be changed, and no reason given to the injured worker. Sometimes the injured worker does not know until he or she gets some sort of documentation with a different name on the bottom of the letter, or they may have to make a phone call only to find out that the case manager really does not care, ‘because I’m leaving on Friday, and we don’t know who your new case manager will be, so just suck it up until next Monday and then make another phone call.”
Clearly case management only works when there is a consistent presence for the case manager or there is a strong system of handover or information sharing so that long absences can be covered.
Tendering Process
The SARC recommendation number 5 mentions expanding the number of workers’ compensation agencies to 2 or 3 but this recommendation masks considerable tension.
The Hunter and Zollo minority report says, in relation to recommendation 5:
“We do not support this recommendation. There was no evidence placed before the Committee that showed that multiple claims agents will result in improved claims performance, case management or improved service to injured workers. We note that significant criticism of WorkCover’s choice to move to a single claims agent and of the claims agent selection process stemmed from entities that were either unsuccessful bidders for the current claims management contract, or whose business operations include the workers compensation market.”
Apparently EML was permitted to lodge a late Expression of Interest. The report quotes extensively from evidence provided by many competing workers’ compensation insurers, amongst them, QBE Insurance, Allianz Insurance and Gallagher Bassett Services. Notably, Paul Serong, until recently the CEO of Cambridge Integrated Services and one named in speculation of the Executive Director position with WorkSafe Victoria, believed the South Australian market could sustain two or three provider. Page 39 of the SARC report says
“Mr Paul Serong, CEO, Cambridge Integrated Services, one of the companies to place an Expression of Interest was asked by the Committee whether accepting a late EOI had the “perception of unfairness”. He replied:-
Mr Serong: Quite clearly it does. Yes, it does raise unfairness. It also could be a consideration, maybe, that information might have been gleaned to that tenderer. To me it smacks of something smelly.
Hon TJ Stephens MLC: Improper.
Mr Serong: Yes, it is improper.”
In February 2010 the Australian Government is being battered over the perception that it cannot manage large scale reform programs. The OHS reform process has, to now, been spared anywhere near the same level of criticism. But within a couple of years, national reform of the various State-based workers’ compensation schemes should be near completion. Going from the competitive and political issues raised above, the reform negotiations may need to be in a cage and, probably pay-per-view.
By Kevin Jones Leave a Comment
A South Australian colleague has pointed out some interesting elements in WorkCover SA’s review of employer incentives discussed earlier.
The following text are some of the aims of South Australia’s Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.
(1) The objects of this Act are—
(a) to establish a workers rehabilitation and compensation scheme—
(i) that achieves a reasonable balance between the interests of employers and the interests of workers
(iv) that reduces the overall social and economic cost to the community of employment-related disabilities
(2) A person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative powers must interpret this Act in the light of its objects without bias towards the interests of employers on the one hand, or workers on the other.
My colleague points out that a review of employer incentives is well and good but what are the incentives for employees, given the objects of the Act concerning balance and bias?
She also criticises
“…the current incentive for employers of paying the first two weeks of the injured workers income payments if the employer supplies the claim agent with the employer section of the injury/incident report goes against the intent as outlined in Objects of the Act, as there is not any corresponding incentive offered to the injured worker.”
Whether the injury report is valid or useful is irrelevant to the incentive as it is the lodgment of the form that generates the incentive rather than any rehabilitation action for the injured worker.
There is no doubt that the workers compensation scheme needed a review. The recent Return-To-Work (RTW) conference in Adelaide had an atmosphere of hope after the introduction of the RTW coordinator requirements for businesses.
South Australia is different from most other Australian States where a single company handles workers compensation insurance, Employers Mutual. Not only is there a huge lack of competition in South Australia but the government and the insurer are close.
There is also a political element with Paul Caica being given the portfolio in order to fix it. In June 2009, the Minister announced a range of projects from a fair pool of funds but many of them are focused on the workers rather than providing structural change to the system. It is hard not to speculate how workers may benefit if the insurance industry in the State had competition.
The need for reform was clear as the South Australian workers’ compensation scheme was bleeding money but it must have been politically attractive to try to postpone an analysis of the system until the Federal Government started its national review of workers’ compensation system in a few years’ time. It may have been that such a strategy was planned until the global financial crisis changed the public’s tolerance for government debt forcing the SA government had to act.
Would a case manager be prosecuted re Peter Garrett, if an injured worker received an invalid notice and as a consequences caused self harm, or harm to others?
A recent decision in relation to Work Capacity notices.
The worker’s income maintenance payments were discontinued after service of a notice under s 35B and s 36 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 – Application by the worker for summary judgment – Whether the compensating authority failed to give the required period of notice or otherwise failed to comply with the statutory discontinuance procedure – Whether there were irregularities rendering the notice voidable – If so, whether despite the notice being voidable the Tribunal should exercise its discretion not to grant summary relief – Consideration of new entitlement provisions – Held that the worker has not established a case for summary judgment for an alleged failure to give the appropriate period of notice – Held however that the worker has established that the notice was voidable due to a confusion of the statutory assessment and review processes under s 35B of the Act - In the circumstances it was appropriate for the Tribunal to grant summary judgment and set the notice aside – Sections 3, 35, 35A, 35B, 35C, 36 and 85 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986; Schedule 1 cl 4(2) of the Transitional Provisions of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Act 2008; Regulation 7 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (General) Regulations 1999.
You can find the full decision here Webb v Employers Mutual Limited [2010] SAWCT 4
12-02-2010
http://www.industrialcourt.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=51CF7B64-E7F2-2F96-3A3C118FA354104C
I viewed the segment on Today Tonight about the suicides and the draconian legislative changes.
How come the government ministers get 24 hour cover and full income maintenance if they are injured?
What is more how come everyone in the WorkCover building is leaving?
The staff turnover is obviously a massive problem and they know that what they are doing to injured workers is wrong..
Its about time those who are still there got the guts up to change the system from within...perhaps a few of their lawyers could change their outlooks on life also instead of screwing injured workers to feed their families...wonder how they sleep at night?
Posted by I would not work in a building with low security at 7:24 PM, 16/2/2010
So they have now upgraded safety by improving the Riverside building. Is that the WorkCovers way of preventing suicide? Whats stopping an injured worker throwing themselves in front of a train downstairs?
I might even think Dr Ewer would agree that preventing suicide is more than putting up some safety rails!
Any worker, who has suffered an industrial injury in the last 3 years, is entitled to injury compensation. A worker can make a claim if he or she were provided with faulty equipment. One can also make a claim even in the absence of proper training being given to workers. Or is it that a worker has inhaled poisonous substance? Whatever be the cause of the accident, a worker has the right to make a claim as long as the injury has resulted due to unsafe measures at the workplace.
It is true that accidents in the workplace are not uncommon. It is also a sad fact that sometimes employers are negligent of their responsibilities. Employers have a duty to observe utmost care and caution toward their employees and are consequently responsible for health and safety in the workplace. You must be aware of the fact your employer cannot dismiss you for making a compensation claim. By law, it is the duty of every employer to record accidents in the workplace and the specialist personal injury solicitors can help you claim the compensation you deserve. A worker who has suffered an injury in an industry can make industrial work injury claims lawyers in UK. A claimant can also discuss the claim in complete confidence and without obligation with an industrial claims solicitor.For more insights please visit
<a href="http://www.accidentsdirect.com/"><b>Injury Compensation</b></a>
Chappy of Adelaide Posted at 8:53 AM Today
Trustworthy? you got to be kidding. I just viewed a foootage of Mike Rann when he was the opposition leader speaking at a WorkCover rally about changes to WorkCover by the Liberals. When he became Premier, he did exactly what he stated he was against to and now we see injured workers kicked off the system and inflicting self harm. Trustworthy, I dont think so!
Chappy of Adelaide Posted at 12:11 PM Today
Now the Labor government has so much money, can they start giving back injured workers their entitlements before we lose more to suicide!
Some online comments from the Today Tonight segment
I am another at the hands of Workcover in the 9 months I have had to put up with them it has been nothing but hell I have been told that I can not see my original treating doctor as he is to far away and they will not pay travel cost and have also been advised by EML that I cannot see my pain management doctor as he put up his fees and they will not cover me seeing him I was sent to a Independent Physio that saw me for just over a hour and in that hour with just one medical report from my neurosurgeon and a fee scans of my lower back he stated that i was fit for 3 hrs a day 3 days a week my now treating doctor has refused that with what has been written in a report by that Independent Physio. I to have now lost 20% of my wages for what why are we losing that ammount of money it is not our fault that this has happened and we are the ones that may or will be dealing with this injury for the rest of our life. How can someone sitting behind a desk all nice and fit for work say to you on the phone that they understand what we are going through. It is time to get with the times and for our ranning government to STOP thinking of there own pockets and think of the lives that it has affected. A worker will always suffer from some form of depression from a injury and the restrictions that are then out on them due to that injury dealing with Workcover only adds to that depression that only deepens as time goes on. No one can put a price on some ones life and well being........... NO ONE
I am one of the people interviewed in the programme. We've started a group on Facebook and are also planning a protest rally. Please see http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=242001982980&ref=ts if you are interested, or call me on 0432 416 351 for details.
Unless we unite and stand against Workcover Legislation then nothing is going to change. Let your voice be heard and join the protest.Mandy Jamieson
The 1st problem with Workcover began when Mike Rann took away workers rights to sue employers for not providing a safe work environment. Media Mike loves big noting himself about how many new companies and new jobs he brings to SA, but at what cost to workers? I was bullied by 2 people at work for a year and a half. I was not their first target, and I won't be the last. Management knew about it and didn't do enough to stop it. Bullying is becoming an epidemic in workplaces. The cost to me was complete lack of confidence, being self sufficient, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts. It has take over a year and a half on Workcover for me to even have the confidence to apply for jobs. The cost to my family and friends has been their pain and frustration watching my distress during the bullying, and my meltdown and subsequent struggle to recover. Workcover costs would be much lower if employers who have been proved negligent in providing a safe work place, could be sued. Make the negligent company pay, not the taxpayers. Maybe then employers would take workplace safety seriously!!
I injured myself in 1991 while working in a government department. The injury I sustained was a result of several incidents all impacting on one leg. I eventually needed minor surgery to assist in the rehab of the injury. I have had 12 procedures on that knee since including 4 Knee replacements. I was the subject of a targeted separation package from that government department and as a result that department forced me to sign a form indemnifying them of any further responsibility. I managed to get employument within the building field, earthworks, as a plant operartor. due to further degeneration I was forced to have more work done on the knee, this then became a secondary claim against the employer I was with at the time. Further down the track after 8 Arthroscapies and 2 knee replacements my employer said he could no longer employ me because I could no longer do the job I was employed to do and he could not provide alternative employment. I have in that time had 5 companies dealing with this claim ,between 15----20 claims managers, I have lost all of the employer superannuation benefits I would ordinarily get, I have lost 80% use of my leg, lost 20% of my notional wage set by work cover, lost holiday pay advantages long service leave entitlements, have spent two solid years of painful rehabilitation. I have re educated myself and gained employment through that training with absolutely no assistance from them at all, apart from the payment of fees for the re-education. I have just returned to work after the fouth knee replacement and I may not be able to do as much as before. this is going to cost me more. At no time in this process have I had a win, have I been advantaged, I have lost at every hurdle and have been discriminated against at so many different levels. My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of those who have taken their lives. Shame Workcover, Shame Mr Rann, Shame Mr Wright.
Knowing someone on Workcover , a government employer with DFEEST who is a redeployee who had a pre-existinginjury that had occured while working for DFEEST and had been approved by them, also they had already paid for several knee surgeries with this injury. The person was working under contract with SAPOL and knee failed again with after having surgery last March paid for by DFEESTand under Worcoer legislation DFEEST is liable for the injury as the original employer and after all it all comes form the same kity. The knee failed in May the workercontiued working hoping it would improve and when injured worker went to see her Surgeon in July and had it drained. Then in August after no improvment went back to Surgeon and was booked for arthroscopic surgery the next day DFEEST refused claim ater previously paying for all surgery. If the worker had the surgery she would have returned to work in late September, the worker is curreenly still off work waiting a Medical Review panel hearing and after several consiliation conference and cancelations by DPC. and DFEEST is goes on but she is approved to return to work two days a week but they cant find her a job. She is currently using her Long Service Leave to survive has use up all her sick and holiday pay. So if this is an example of the system where a worker could have been back at full time work but rather then do that the workcover section within The Dept. of Premier and Cabinent and DFEEST would rather destroy a life rather then have a useful worker. As a side note to this the Government claims to be reducing Public Servant numbers, they maybe reducing full time staff but they are being replaced by Temp staff from empolyment agencies just go talk to a government worker and ask how many contract staff or temp staff in their section.
Any person who is in receipt of Workcover maintenance payments and attends the rally outlined at the above website link, will have their payments stopped, to become effective immediately! You LAZY BASTARDS are mean't to be finding a job not protesting MY personal grievance policies!
We have a number of means of identification at our disposal including but not limited too, traffic light cameras, security cameras, cell phones and moles that will be blending in with your illegal assembly. We can then match the video or photos up to your drivers licence photo or any ID card which you hold or have held in the past.
I will not tolerate protests in MY State! Police and security personnel have been informed to use any DOD Force as they deem Necessary to control and contain this Appalling display of Terrorism! Such Terrorist Plots as this rally are a Threat not only to MY way of life, but that of all VALUED members of the business Community. We will not allow a handful of LAZY injured workers to dictate, which Global Corporations we hand over Public Liability Securities to. I own You, and You will Obey Me!
Zieg Hile ! Zieg Hile ! Zieg Hile !
Posted by Chairman Randalist Mao at 4:13 PM, 18/2/2010
I have been on workcover for 9 months,had kne replacement in dec,back in hospital in jan for knee manipulation,still sore and stiff.Received a letter the other day saying i will only be receiving 80% of my pay.I am one of the lucky ones i can make upthe difference from my sick pay. I SHOULDNT HAVE TO. I feel sorry for the truck drivers who are receiving nothing.Whats this B----------Y government doing to us.They are trying to make us into 7 different countries,WORKCOVER should be the same australia wide.
Where do I start I have been on W/cover since 2005. I suffer from lower back L5 S2 disk problem which is inoperable, have seen a number of specialist both mine and W/cover and they all agree that I am totally incapacitated but I still have to do rehab. I also suffer from chronic depression. Anyway last November of 09 I took an overdose of MS Contin and was very luck that my wife found my I lost 2 days of my life and spent a week in the Psychiatric Ward then transfer to Nourlunga Hosptial for assessment. his was cause by having to go to more doctors, Rehab and bullying by the case manager I had just had enough of the B/S. I wish I could keep fighting them but as of my late meeting on last Monday 15th when I was told to expect this ever 6 to 12 months until they find a doctor that states that I can work one (1) hour a day then they can kick me off the system on redress or compensation so why not ask for a redemption it would make you feel better. By the way I am 57 year old and who would want to employ my. I think that I have woffled on enough so goodnight all. Trevor.
i have been on the work cover system for 3 and half years, the 1st 3months was ok, but then i started to go down hil big time, have seen numerous surgeons (right shoulder), i have 3 chidlren that i find it hard to see, due having to sit n try n drive with my right arm, have been told hjust recently, that i have to just grin and baer the coinstant pain, i also see a phsyio 2x weekely, do hydrotherapy 2x weekly, after the 1st 3 months i had to take out loans to be able survive, when work cover would not help me financially, now i have lots of trouble making these payments back, if it wasnt for my younger brother i would be a homeless person, i am constanly depressed (which i was never before prioir to injury) and have complated suicide numerous times, the work cover system doesn care bout the injured workers no more, as i have seen it first had, they also put me on a work diary, only to told by numerous employers that nothing is available, how is 1 to survive the system no1 knows
I am another at the hands of Workcover in the 9 months I have had to put up with them it has been nothing but hell I have been told that I can not see my original treating doctor as he is to far away and they will not pay travel cost and have also been advised by EML that I cannot see my pain management doctor as he put up his fees and they will not cover me seeing him I was sent to a Independent Physio that saw me for just over a hour and in that hour with just one medical report from my neurosurgeon and a fee scans of my lower back he stated that i was fit for 3 hrs a day 3 days a week my now treating doctor has refused that with what has been written in a report by that Independent Physio. I to have now lost 20% of my wages for what why are we losing that ammount of money it is not our fault that this has happened and we are the ones that may or will be dealing with this injury for the rest of our life. How can someone sitting behind a desk all nice and fit for work say to you on the phone that they understand what we are going through. It is time to get with the times and for our ranning government to STOP thinking of there own pockets and think of the lives that it has affected. A worker will always suffer from some form of depression from a injury and the restrictions that are then out on them due to that injury dealing with Workcover only adds to that depression that only deepens as time goes on. No one can put a price on some ones life and well being........... NO ONE
This is a link to a group on facebook that has been created due to people not being happy with Workcover
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=242001982980&ref=ts
"I wish I could keep fighting them but as of my late meeting on last Monday 15th when I was told to expect this ever 6 to 12 months until they find a doctor that states that I can work one (1) hour a day then they can kick me off the system on redress or compensation so why not ask for a redemption it would make you feel better. By the way I am 57 year old and who would want to employ my. I think that I have woffled on enough so goodnight all. Trevor. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor don't be too intimidated by the claims and threats of casemanagers, what they are not telling you and other injured workers, is that it doesn't matter what doctors they can find to say in reports "you can work doing whatever for even 5minutes day". The only way they can stop your payments, (they are going to hate that this LOL) is if your treating doctor states you are capable of working on your "Prescribed Medical Certificate"! The PMC is a lawful binding document that they must comply with, as must you. As long as your doctor states you are unfit for work on this certificate, there is fuck all they can do about it, end of story!
They could send you to a Medical Panel, but this can be a risky business for them too, should the panel find that you are indeed unfit for work they are not allowed to dispute this, nor send you to the panel again. The decision is final and binding! This is likely why you haven't been sent to one and they are resorting to harassment, because that is all they can do, and it pisses them off.
If they suggest either of the following 2 tactics do not under any circumstances take them up on either offer, as soon as you do, they'll fuck you off!
1) Change your treating Doctor to someone they suggest, their doctor will sign you off for 1 hour a day and then your fucked!
2) If they mention retraining, they'll say that before you can begin retraining, you need to tell your treating doctor to sign you off for modified duties or something similar, DECLINE TO DO THIS. Once your Doctor has done that, they can then use it in a determination to say "you have a current work capacity" and again your screwed!
How do I know? Because this is how they screwed me over, I trusted them to help me get back to work, but all they did was screw me over! Never again will I trust anyone even remotely related to Workcover, nor the evil Communist Labor Party.
Above all Don't be Intimidated and Ask for Face to Face meetings with them to discuss anything significant. If they refuse, make a note of it and just hang up on them. They cannot refuse to handle any aspect of your case impersonally if you request correspondence in person. They must oblige and respect your legal rights! This in most cases will intimidate them, as you then become a (real) person that they cannot ignore as just a number. Something very few of them can deal with, having never been trained in public relations or diplomacy, they are about to enter uncharted waters.
Many usually want to have a team leader or another casemanager at any such meetings, refuse them this, it's a stand over tactic mean't to place YOU in a unlevel mine-field! If they insist say "Ok, I'll bring MY lawyer along also". Make it known that you will be billing them for the lawyers fees, or that the lawyer may do this directly! Remember you are entitled to legal representation during any negotiations or discussions which may affect your future.
I hope that the above helps some people avoid the traps they have set in place. They have only one goal in mind and that is to separate you from your rights as set down in the WC&R Act 1986, and they WILL resort to all manner of underhandedness to do so if given the chance!
Just think of case managers as a medallion wearing, open shirted, blow waved hair, fly by night Used Car lot Salesmen, and you'll always have a reasonably good picture of the persons you're dealing with!
JURISDICTION: Application for summary judgment
FILE NO/S: 4844 of 2009
HEARING DATE: 17 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF: His Honour Deputy President Judge Hannon
DELIVERED ON: 9 February 2010
{
}
PUBLICATION OF THESE REASONS
It is the practice of this Tribunal to publish its reasons for decision in full on the Internet. If any party or person contends that these reasons for decision should not be published in full the party or person must make an application within seven days of the delivery of these reasons. The application shall be by an Application for Directions with a supporting affidavit and should be addressed to the presiding member(s). If no such application is lodged within the time specified these reasons will be published in accordance with the Tribunal’s usual practice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is going on here? Handed down to both parties on the 9th Feb 2010 & publicly published on 12th Feb 2010, that is only 3 days not 7days!
Posted by A Concerned Party at 10:30 AM, 19/2/2010
Skin cancer death leads to WorkCover Queensland payout
Article from: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
Suellen Hinde
February 20, 2010 11:00pm
A RECORD payout by WorkCover Queensland has been made to the young family of a construction worker who died at 43 from skin cancer.
The family of Rohan Crotty – his 39 year-old wife Jo-Anne and four young sons aged five and under – have been left in mourning after losing their role model and provider within twoyears of being diagnosed with melanoma.
Mr Crotty died at home surrounded by his extended family and children in July last year. He was a carpenter and plasterer by trade, but in the last years of his life became a union organiser, helping to campaign for sun awareness programs on building sites.
The landmark six-figure claim signals a warning to industry and employers that it is time to take skin cancer prevention more seriously in the sunshine state.
Toxic injury experts, lawyers Turner Freeman, took on the the Crotty case because of the dramatic impact losing a father, husband and sole provider has had on Jo-Anne, Eddie, 5, William, 4, Jack, 3, and Paddy, who is almost two.
"My daddy died – he got sunburnt," Jack said.
Mrs Crotty, who has a mortgage and is now the sole carer for her boys, is pleased the money gives her some security.
But, with tears streaming down her face while clutching her husband's wedding ring, she says that no amount of compensation could ever replace the love of her life.
"They awarded me total dependency in the payout and I am grateful for that – in the end I feel like Rohan is still providing for us," she said.
"I am carrying the burden for my children because they are so young – but they always say that daddy is alive in our hearts."
While Rohan was receiving treatment in Melbourne towards the end of his life, fellow CFMEU officials and workmates came to his Clontarf home fixing walls, fences, painting and building the boys a fort in the backyard.
"When we got back we had a barbecue and I remember him sitting in the backyard surrounded by his mates and he was so proud," Mrs Crotty said.
"I don't think enough is being done for sun awareness.
"I would like to carry on his legacy by organising a campaign bus that goes around to work sites and spreads the message about UV protection."
FMEU Workplace Health and Safety Manager Andrew Ramsay said the WorkCover claim was a landmark decision because there had been few payouts of this magnitude for melanoma in Queensland.
"There is a real difference in the approaches between the civil construction and the building construction industries," Mr Ramsay said.
"The guys who work on the roads wear long sleeves and heaps of protection but that is not happening so much on the building sites.
"We are trying to change this and what befelled Rohan highlights the urgency with which this needs to happen."
After an injury in early 2007, I've had the absolute joy of dealing with Workcover, Employers Mutual, Rehab Providers, Lawyers and associated specialists. None of whom can fix my injuries, But all of whom are making a living from my injury while not only am I left with a permanent disability but am not really recieving any 'compensation' when you consider the 20% they rip off me now, Then after lawyers take their theiving great chunk for doing nothing. What are you left with STUFF ALL, except I suppose I,ve got my PERMANENT DISABILITY and the ability to earn considerably less than I used to and still only recieve 80% of my previous earnings. Oh and don't forget the PAIN and SUFFERING that I will endure FOREVER.
Do not forget that you lost your rights to Superannuation if you are no longer employed and you are dropped on to WorkCovers books.
Employers fob you off all the time so they do not have the responsibility of injured workers. Whilst WorkCover pursues injured workers with a passion to drive down their claims they have a history of doing nothing about employers that rort the system by getting rid of their injured employees..
As for the lawyers, it is the WorkCover lawyers that are the leeches, if injured workers did not have lawyers battling for them they would lose out completely.
It is common practice for WorkCover lawyers to make sure there is plenty of work for them, after all its their livelihood and they are taking instructions from idiot case managers and the like who are spending WorkCover's money, not their own.
A fool and their money might be easily parted, but its even easier if its not the fools money to start with but WorkCovers.
You're both wrong, Employer Contributed Super stops the very minute you are injured!
Ex Labor PM Paul Keating changed the laws on Super in 1992. One of the changes he made was that, if you are on WC and not actually working you're not entitled to superannuation payments. However If the injury is only short term many employers will continue to pay this rather than confront any problems that may arise if they hadn't.
But by Law they are not required to do so, and legally they may even ask for it all back! This happened to me.
If on WC and still employed you should check whether your employer is still paying the contributions or not, same goes for your sick and annual leave entitlements. Some cunning employers will also try to get out of accruing these two items if they can, so check it weekly cause they do still have to pay these items!
As for Keating's law on Employer Contributed Super it is nothing more than a complete farce! The E.C.S was part of a national wage deal struck between Employers, Employees and the Unions in late 1987. It was agreed that a percentage based super be paid to all workers in lieu of higher rates of weekly pay, which would help more workers become self funded retirees!
However since when it came into force in 1988, the Federal Government has moved and shifted the goal posts pertaining to this benefit many times. By the time most people actually reach retirement, particularly with the recent age increase to 70, the laws governing it would have changed so much that you'll likely find you're not be entitled to one rahzoo!
The 1992 super law change was nothing less than outright blatant theft from pockets of blue collar workers. Which unlike the super which had already been in place for many years to most white collar workers, most of the changes only affect super entered into after 1987, no surprise there, again by the Socialist Labor Party of Austrachina.
The South Australian Opposition says it would aim for a WorkCover levy of 2 per cent under reform of the state's workers' compensation scheme.
MP Iain Evans says a Liberal government would appoint an independent regulator to oversee WorkCover operations and more businesses would be encouraged to self-insure.
The current WorkCover levy is 3.15 per cent.
Mr Evans says Labor's WorkCover reforms have failed to achieve what was expected.
"South Australia has the highest levy in Australia. Every other state has a levy less than 2 per cent," he said.
"We don't see any reason why with proper management South Australia's workers' compensation scheme can't deliver the same result."
WorkCover Minister Paul Caica says reforms implemented by Labor strike a fairer balance.
"What they're [Liberals] showing is that they have an affinity to meeting the needs of employer organisations without focusing on a very important component of the WorkCover scheme and that is injured workers," he said.
"We have a balance between those two areas - the needs of business and the needs of individual workers that need to be returned back to work."
"We have a balance between those two areas - the needs of business and the needs of individual workers that need to be returned back to work."
LMAO!
And how exactly have the reforms returned injured workers back to work? All it's done is throw them onto the dole for the federal gov to worry about! Please if you bastards have to bullshit, you could at least take the time to make it not so bloody transparent!
Any worker that votes for either party, or even labor/liberal independents in the up coming election needs a reality check, and a smack on the back of the head!
Voting for a party independent is the same as voting for the party, this was proven in 2002 when Rann formed a government by offering sweetner $$$ deals to independents, which they took!
WORKCOVER'S insurance and regulatory arms would be split under a Liberal government in a bid to reduce the $1.1 billion blowout in unfunded liability.
Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond said WorkCover's dual roles led to a decrease in accountability and contributed to its budget problems.
"By having an independent authority overseeing the regulation of WorkCover as the insurer means WorkCover is not regulating and investigating itself when it comes to the way it manages claims, disputes, self-insurance licensing and medical assessment panels," she said.
"We will abolish the monopoly in claims management when the current claims manager's contract expires, creating competition thus helping to reduce WorkCover's unfunded liability and at the same time demanding a more customer service approach to claims management."
AdelaideNow is seeking comment from Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell however has described the plan as "simply not responsible".
"The Liberals plan to cut the WorkCover levy to 2 per cent, on the back of an aggressive reduction in workers entitlements already underway, will hurt injured workers even more," he said.
"To contemplate a reduction in the employer levy when WorkCover's unfunded liability is so enormous is simply not responsible.
The Liberals plan is a boon for employers but does little to help injured workers.
"Both the Labor party and now the Liberal party have abandoned those who are unlucky enough to be injured at work."
is it possible the article i have just read is true-julia davison is leaving us this june?a good place to start fixing workcover,from the top down.fingers crossed.
South Australian Liberals plan WorkCover split (updated)
WORKCOVER'S insurance and regulatory arms would be split by the Liberals in a bid to cut the program's unfunded liability, which has blown out to $1.1 billion.
Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond released the policy yesterday, but refused to provide a time line for reduction of the deficit. She said it was critical WorkCover be severed and made more "open, transparent and accountable".
Opposition industrial relations spokesman Iain Evans also pledged reforms to encourage businesses to self-insure.
"We want to hold WorkCover to account. You wouldn't want your own insurer regulating itself. That's what happens with WorkCover," he said.
Pressed to specify when results in WorkCover's performance would be observed, Mr Evans said it was "a long-term plan".
"It's taken Mike Rann eight years to stuff WorkCover, there's going to be no quick fix in addressing those issues," he said.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica said the announcement indicated the Liberals planned to pursue an agenda of privatisation.
"The Liberals' latest plans are the first steps down the road to privatisation of WorkCover which will ultimately leave workers unprotected and businesses under-insured," he said. "The Liberals are only interested in minimising the cost to business at the expense of the workers."
Greens MP Mark Parnell said the Liberals' plan to cut the WorkCover levy to 2 per cent would "hurt injured workers even more".
"The Liberals plan is a boon for employers, but does little to help injured workers," he said.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles says South Australia has the costliest, least fair and most poorly managed workers compensation scheme in the nation.
s'The impact of these bad laws is undeniable. People are struggling financially, physically and emotionally. Some have lost their homes. Some have even lost their lives," she said.
"Overall, we think that the Liberal policy offers some improvements on the current system but it doesn't go far enough to redress the balance and ensure that workers are treated fairly.
"It remains biased towards employers who have already benefited enormously from the past changes to the law."
It is obviosly very misinformed and not in touch labor ministers sprouting off about how WorkCover is treating injured workers so well.
A levy of 2% is easily achievable if
1) Injured workers could sue under common law if they had a disability ggreater than 20%.
2)Injured workers could exit the system effectively and efficiently without being stuck on the system for years on end waiting for a redemption so they can get on with their lives.
3) Injured workers were not sent to multiple doctors just to put them through the hoops as is currently happening.
4)WorkCover stopped litigating against injured workers just for the sake of it.
5) Lawyers were instructed by a person who had no interest in dragging the claims out for years on end to milk the system.
6) WorkCover stopped sepnding millions filming injured workers wives, spouses and children in an endless search for mythical fraudulent claimants. ( the cas eof Thompson just shows how they run their dodgy prosecutions witholding evidence, and conducting everything in an oppressive manner when people are without doubt injured.
7) WorkCover stopped bullshitting to everyone about how good it is doing its job..
8) WorkCover managed its core business of rehabilitating injured workers instead of managing claims, and keeping injured workers on the payroll and system for decades.
9) WorkCover sacked 90% of its claims managers and employees and gave redemptions at the 2 year mark regardless. This would cut the number of workers on the system to a more manageable number and the levies could in fact go below 2%.
10) Implement the above and do not bullshit about how they will adversely affect the scheme. All the bullshit does is point to the real truth- the employees of workcover are all feathering their own nests and creating jobs for themselevs and their labor mates.
Paul Who. You have to be kidding me right, you have just wiped out a whole industry. Doctors, Lawyers and the De Pois of this world would be up in arms. EML make $47million a year from this.
And how else are WorkCover able to increase their investments funds if levies are decreased.
Sorry Paul, Im not having a go at you, but you have to look at the real reasons..........
On the 9th Feb 2010 D.P.Judge Hannon ordered that the determination dated 10/06/2009 was invalid and be set aside.
15 days later and still no contact from either Workcover or Eml, no correspondence, no mail, no case manager, no rehab, no payments, no back pay, not even a fucking phone call, NOTHING!
I spend 4 years on workcover because they can't be bothered rehabilitating you properly, sent me to countless fly boy doctors, rehabilitation companies that treat you like your an idiot, personal case file is stolen ends in the hands of the media - case manager states "So what, who cares!", spend 8months in the tribunal fighting a determination that was a complete farce done by same (who cares) case manager. Centerlink then tells me I'm unemployable because of the nature of my injury, previous work experience and age, all this and too much more to mention here, Why? Because I was a fucking slave who worked hard all my life, had surgery that caused more problems than it fixed. And to top it off I was an idiot, I voted Labor!
I've had it with up to high hell with all of them, they are obviously above any laws or courts. The system has failed yet again! No More!
Nesy of Adelaide Posted at 5:39 AM February 24, 2010
Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica "The Liberals' latest plans are the first steps down the road to privatisation of WorkCover which will ultimately leave workers unprotected and businesses under-insured." And this is worse than what Labor has done to workers??? It's time this State put an end to Labor's bully-boy ways and vote them out!
Comment 1 of 22
peter Posted at 6:17 AM February 24, 2010
Why victimise the workers, they have already stopped lump sum payouts , you get 13 weeks with full pay but 1 day off counts as a week how is that fair.you could have 1 day off work a week and then your pay is cut 20% after 13 days.
Comment 2 of 22
liberals are at it again Posted at 7:15 AM February 24, 2010
well it begins, liberals already show they are planning on reigniting the privitisation madness that saw them obliterated in the last 2 elections! Bring on march 20 so we can throw their ideas out again! If liberals spent more time developing decent policy rather than continually commenting on adelaide now, then they might stand a chance!
Comment 3 of 22
Shaking my head of What goes on Posted at 7:18 AM February 24, 2010
No amount of money can be put on someone's well being and their life but the government has, which is wrong. It always comes down to the dollar. Workcover needs to be pulled apart and restarted again. Injured workers lose too much - 10% after 13 weeks of their wage then another 20% after 26 weeks. How is that fair? We have bills and other outgoings too. Fair go for the fair dinkum Aussie - we are people too, not a number. Yes I'm an injured worker who is struggling and not only with my injury but with the depression from it all as well........
Comment 4 of 22
Injured Employee Posted at 7:25 AM February 24, 2010
"Leave workers unprotected", like they have much now. If you have a severe injury you can currently find yourself out on your own long before rehabilitation has found you a new job or even a return to work. Thanks a bunch Mr Rann, hope you get voted outed so that workcover can be fixed.
Comment 5 of 22
Tony of Exeter Posted at 7:33 AM February 24, 2010
The words I want to hear from Redmond on thie issue "NO INJURED WORKER WILL BE WORSE OFF" but I can't see how cutting the work cover premium and carving up the administration will do this. The hope was that the Libs may be a white night for injured workers, with this proposal they seem more like the Dragon!
Comment 6 of 22
jessej of Adelaide Posted at 7:37 AM February 24, 2010
Yes Isobel at least it is a start to straighten out Work Cover
Comment 7 of 22
Dave of Adelaide Posted at 8:30 AM February 24, 2010
At least the Libs have a plan for Workcover unlike the Rann government. Spending money on pointless tram extensions & expressways to win votes whilst the Workcover blackhole gets swept under the carpet. Even the SA Unions think the plan has merits
Comment 8 of 22
Leigh of Adelaide Posted at 8:48 AM February 24, 2010
hmm Janet Giles says South Australia has the costliest, least fair and most poorly managed workers compensation scheme in the nation. Wasn't she on the board of Work Cover!!!
Comment 9 of 22
john crane Posted at 8:53 AM February 24, 2010
Well some one has to take the bull by the horns and bring it under control, people who need Work cover may get a big surprise if the thing folds due to the debt. Then listen to the squeals. Surely a system that is debt ridden cannot survive, or is the stupid tax payer to fund the debt. As for bodies that regulate themselves this must end and only independent bodies carry out these duties. Personally I would love to see a totally independent National inspection division.
Comment 10 of 22
Change of Heart of Adelaide Posted at 8:58 AM February 24, 2010
If WorkCover is privatised at least it will be regulated by APRA. As a general insurance industry worker, let me tell you they make you jump through hoops and require a high level of accountability. Not such a bad thing if that secures the future of injured workers!
Comment 11 of 22
30 Year union member to put Labor last of a knife-edge marginal seat Posted at 10:02 AM February 24, 2010
There will be many workers who remember when they cast their ballots that it was Rann Government MP's who voted in the House and Legislative Council to cut the wages of workers because they were injured and only the Greens opposed kicking workers when they were down.
Comment 12 of 22
Mark M Aldridge INDEPENDENT Candidate 4 the LC of Penfield Gardens Posted at 10:12 AM February 24, 2010
It would appear neither party have an Idea on what to do, reducing levys will only affect end users, and we can not ad any more insult to injury, pushing for self insuring will add further cost to those who stay on the Work Cover scheme, and Rann, well you made your promises on the steps of Parliament in 1995, and you have let injured workers down, The whole system is a bloody mess, 1.3 Billion in unfunded liability, is that taken into account regarding our supposed AAA rating? Change is necessary!
Comment 13 of 22
Trust of Who can ya! Posted at 10:26 AM February 24, 2010
If WorkCover is privatesised? what happens to the $650 million investment WorkCover currently has? Yes investments, shares, properties, i think they even had a share in one of the twin towers!
Comment 14 of 22
ben of parkside Posted at 10:30 AM February 24, 2010
Governance and implementation should always be split, it's just good business sense. It's also the Westminster system of government!
Comment 15 of 22
Jason of Adelaide Posted at 11:04 AM February 24, 2010
Come on people, some of you can't see the forest for the trees. If the Libs win the election and actually do privatise Workcover (their answer to all problems is to privatise) then anyone who has a work related injury and has a claim WILL BE WORSE OFF. I have had a past claim, all be it minor, with an employer that was self funded and not paying Workcover premiums. Trust me when i say that you had a lot of pressure put on you to resume FULL duties well before you were fit enough. The company Doctor at the time quit due to the pressure put upon him to clear workers as fit before they were. So anyone who thinks the system is harsh now, things will be worse if the Libs get their way. The Employers will be much happier though.
Comment 16 of 22
Irene of Adelaide Posted at 11:11 AM February 24, 2010
I would like to see way more assistance for injured workers that experience a fall, accident or negligence and those who contribute to the injury excluded. Why should an employer pay for an unfit employee who is not physically capable of undertaking their duties? On top of that, get rid of the set fee for rehab consultants and let them bid for work.
Comment 17 of 22
grigor of adelaide Posted at 12:19 PM February 24, 2010
None of the Liberal's plan actually addresses how to get injured workers rehabilitated and back to work. It just talks about reducing employers' levies. WorkCover is already split - the management of claims is done by EML, and the regulation by WorkCover itself. Doesn't Redmond know this?
Comment 18 of 22
Ben of Adelaide Posted at 12:28 PM February 24, 2010
Wow for Janet Giles, to say a Liberal policy was better than labor speaks volumes on even what the unions think of SA Labor.
Comment 19 of 22
Jennifer Edgemore of Mum of an injured worker Posted at 12:55 PM February 24, 2010
Irene & Grigor you need to read the whole release not just the one page media release. Your questions are answered there. And for once the answers are very clear and very exciting.
Comment 20 of 22
John of Cheltenham Racecourse Posted at 3:15 PM February 24, 2010
I thought the unfunded liability was coming down since Labor's Workcover reform.Evidently not.I must have read an article about Victoria's system and confused it with SA's.I was led to believe both states were on the same page on this one!!
Comment 21 of 22
Tony of Poorakistan Posted at 4:24 PM February 24, 2010
To Jennifer Edgemore of Mum of an injured worker (Comment 20) - I agree, the Liberal policy seems a step in the right direction. I'd like to see even more detail.
paul of hospital and schools to be privatised by ranns ppp Posted at 5:01 PM February 24, 2010
to all those complaining about the libs privatising, do you realise that superschools and hospitals under Rann will be PPP's - yes thats right, our schools and hospitals will be owned by developers and we will be paying for them over 30 years
Comment 23 of 26
Jennifer Edgemore of Mum of an injured worker Posted at 5:38 PM February 24, 2010
Tony of Poorakistan I am sure that Iain Evans will be happy to expand on the Liberal policy at the WorkCover Public Forum on the 4th March in Way Hall 10 Pitt St Adelaide 7pm start. I suggest that you get there early to ensure that you have a seat.
Comment 24 of 26
sick of this workcover baloney of adelaide Posted at 7:22 PM February 24, 2010
Ok first of all look at other states and their workcover systems and then tell me that SA isn't fair, in some states workers don't even start at a full rate of pay. Second of all, all this talk of unfunded liability stems from when there was multiple agents working for workcover, since there has been only one agent the unfunded liability has dropped (do your homework). liberals plans will only lead to an increase in unfunded liability. Thirdly most injuries would not take 13 weeks to heal so really a drop in pay shouldn't be a problem. The problem with the workcover system I belive is the people who use it as a crutch rather than taking responsibility for their own recovery, these people would rather stay at home playing the victim blaming the workcover system for their own misfortune rather than being proactive and help themselves. I will definately be voting for Rann.
Comment 25 of 26
Disgruntled Employer of Adelaide Posted at 11:18 AM Today
sick of this workcover baloney of adelaide aka case manager. comment 25. I am an employer and have witnessed first hand what WorkCover has done to one of my workers and the collection of my levies. He was never allowed to take responsibility of his own recovery, a highly paid rehabilitation company had to take care of that.
When someone
you love is injured,
They will suffer..
WHO GETS A BETTER DEAL?
In SA, if you are a home - invading rapist, you will get to plead your case before a court, with a judge presiding. And if you have no money, the State will pay for your legal representation. And if you are convicted, you have the right to appeall If you are injured at work, any dispute about the nature and extent of your disability will be heard and determined by a Medical Assessment Panel, made up of government appointed doctors, which meets in secret-And you tiave no right of legal representation... and no right of appeall
HARD LABOUR
SA*
We need you to make the difference. Do one of these things now!
• Phone or email Mike Rann's office and tell him what you think.
(premier@dpc.sa.gov.au; or Ph 8463 31 66)
• Phone your local MP.
• Write a letter to the editor!
• Vote for any candidate who promises to stand up against this injustice.
Authorized by A. J. Kerin of the Australian Lawyers Alliance
Media Mind Control Keeping the Masonic Order of Evil Intact!
(We need you to make the difference. Do one of these things now!
• Phone or email Mike Rann's office and tell him what you think.
(premier@dpc.sa.gov.au; or Ph 8463 31 66)
• Phone your local MP.
• Write a letter to the editor!
• Vote for any candidate who promises to stand up against this injustice.
)
If I rang Rann would he answer the phone? No!
If I rang Jay Weathrill would he answer the phone? No!
If I emailed either of them about Workcover issues it would go straight into the spam box!
These guys made their minds up to fleece injured workers to fund their personal projects 2 years ago!
Write a letter to the editor, of what? The Advertiser! Your bloody joking, Melvin Mansell is so anti-worker compensation I'm surprised he has any staff left!
Vote for any candidate that promises to stand up to Rann's injustice?
I hope the Bikies now have a political party, because these are the ONLY guys that I would trust after March 2008! All the rest are members of the Masonic order of Satan, feathering their own nests!
"Authorized by A. J. Kerin of the Australian Lawyers Alliance"
Authorised fuckin' Authorised? You can't even spell it right!
Ever heard the term? "Badges? We don't need no stinking Badges!" Well then...
Don't give me any of that shit about the pen is mightier than the sword, it's crap! Don't believe me? Vocally protest outside Parliament House and see how many cops turn up with guns and/or tasers, ready to assault unarmed people with what? A PEN?
Posted by The Reptilian Pharaoh at 4:05 AM, 26/2/2010
My sister in law wrote to her local member, the letter then went to Paul Caica who directed it to WorkCover.
The only action taken by the local MP's was to direct it to WorkCover who simply put on her file as a ministerial complaint. In other words a trouble maker!
WorkCover manager offers nude `bear rubs' on the side
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/workcover-manager-offers-...
A TOP-LEVEL manager at Queensland's debt-ridden worker's compensation
scheme has been offering a "bear rub" massage service with his partner from their Brisbane home.
Senior lawyer Peter Worthy heads WorkCover's common law section while at the same time featuring in advertising for a Brisbane "bear rub" massage service that offers a special "four hands massage" where recipients are encouraged to be nude. Yesterday, Deputy Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg queried whether it was appropriate for Mr Worthy to be involved in another
business when his common law section was facing a huge increase in claims.
But an angry Mr Worthy hit back, saying: "WorkCover is my prime responsibility but I do have a life outside WorkCover. It is really quite scandalous and defamatory to suggest I might not be fulfilling my role."
On Tuesday, the state government revealed WorkCover was on the verge of collapse as it was unable to cope with massive investment losses and a large increase in common law claims.
Mr Worthy, listed on the WorkCover site as having more than 10 years' experience in the general insurance industry, is also pictured on the unrelated bearrub.com.au site swimming along with his partner "Trev"
as part of the advertising for the service, which boasts the motto "by bears but not just for bears". Offering massages at a "peaceful and private home" in Carina on Brisbane's south side during office hours, the site says it includes a special "four hands massage", which comes
with the warning, "We much prefer that you not wear any clothing during this massage".
Mr Springborg said the list of bookings featured on the site appeared to be significant, suggesting it was a serious business. "You've got to ask the question, can this guy give his full devotion to actually addressing the common law claims issue when he's involved in this?"
But Mr Worthy said he did massages only occasionally, always outside of business hours, and the business was not his. He said it never interfered with his job at Workcover.
Mr Worthy said the four hands massage was along the lines of a Kahuna massage where the recipient is normally naked.
Chief executive of WorkCover Bob Hawkins said he had not seen the site or knew about the business, which proved it had not affected Mr Worthy's performance
"Mr Worthy, listed on the WorkCover site as having more than 10 years' experience in the general insurance industry, is also pictured on the unrelated bearrub.com.au site swimming along with his partner "Trev" "
As if being injured isn't degrading enough,then you get screwed in the ass by Workcover, and now a homosexual deviate and his lover wants to fondle nude injured workers! Being a manager of Workcover I can see where this might lead to serious , really serious problems! He could order a injured worker to attend his "practice" for "treatment" or stop their payments, thereby literally turning any injured worker into a unwilling prostitute!
This just takes the cake, I'm truly convinced now that Australia is nothing more than the Devil's Playground!
This would never have been allowed to happen if Sir Joh was still around in Queensland, He's probably turning in his grave right now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2doxjnn3Y
However Queen'sland, and if the name fits.... LMAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4
Posted by Non Homophobic Brucccccccccce at 1:47 AM, 27/2/2010
Just wondering what other people's thoughts are on this.
When a worker is absent from work due to an injury or illness and is on paid sick leave the employer is required to pay super.
When a worker is absent from work due to a work-related injury or illness that is covered by Work Cover they ARE NOT entitled to super.
There are also other exemptions such as paid maternity leave.
Fair or not?
Posted by Living in IRANN South Australia at 8:36 PM, 27/2/2010
To the best of my knowledge, if you are not actually working regardless of whether it's sick leave, or Workcover the employer is not required to make superannuation payments. The only exceptions being paid annual leave or long service leave, for the purpose of super these are counted as hours worked.
At the end of the day it's entirely up to the individual employer what they do with regard to sick or compo leave, some pay it, some don't, but they are not required to do so. I wrote more about this just the other day in a comment somewhere above!
Which Party made this amendment? Labor!
Is it fair? No!
Is it Just? No!
Does it apply to Politicians? No!
Is it a direct theft of wages? Yes!
Can you dispute it? No!
Were you born a Maritime Slave? Yes!
Where can you find out more about Super? The Tax Office!
Lets see now, that's 4 No's, 2 Yes's which are negative, Hard Labor and Tax! The total sum of this equation = You're just a Slave working for the Crown!
For paid Maternity Leave you'll need to look into Maritime History. You may even find that, All (fed or state) Government Corporation payments which you might receive come from neither premiums nor income taxes, and regardless of what you've been told, the latter are just cream for those Corporations!
It's also what makes much of Rann's new WC laws illegal, but you would need more than Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei combined, to fight them in the High Court of Australia. And if you had that much, you wouldn't be bothered about the changes anyway, Right? 8D That's how far "the family" will go to keep the truth hidden!
I'll give you a clue however, because everything is just a game. Take a good look at the Helmet worn by English Police Officers, the same was worn by both Australian and American Police in the past!
The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are set out in the headnote to the appeal to the single judge reported as Thompson v Duffın (2008) 105 SASR 151. T
appealed to the Full Court against the orders of the single judge that the convictions be set aside and that there be a retrial. T also appealed the single judge’s order for costs.
Held (allowing the appeal) (by the court):
(1) The appropriate order was that there should be an acquittal on the counts on which the convictions were recorded, as opposed to an order for a retrial [116]
105 SASR] THOMPSON v DUFFIN 181
(2) Section 120(1)(c) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) (the Act) by its nature refers to the making of a “statement” about a claim knowing that the statement is false or misleading. It does not include multiple statements. A statement could presumably include more than one sentence or assertion, but what will constitute a statement will be a matter of fact and degree
in each case. The relevant factual context will include whether the sentences or assertions can be linked by matters such as the point in time, similarity, physical
proximity and intention. [41]-[48]
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77, applied.
(3) However, s 120(1)(a) of the Act, which refers to obtaining by “dishonest means”, may by its description comprise conduct consisting of a number of untrue
statements extending over a period of time. It may therefore be seen as one of the exceptions so long as that conduct relates to the obtaining of a particular payment
or benefit. [48]-[49]
(4) The complaint was duplicitious at multiple levels. It was also both patently and latently ambiguous. The form of the drafting of the dishonest statement counts
meant that T was required to address multiple statements concerning a number of different symptoms, have regard to General Particulars which referred to further
statements made in 2001 and respond to two formulations as to the dishonesty of the statements alleged to have been made. In effect, T faced charges comprised of
multiple false statements alleged to have been made on many occasions to different medical practitioners for diverse symptoms. [50]-[61]
(5) The sheer enormity of potential avenues used to charge T which included multiple statements and contradictory alternative assertions all contained with a
lengthy complaint fell short of any standard of fairness. [64]
(6) The difficulties with the dishonest statement counts infected the counts on which convictions were recorded. That is so because they also referred to the General Particulars which introduced duplicity. They otherwise formed part of an oppressive complaint. Furthermore, the counts on which convictions were recorded adopted the conduct under the dishonest statements counts which were dismissed. This gave rise to an outcome of inconsistent verdicts. [65]-[68]
(7) Accordingly, the entire complaint should have been dismissed. T was prejudiced by its duplicitious and oppressive nature. [72]
(8) The single judge erred in making an order for a retrial. It was necessary for the single judge to hear from the parties before making that order. Furthermore,
that order, in relation to some counts, amounted to an order for retrial on counts on which T had been acquitted. [73]-[80]
(9) Though there was a case for T to answer, the basis ultimately identified by the magistrate for finding 16 of the counts proved beyond reasonable doubt was
not one contained within the particulars. Accordingly, that basis could not justify a finding beyond reasonable doubt on those counts. Other findings of fact did not
support those particulars. Rather, the magistrate’s finding that T suffered from a decompression illness between 1994 and 2002 and clinical depression up to, and
beyond, July 2004 necessarily led to the conclusion that the counts for that period were properly dismissed. Those findings should have led to the dismissal of all
counts. [84]-[95]
(10) Even if it were appropriate to remit the case, there is good reason why that should not occur in the interests of justice. That was so because of the period of
time that had elapsed, the oppressive and duplicitous nature of the complaint and the burden on T’s resources. [96]
(11) The prosecution was not properly conducted. The number of charges were in this case excessive with the result that the essential feature of the case was
obscured, contrary to the interests of justice. The particularisation was oppressive.
There was no proper characterisation of what the alleged statements conveyed or were intended to convey. The alternative particulars made it impossible for T to
have a fair trial. The prosecution was conducted in a manner that was oppressive. [97]-[108]
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559, considered.
(12) There were three further difficulties with the way the prosecution was handled. First, the prosecution was conducted as if it were a civil recovery action
on the part of WorkCover. Secondly, the position of WorkCover as complainant and prosecutor meant that there was not the necessary degree of detachment.
Thirdly, if a prosecuting lawyer acts for the true complainant in other capacities, the lawyer’s independence is likely to be at risk if that lawyer prosecutes a contentious case involving an allegedly substantial loss with consequences for the
commercial interests of the complainant. [111]-[115]
Article from: The Courier-Mail
By Mike O'Connor
March 01, 2010 12:00am
LAWYERS love to chat, and for some months now the talk among those who handle clients with personal injury claims has been of the incredible largesse of the State Government's WorkCover body.
Why, they have been asking, is WorkCover suddenly throwing money around as if the world was about to end?
Claims that would normally take nine months to settle are suddenly being resolved in weeks, if not days. Not only are they being settled with unheard-of alacrity, but the usual checks are not being carried out and the hard-headed negotiating has suddenly vanished. As one lawyer told me last week: "It's become a case of 'How much do you want?' "
Claims that lawyers confidently felt would be settled for $150,000 are having $300,000 thrown at them with no questions asked.
What makes this all the more curious is that it comes at a time when WorkCover is in deep financial trouble and steaming steadily towards insolvency.
How could this be so? How about the State Government's policy of keeping premiums artificially low as a sop to business and generally failing to operate a billion-dollar business prudently?
Good Lord no! There are three culprits and by now, anyone who has ever heard a politician exclaim "it wasn't my fault" will have guessed that one of them is the dreadful global financial crisis, that convenient scapegoat which is hauled out and paraded before the electorate whenever another steaming example of government ineptitude is unearthed.
The other culprits are the workers so beloved of governments – but only at election time – who are injured on the job.
If only they'd stop falling off ladders and roofs, being crushed by heavy machinery and mutilated by power tools then everything would be fine.
But of course they won't.
The other culprit is the Government's own legislation, designed to protect the lifestyle of injured workers and their families and which allows them to seek damages using common law, something which is also allowed in the Australian Capital Territory but nowhere else in the country. WorkCover has managed to lose $800 million on investments in the past two years, all of which is the fault of . . . the GFC. There was also a $500 million underwriting shortfall which adds up to a tidy loss of $1.3 billion for the past two years. Mismanagement? No. The GFC.
Two million Queensland workers are covered by this scheme, so its operation is close to the hearts of more than a few wage-earners and their families, particularly those who work in high-risk environments.
What the Government is not saying is that its policy of keeping the lid on premiums for years as a favour to its mates in business might have been a winner politically and helped scoop in some handy donations to the Labor Party at election time, but was a fiscal timebomb which, primed by investment losses, has exploded in its face. Add "can't run workers compo fund" to the Bligh Government's ever-lengthening can't-do list.
Obviously, Premier Anna Bligh can't let the scheme disappear down the toilet and leave several million workers exposed, but what to do? It's a tricky political exercise, for anything that makes it harder for injured workers to be awarded adequate compensation is not going to be applauded by the unions, some of which are already intent on nailing the Premier for what they regard as her duplicity and betrayal in pushing ahead with the great state asset sell-off.
What the Government desperately wants to do is slam the door on workers' access to common law which would mean those injured would get significantly less compensation. One lawyer tells me the average loss to an injured worker would be $120,000. To do this, they want to impose a limit of somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent total impairment. Without getting involved in the technicalities, this would effectively block most injured workers from seeking a claim by using their existing rights under common law.
A discussion paper prepared for the Government estimates that doing this will knock out 66 per cent of the claims thus made but, privately, lawyers are saying this figure will be much higher.
So here we have the Government's solution – send the injured workers hobbling home with their statutory payment, a mere fraction of what they could expect to receive under common law, and the scheme will be saved.
But how to sell this particular piece of bastardry to the electorate?
Why not make the extravagant awards which now have the lawyers chattering over their lattes? Got an injury claim? How about $300,000? Not enough? How about $350k? Tell you what – let's make it $400k. Done deal? Fantastic!
Then, when you've tossed around millions of dollars needlessly, you can throw your arms in the air in feigned despair and cry: "Look at how much access to common law is costing. It can't go on. We'll all be ruined. We have to change the scheme."
The losers will be the workers who are deprived of their livelihoods because of injury yet whose disabilities fall below the limit which the Bligh Government is itching to set.
Someone has to pay for the Government's failure to manage the scheme and – surprise, surprise – it's not going to be the big end of town in the form of sharply increased premiums.
So it will be the workers who will pay, and as is the way with these things, it will be those who can afford it the least who will suffer the most.
Reading the comment above I get the feeling that $1.3billion losses seem to be the flavour of the day no matter which state you are in. Is this just a mere coincidence, or is something more sinister afoot? I'll go with the latter, because such coincidences are very rare, almost as rare as someone from SA winning Saturday Lotto, but that's another story! Besides it's always far more interesting when there's a conspiracy at hand.
As for Workcover handing out money as if the world is coming to an end, well it is! Dec 21 2012 is the commonly accepted date when most of us will be granted an audience with our creator, possibly the Queensland Workcover people are trying to clear their consciences before this date. But here in SA though they serve the other team so there is no redemption for any of them, this is why they are screwing injured workers anyway they can and still manage to sleep at night!
Workcover distancing Itself from EML, The ship is sinking!
Anyone who has recently rang Workcover as an injured worker, should have by now realised that the Corporation is beginning to distance itself from both injured workers and EML. No longer do you get to talk to anyone at workcover, you are told by recorded message that, and I quote! "ALL worker enquires are now handled by Employers Mutual" then your call is diverted to EML!
This tells me three things 1) The state government is attempting to pass the buck for it's controversial changes onto a private industry during the election, not wanting to be involved at any level with workers! 2) Those over at Workcover while happy to take employer calls and levies, are on the fast track to becoming another branch of Revenue SA! or 3) Workcover's days are numbered, when workers are forced to deal only with insurance companies that do not have anything but their own interests at heart. The CEO has already resigned before it collapses, not wanting this disaster to follow her career as it would should she still be there for the final days.
If I were a pirate, I'd be off loading all the loot I could while the boat is still afloat, cause once the water has rushed in there'll be no time to do it! Sound Familiar?
Has anyone noticed that Rann has failed to mention anything about Workcover to the media, even though it's clear to many, that this issue is giving his party a good beating with a big stick in the polls being conducted?
There was even suggestion that he may lose his own seat, which he ignored by saying if we lose he'll become a backbencher, ignoring the fact that if he loses his seat he'll be nothing of the sort, he'll be gone!
An old Advertiser story By Political Reporter
LEANNE CRAIG, undated maybe 2002/2003
The state government failed to reveal the extent of Work-Cover's financial troubles, despite being briefed on the situation late last year, the Opposition claimed yesterday. The claim came as Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright said he would introduce legislation today to make Work- Cover Corporation more accountable and transparent.
The proposed new laws would enable the state's most powerful watchdog, the Auditor-General, to examine WorkCover and would establish a new levysetting arrangement.
However, Opposition Leader Rob Kerin said the Government had been "in denial" and had been slow to intervene over the corporation's worsening financial position.
Mr Kerin said WorkCover's unfunded liability had climbed from $22 million at June, 2000, to $384 million in March this year.
This has increased the likelihood of Government funds beingneeded to help the corporation.
"It has been more than six months since both (Treasurer) Kevin Foley and Michael Wright were briefed but have failed to act to arrest the decline, or demonstrate public accountability by releasing the report," Mr Kerin said.
Mr Foley said legal constraints and the inclusion of commercially- sensitive information had prevented the report's release.
However, advice was being sought to assist the government to release the report soon. WorkCover acting chief executive Geoff Davey yesterday rejected any suggestion the corporation needed Government help. "While there is a shortfall in the assessment of the long-term position of the scheme, this does not impair the corporation's ability to provide rehabilitation and compensation and meet entitlements for injured workers,"he said. "WorkCover is well able to meet all current obligations and 'claim' payments can and will be met."
Mr Davey said levy collections - paid by employers - would rise about 20 per cent in 2003-04, following an increase in the average levy rate from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of payroll. "We will collect more than sufficient funds in 2003-04 to cover the annual cost of claims and have more than $600 million in assets to meet claim costs over the longer term," Mr Davey said.
In response to Opposition comments that WorkCover needed to sell investment shares to fund its commitments, Mr Davey said "there was nothing untoward in WorkCover's selling and buying of shares".
"This is part of the ongoing and optimal management of our investments and cash flow across positive and negative economic cycles," Mr Davey said.
They "gladly" increased the Employer levy from 2.5 to 3% to help fund the scheme. This proves they have been wrong all the time in blaming injured workers!
Mr Davey said levy collections - paid by employers - would rise about 20 per cent in 2003-04, following an increase in the average levy rate from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of payroll. "We will collect more than sufficient funds in 2003-04 to cover the annual cost of claims and have more than $600 million in assets to meet claim costs over the longer term," Mr Davey said.
In response to Opposition comments that WorkCover needed to sell investment shares to fund its commitments, Mr Davey said "there was nothing untoward in WorkCover's selling and buying of shares".
"This is part of the ongoing and optimal management of our investments and cash flow across positive and negative economic cycles," Mr Davey said.
Blaming injured workers for debt that doesn't exist was a stroke of criminal genius, that I must grant them! But this does not make it just nor legal however, the assets spoken of above have now climbed to in excess of $4billion, showing that the system is more than self funded already, and any official statement to the contrary has just been an outright lie!
The public must be correctly informed about the so called "unfunded liability", it is not a debt,in fact it doesn't even exist! The Labor Government has used this term loosely to screw injured workers out of lawful compensation, and now they are going after the pockets of the employers!
Remember, Only 2 years ago Kevin Foley said the State was Broke, that being true. How can they afford to waste ANY public funds on trying to convince people that they are still the best party to run the state after March 20th?
This is a clear Conflict of Interest! (that being, they are putting their own jobs foremost and above the well being of the whole State) the Governor should step in to sack the Labor Government, and appoint a "caretaker government" immediately! This is one of the reasons why we have a Governor, to keep the bastards somewhat honest! As a matter of fact, I shouldn't even need to write this here!
This is what happens when a Governor is appointed by an Elected Government, rather than direct public election. The same Labor Government that would have people vote for a Republic in which the public has no say as to who shall be the President!
Posted by The Reptilian Pharaoh at 3:32 PM, 2/3/2010
Complaints about WorkCover to members of parliament.
Anonymous wrote
"Writing to your local Member
My sister in law wrote to her local member, the letter then went to Paul Caica who directed it to WorkCover.
The only action taken by the local MP's was to direct it to WorkCover who simply put on her file as a ministerial complaint. In other words a trouble maker!"
Just look at how WorkCover fucked over Thompson. One only has to look at the case above to see how they did not disclose evidence and targetted him. I read some other comments on this blog about him and there could be no other reason that they picked on him except that he complained to Ian Evans about them. Their is obviously a culture within WorkCover and amongst its lawyers where all they think about is screwing injured workers over and think nothing of rehabilitating them or ensuring they get their entitlements...
Nick,
A ministerial complaint will fuck you over. The Thompson case would have cost at least $1 million of legal fees. Of course WorkCover lawyers whoever they are advised in a way where money was to be made. Business SA should be the ones asking why the employers they represent pay levies towards litigation and not rehabilitation!
Targeting Injured Workers just because they think they can.
It doesn't matter whether you make a complaint to a minister or not, ANY complaint will ear mark you for a good shafting!
Those people have been and are still operating outside of the law, so how is it that they expect to be privy to protection under the law? It would seem that they don't understand the old cliché "live by the sword, die by the sword", is still very much alive today. You can not win against an opponent who controls both the prosecution and the jury. This is what happened to Jesus Christ, the temple priests served as Judge, Jury and Prosecutors, the Romans were happy to just play the role of Executioner!
* Study of Suicide After Being on the WorkCover System.
SafetyAtWorkBlog
* Study of Suicide After Being on the WorkCover System.
* Prof. Andrew Hopkins Interview from 2000
02Mar10
Some families in South Australia blame WorkCover for their partners’ suicides
By Kevin Jones 9 Comments
Categories: Corporate responsibility, OHS, WorkCover, business, death, depression, government, grief, insurance, law, media, politics, psychiatric, rehabilitation, research, stress, suicide, union and workers compensation
In January 2010, Today Tonight in South Australia aired a disturbing report about the workers compensation reforms in that State. It talks to two widows who blame WorkCover SA as contributing to their husbands’ suicides. One man left a suicide note explicitly blaming WorkCover SA, emphasising his point by jumping to his death from the sixth floor of the WorkCover office building.
The video report is available HERE under the title WorkCover Suicide.
One of those interviewed in the story is Kevin Purse who undertook a report into the SA workers’ compensation system on behalf of SA Unions. His report is very useful as it indicates some of the risks to workers’ entitlements that may result from trying to harmonise workers’ compensation across the country. [Editor's Note: Kevin Purse has identified in a comment below that the report quoted here is from 2007 and that Kevin's opinion has changed since. We are endeavoring to locate the most recent report and apologise to Kevin and readers] Just as New South Wales unions are insisting that elements of their State’s OHS laws be retained, so business is likely to insist on using the lowest worker benefits as a benchmark for harmonisation.
In the report Purse says
“By any objective standard, South Australia’s lacklustre workers’ compensation performance is attributable to poor management by WorkCover and its former claims agents rather than the level of entitlements available to injured workers. The core problem has been the ongoing failure to manage the rehabilitation and return to work process. It also includes the failure to ensure that employers comply with their return to work obligations. Having said that, WorkCover’s new claims agent EML needs to be given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it is capable of improving the scheme’s performance.” [emphasis added]
It is refreshing to hear someone giving Employers Mutual Limited a fair go. The report emphasises that the SA scheme is faltering because of poor management:
“Attempts to blame injured workers for the scheme’s shortcomings though are no more than a diversion from the real issues. It is all too easy to paper over management cracks by slashing workers’ entitlements. This has explicitly been acknowledged by senior executives of Victoria’s WorkCover Authority who have frequently emphasised the importance of achieving substantial improvements in scheme performance without resorting to cuts in workers’ payments or hikes in employer premiums.
This is the approach that should be adopted in South Australia. ………
There is also merit in reassuring the employer community that the government has no intention of increasing average premium rates in the foreseeable future. …”
The debate on the future of workers’ compensation will continue to jostle between the financial interests of business and the social impact on workers. Workers’ compensation is part of the rehabilitation process and returning workers to a fulfilling job and meaningful work is paramount. But there are going to be workers who will never be able to return to work and it is in this context that workers’ compensation becomes a social security.
As illustrated in one of the examples in the Today Tonight video, being injured at work in an incident not of one’s own fault should not lead to a life of poverty. It seems that the lack of hope of having a meaningful life is what is pushing injured workers to end their lives.
Kevin Jones
9 Responses to “Some families in South Australia blame WorkCover for their partners’ suicides”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
1. 1 Paul Koyich
March 2, 2010 at 9:22 am
Kevin, I am beginning to see that the other side of ROI for the corporations in the name of Occupational Health and Safety Programs is the Insurance Industries reluctance to pay what is due, this has certainly grown into an “endemic” stage worldwide as I am sure you are aware.
Having worked in the Middle East for 15 years without even a mention of Workers Compensation is a most interesting study in itself. I am presently writing an article on my safety career in Qatar since 1994, so will send you snipets along the way, very interesting reading for a country that does not have and Occupational Health and Safety Act?
Respectfully, Paul Koyich, CET, NEBOSH(IGC), HSE Advisor/Trainer, Al Khor Community(pop.6000+), State of Qatar (Canadian, in case you are wondering)
March 2, 2010 at 10:17 am
Paul
Some years ago I attended a world congress on social security that was held in Melbourne Australia. Of all the information I took from the congress was that workers’ compensation is a luxury for most. Social security picks up the tab in some countries but mostly its a family support matter.
Every so often, I need to remind myself of this reality so that the issue of worker safety and welfare is not only seen through Western eyes. Several of the books that I receive for review emphasise this reality.
If you could share your article, it would be appreciated.
3. 3 tony barnett
March 2, 2010 at 11:09 am
Kevin
got this link sent to me from WIRC Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson [wirc@bold.net.au] i did see the todaytoight program.it is not only EML i was working as nurse injured myself there own system for “Exempt empolyers” ‘particularly in the hospital i was working was not real helpful it all cam down to the money they would have to spend i wanted to work, my return to work plan was outsourced to 2 private companys over the 2 and half years i was on the meery go round i was becoming angry and annoyed and in the end i took a termanation package i am 54 i would still like to work but i really dont think my options look real good. i send you the link above if you wish to look at it
tony barnett
Tony, thanks for commenting.
Several companies and organisations over my working life have used the tactic of increasing stress and uncertainty to have an employee “move on”. It often takes great courage and patience to persist in an uncomfortable employment relationship in order to exercise one’s rights or to keep doing a job one loves.
The concept of a “Targeted Voluntary Separation Package” is very concerning
Redeployment or resignation through attrition is a very disruptive management tactic and it may be a tactic that insurers apply in workers compensation.
5 Rosemary McKenzie-Fergsuon
To stand at a funeral and know that the man in the coffin immediatly behind me should have been looking forward to opening Christmas presents with his grandson instead of being in a coffin. To stand and look at the mans widow, family and friends and try to find words that ease their pain was beyond me.
Injured workers have no say in what their case managers will or will not agree to, or pay for or approve of. But injured workers are blamed for all that is wrong within the system.
Stories I hear every day break my heart, people so bereft of hope for a future for themselves let alone for their children.
One rural based lone father wonders just how his son will be able to afford to go to university next year on a full grant, the cost of living will still have to be paid for, the father is on WorkCover and struggles now just to cover the cost of living where the family home is.
Other injured workers wonder how they are going to cover the current school fees for primary school children.
Pressure on injured workers is so great, not only do they have the ever changing WorkCover process to cope with, they have every normal day to day pressure that require 100% income to be covered by 80% of their income.
Work Injured Resource Connection is in place to help as much as is possible without any help from the WorkCover system.
I just hope that this year I will not need to stand at yet another suicide funeral.
Sadly the work that I do tells me that the chances of a year free of WorkCover suicides is truely wishful thinking.
6 Ann Bressington MLC
March 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Quantcast
Since coming into parliament in 2006 I have been both disturbed and distressed with the conduct that workCover is able to get away with.
I have heard stories of bullying, intimidation and harrassment along with file tampering. I have raised these issues many times in parliament and am astounded at the lack of interest shown in what can only be described as corruption, but corruption that is now reported to be common place among most government agencies and statutory authorities. With so many marginalized and victimized by so many systems is it any wonder that the call for an Independent Commission Against Crime and corruption has now overwhelmingly become a loud cry.
Last year both the Liberal and Labor parties joined forces to push through legislation with “no amendments” being accepted. They had done their deals and there was no room for consideration of the plight of injured workers. The changes we said to be necessary to reduce the unfunded liability of this fund yet that unfunded liability continues to rise.
Blame the global financial crisis, blame the injured workers – blame anyone or anything but the mismanagement of this statutory authority that appears to be able to functioin above the law and no Minister will stand up and take responsibility or be accountable.
We lack leadership and we lack best practice in governance and as a result we have innocent people suffering. Societies are judged by how they treat their most vulnerable. This state comes up very short.
7 Kevin Purse
Your blog entry on WorkCover related suicides in South Australia mentions a consultancy report I prepared for SA Unions. In doing so you referred to some comments I made about giving WorkCover’s sole claims agent, EM L, a fair go. Unfortunately you quoted from the wrong report! The report you cited was from a report commissioned in 2007, shortly after EM L‘s appointment. At that time EML was entitled, in my view, to the benefit of the doubt. Since then, however, its performance has left a lot to be desired.
As with many other observers of WorkCover’s operations I now regard EML as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Despite assurances from WorkCover to the contrary, EML’s appointment has not resulted in lower claims administration costs, liability reduction targets being met or, as far as I’m aware, any improvement in service delivery to injured workers. If anything it’s got worse, arguably a lot worse. EML’s performance confirms the view that outsourcing by WorkCover of its core business – claims management – has been an ongoing debacle.
If you’re interested in further details I’ve recently published a research piece on WorkCover’s outsourcing experience in the Australian Journal of Public Administration (Vol. 68:4).
As for the spate of WorkCover related suicides we’ve recently witnessed in South Australia it’s essential that voices like yours continue to be heard. Otherwise this profoundly disturbing issue will remain invisible at a time when action is required to prevent any further tragedies occurring.
Keep up the good work!
Kevin Purse 8.
8 Kevin Jones
Thanks for pointing out my error. I am seeking additional and more current information on the issue.
The article Kevin Purse refers to was published in December 2009 and entitled “Outsourcing Myths and Workers’ Compensation Claims Administration”. If any readers have a copy, please contact me offline.
9 Mark M Aldridge Independent
WOW I hope the media report from this informed debate, unfunded liability of near 1.5 billion should be of concern to all South Australians, even if workers rights mean nothing, the whole system is a mess, I would be looking to the board for structural biases, and EML in regards to their performance, Blaming injured workers for what can only be described as inept management, is nothing but passing the buck.
With reported figures of a mere 1% in false claims, too much money and resources are wasted over investigating for a start, I was bemused that the Liberals offer of reduced contributions and the promotion of self insuring in any way would benefit suffering workers, seems both sides of politics have it wrong.
From my investigations there are way too many Labor connections in the system, from the board to the contractors, the system is top heavy and in desperate need of a complete overhaul and some simplification.
Injured workers need easier access to support services, and some reliable contacts in the system, rather than the ever changing staff caused by lack of genuine compassion inherent through out workcover itself.
Unfunded Liability
Workers Ripping off the Scheme
Return to Work Plans
Rehabilitation
O.H.S
The whole thing is a hoax! These are merely terms being used to make it sound like the people involved at actually doing something useful, the simple truth is they are not!
Actually if you understand how the Tax system works in Australia then you'd realise that a injured worker on $400pw maintenance payments, is in fact only receiving around $0.12cents per week! This is a Fact because of the system of Tax that has been devised in Australia!
Take GST for example it's 10% right? WRONG! Try 550% think I'm looney? That's ok maybe I am, but You'll still be paying 550% Goods & Services Tax!
Posted by The Workcover Taxman at 7:16 PM, 3/3/2010
I've browsed myour blogs and feel your pain...All of you. I've been on the system now for 18 months, not long by some standards but too long by mine. It is a miracle so far that I have overcome being a workcover statistic. I have attempted suicide twice. Both times being apprehended by police and shipped off to the mental health unit, filled with more drugs and then sent on my way, left yet again to my own devices. My injury is to the lower lumbar and left leg. Yes I've had surgery, undergone rehab and still I'm stuffed. Am I depressed: profoundly. Am I desperate:certainly. I wonder if i top myself will the workcover bosses lay charges against my case managers(3 of them so far) for manslaughter. I don't want to fight the system. I don't want to rort the system,I just want some quality of life for the hard work I've put in. Let's not forget thats how we all got injured.... By doing our bloody jobs. Funny you know.. it's never the lazy people who get injured. Before I go I just want to say again that it would be a miracle overcoming workcover. For me, it's a hard job just staying alive.
People often think that people on workcover are bludgers. That unfortunately is a legacy of the new austrlians who rorted the sytem years ago. The grecian back as many used to call it. Often found among the migrants with funny greek and Italian names living in the burbs..
Well guess what, if you walk around the city buidlings you will see loads of those new australianos childrens now working for the insurers and workcover..
How times have changed, they have moved up in the world, they are smarter now and are making more money by keeping claimants on the system rather than getitng them back to work..
Seems they wonned out at a the end, if you can no beat the bastard workcovers join em,,,thats obviously what all o de new austrlaianos thoughted.. and they gotta new jobs wit de boys..
I'd love to see the statistics that prove that new Australians rorted the system. I suspect that the myth was due to the bigotry of the day. Blind ignorance, where the majority disregard and blame the minority... not that different to how workcover claimants are treated today. Unfortunately the previous poster is still demonising new Australians... you'd think he/she would know better!
When I hurting my back, i say to him ava looka ear! The dokter he fukim barsted say idid him pooring concreet at my cusins place. I say No! I did him at werkin fer dat dogga boss!
De dokter he say to me, I know fuk nuthin, but I tell 4 hym, I no fuk all! Bluddy Barsted!
Posted by Gino Kolwolski Wogalopolous at 12:02 AM, 6/3/2010
The majority of you are losers who don't want to work
Dear Anonymous who posted the above at 1.34pm on 5/3/2010.... I'd like to meet you so I can wack you with my walking stick. Obviously you've not suffered a chronic life changing injury if you've suffered an injury at all. Able bodied people line up and compete for jobs and only a handful are successful. Would you employ a person with very limited capabilities? I'm usually a lady and don't like to swear but... your a fucking moron.
Don't worry to much about them [JUST LIKE US ]they will be out of a job if the Libs get in , we could tell how the polls are going just by the desperate blogs that will get laid down the closer we get to the 20th just tell your friends tell anyone who will listen just what they are doing to us and with hope and luck we can hang in here to see these reptiles off.
To anyone I may have offended with my last comment, or more my choice of words. I would like to rephrase.... Dear Anonymous I would like to go out dancing with you I only hope that my walking stick or uneven gait don't get in the way and cause you an injury.....
Item 11 of the Liberal Party's policy on Workcover states:
"11. Review of the Medical Assessment Panels
Medical Assessment Panels were introduced in the most recent changes to the Act. The Medical Panels have been criticised because;
a) There is no right to representation
b) There is no right to appeal
c) They are held in secret
Industry groups claim transcripts of the hearings are not given to injured workers. Some industry groups have called for the abolition of Medical Assessment Panels. This change will be considered as part of the review."
It is a pity that it has taken an election campaign to raise the obvious flaws in the use of medical panels.
The recent changes to the Act allows medical panels to deliver potentially substandard and biased opinions UNCHALLENGED.
That's right, if you are unfortunate enough to appear in front of a medical panel and the panel does not perform their job in a competent and fair manner, TOUGH LUCK! The panel's opinion will be final, binding and can't be challenged. To make matters worse, there will be nothing for the medical panel to answer to, because there will be no transcript of the examination.
Might the Rann Government's ailing WorkCover operation provide the smoking gun the Liberals are avidly seeking to prove who SA voters can really trust to better manage fiscal entities?
Some usually well-informed types round town certainly consider so - even maintaining WorkCover's potential liability could develop into a State Bank-type situation.
Might there also be some truth in the suggestion that - like Queensland, whose government is also on the nose with unions for supposedly keeping premiums artificially low as a sop to business - SA's WC is currently displaying uncommon largesse towards personal injury claimants?
I know a worker who secretly recorded the medical examination. They took someone with them. Whoever you take is not allowed to speak or answer questions. They didnt say anything like not taping the examination.
They plan to write to the Doctor directly and notify them of the recordings.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 - SECT 98B 5(a)
The Minister may for the purposes of—
(a) ensuring procedural fairness in the procedures of the Medical Panels; and
(b) facilitating the proper administration of the Medical Panels,
issue guidelines as to the procedures of Medical Panels.
The unfortunate reality of section 98B 5(a) is the Convenor of Medical Panels SA issuing his own guidelines to himself... hardly accountable! So we are left to trust Medical Panels SA to issue adequate guidelines, and then follow them of course. Give me a court anyday!
(3) However, the WorkCover Ombudsman—
(a) may not investigate an act where the relevant matter—
(i) is, or is capable of being, the subject of proceedings under Part 5, 6, 6A, 6B or 6C;
Even the WorkCover Ombudsman can't touch the medical panels!
The Workcover Ombudsman may well have been called the Workcover Act PR Man. He seems more interested in promoting the draconian legislation changes than helping workers.
Workers have to jump through hoops to convince him why the breaches of the Act that they are reporting to him should command his attention.
I've heard that the Convenor is appointing himself onto medical panels as the presiding member, allowing him to direct the medical panels and write their reports.
This effectively makes the Convenor the judge, jury and executioner - working for a very select clientele, which by the way, excludes injured workers.
If it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, IT IS A TURD!!!
Medical Panels, Untouchability is merely just an illusion!
"The Minister may for the purposes of—
(a) ensuring procedural fairness in the procedures of the Medical Panels; and
(b) facilitating the proper administration of the Medical Panels, issue guidelines as to the procedures of Medical Panels."
The Minister? Which Minister would that be? Not the same one that brought you the Medical Panels, Not the same one who supported the draconian changes, Not the same one that in just 14days should unemployed, not a member of the Labor Party!
What a absolute farce, these assholes "Ministers" also like to call themselves "Honourable", could somebody please tell me what is honourable about them, they steal, cheat, lie, commit high treason, and sleep with the enemy. Maybe it's just me but I find this idea of them being a honourable people by any stretch of the imagination, impossible.
This very same Minister is going to do the following?
(a) ensuring procedural fairness in the procedures of the Medical Panels; and
(b) facilitating the proper administration of the Medical Panels, issue guidelines as to the procedures of Medical Panels."
This in itself shows "The Minister" up for what he is, A LIAR! Why? Because first they approved the changes that have one and only one goal in mind, then they'll do a turn around and make sure they are fair? I don't bloody think so!
Posted by Stand by your Rann, ha ha hahahaha! at 1:28 AM, 8/3/2010
"The Workcover liability could eventuate into another State Bank affair!"
There are a couple of problems with that statement, firstly there is NO Workcover liability, only an imaginary one! and Secondly the State Bank wasn't a "liability" issue, it was one where money had been syphoned "stolen" by corporate businesses, with the full knowledge and approval of former Labor Premier John Bannon, who was also the treasurer of the Bank!
For the Workcover issue to be compared in the same light as the State Bank saga, this would mean that Mr Rann would need to be caught red handed Holding the Ball. Now you know that is not going to happen, this is why a Board has been appointed to the many things, that Government up until Labor was elected in 2002, it was alone responsible for.
In that year before being elected, Rann made a speech about how they had learned from the mistakes of the past. The mistake he was obviously referring to, was about getting caught! So he simply appointed Boards to everything and should anything happen, the board members alone would be legally responsible, not Him! Then he included in the various Corporation Acts, that Members of the Board cannot be held responsible nor litigated against for mismanagement or loss!
However it does raise one question, Workcover CEO Julia Davidson has already given her notice in, to become effective mid year after the elections. One could speculate, that if there is/was a similar thing happening within Workcover, as with the State Bank of the past. Should she remain, she may be left holding the lemon!
Even if Labor was by some huge miracle re-elected nothing will stick to Rann or his Ministers, because they had relinquished control over to The Various Boards! Which raises another question if Boards are controlling everything now, Why do we need any Ministers?
They Aren't doing Anything, only sucking the public purse dry!
* does not take referrals from injured workers
* makes up its own procedures
* does not have to follow its own procedures
* does not allow you to have representation in an examination
* examines you in secret
* does not make or allow transcripts of the examination
And the doctors that are appointed onto medical panels -
* earn very generous fee$ for being on a panel
* are legally protected from any claims from workers who are damaged by their opinions
* do not have to answer to, or appear before a court
And the Convenor of Medical Panels SA -
* has the power to 'stack' panels with insurance doctors
* appoint$ himself to panels and influences their opinions
* has an intere$t in keeping his insurance clientele happy
After all of this crap, little wonder if they produce shitty opinions.
Then, to finish you off, you can't challenge or appeal their shitty opinions!
Medical Panels, the reality, Standard Revised Edition
Screw the legislation! It was written by a highly organised worldwide crime group, who is deceiving and enslaving people everywhere, everyday. Those on the Medical Panels have sold their souls, and that of their families to this group for mere little pieces of plastic containing pictures and numbers. Few if any would yet realise what a bad deal they have made!
I have read here about all the things you can't do when attending such a panel, but nothing about what you can do! Do you really need any more proof of the truly criminal element behind this legislation?
If you have to attend one of these panels, who the hell is Mike Rann to say you have no rights, you can't do this or you will do that? He is a Nobody, just Strung Puppet to his International Monetary Fund Masters!
Leader? The bloke couldn't successfully lead a teabag into a cup, and you obey him? Bugger That! You and every person on the planet were born free, not a slave to some scum bag criminal and his entourage giving orders like some new age Hitler's Gestapo. The same will call people like Hitler and Stalin criminals, but just think for a second if these were criminals, what does it make those who do the very same things today, under a guise of democracy?
It's time people realised this, and took back their God given freedom, your right to choose! Rann by removing this basic right is in effect calling himself, Your God! So is he?
He's not Mine! Even if you don't believe in a God, he still makes himself your God as long as you continue to obey and worship Him and those like Him!
Truth is Rann is scared, very scared, he knows that if people found out the truth, there would be such a revolt that his storm trooper policemen would be shitting bricks and running for cover, leaving Him to the Mob! Why do you think so many have been leaving the Force?
Demand your rights, don't take this Medical Panel crap lying down! If they say you can't do this, or do that, then ask, Who said? They must answer this question if they wish to proceed. Then ask, By what authority does "blank" have to place thyself above the Natural Laws of God, so as to command and subjugate Me?
Even the Courts don't want to tackle this question, it has an extreme potential risk of blowing the whole elitist system of public control into oblivion, and they damned well know it !
On second thoughts, maybe it would be better for you, if you just remained a slave, so just crack open another Bottle of Piss, pump some more Opium into your veins, and smoke more Mind numbing Cannabis!
(Read really quickly) lol Spoken and authorised by the Masonic Lodge, World bank, M A Rothschild, J D Rockefeller, H A Kissinger, The Bohemian and Fabians Societies for the continued control of the mindless public.
When looking to understand psychosocial issues, ask your grandparents
By Kevin Jones
Categories: OHS, depression, evidence, health, psychiatric, research, safety, wellness, work/life and workplace
In February 2010, the New York Times ran an article about depression by Jonah Lehrer. The same article appeared in some of Australia’s weekend newspapers in early March. Lehrer looks at the issue of depression and considers whether there is a potential upside to the disorder by looking back as far as Charles Darwin for expressions of depression. He makes a challenging statement:
“…that depression has a secret purpose and our medical interventions are making a bad situation even worse. Like a fever that helps the immune system fight off infection — increased body temperature sends white blood cells into overdrive — depression might be an unpleasant yet adaptive response to affliction.”
Lehrer goes on to make a case for depression being a possible source of creativity.
He refers extensively to the evolutionary psychology research of Andy Thomson and Paul Andrews who acknowledge that
“… depression is a vast continuum, a catch-all term for a spectrum of symptoms.”
Perhaps, particularly in the relatively recent consideration of depression in workplaces, we are being too narrow and too specific. Perhaps the case for workplace depression being made by some of the “depression sellers” is too targeted and we need to remind ourselves of the sociology of work, a perspective that seems to have gone out of fashion.
In 1972 Michael Argyle wrote “The Social Psychology of Work“*in which he discusses the issue of mental health and work. Significantly Argyle does not use the term “depression” in relation to work factors, and only as a mental condition of the individual. He prefers to talk about “mental health at work” a concept that is much more readily applicable to workplace activity and is not exclusive.
The advantage of focusing on mental health rather than any of the individual components is that the approach is more compatible with the principles of safety management and, regrettably, with the trendy concept of workplace culture. Very importantly, it takes control of the workplace health and safety agenda back from the depression sellers and the wellness peddlers.
A major advantage of jumping back almost 40 years is that we look at the basics of work without the complication of computers, the internet, and social networking. Also, although some of the language may seem quaint, it reminds us that the issue of mental health at work has been studied for many decades and, maybe, a basic understanding of the history of the topic could clarify some contemporary perspectives.
Argyle writes
“Work is one of the central activities of life, a source of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, the basis of identity, and a main object of motivation; it can be the cause of mental health or mental ill health. There is a definite relationship between mental health and job satisfaction – satisfied workers have better mental (Kornhauser, 1965)……”(page 245)
It may amaze some that the link between job satisfaction and mental health was researched as far back as 1965. It also useful to consider the differentiation made between health and ill-health just as some people emphasise the difference between stress and distress, although this etymological battle may have been lost.
Argyle goes on to quote some statistics from 1960 and 1947.
“Many workers suffer from mental ill health in one form or another. In a study of 3,000 engineering workers in Birmingham it was found that about 10 per cent were suffering from ‘disabling neuroses’, and another 20 per cent from minor neurotic complaints (Fraser, 1947). In a national sample survey of 2,460 Americans 31 per cent they had problems on the job and 26 per cent both had problems and did not really feel adequate at their jobs (Gurin et al., 1960).”
Feelings of “adequacy” at work sound very contemporary and just maybe there is a continuity of researcher, treatment, and solution from 1960 to 2010. Let’s look at the workplace factors that Argyle stated affect mental health in 1972:
Most of these concepts would be familiar to the safety managers and HR practitioners. “Competition” relates to the physical health impacts of high blood pressure and others in supervisors and managers. The “working group” has many similarities to what we call workplace culture. Below is an excerpt that sounds a little like Psychology 101 but could easily be reworded into occupational bullying:
“…if a person is rejected by the group, this will be far from therapeutic; being ‘sent to Coventry’ is a terrible experience, and such rejection usually makes the person leave the company. If a group member deviates from group norms he will be under group to conform; this has the effect of increasing physiological indices of anxiety, until he gives way by conforming. Workers who are placed under pressure to work or in a different way feel more strain (Wolfe, cited by Zander and Quinn, 1962).”
Argyle also mentions:
“Neuroticism is a matter of degree – everyone is a little neurotic – and the percentage said to be neurotic depends on the cut-off point used. ‘Disabling neurosis’ may affect 10 per cent of workers, but any larger percentage goes into very mild degrees of ‘neurosis’.”
Neuroticism is not a word that seems to have been applied to the current workplace mental health context but the definition provided at Wikipedia shows that the concept remains relevant and is being researched. Perhaps, neuroticism is a better unifying term for wellness and wellbeing than mental health.
Jonah Lehrer in the New York Times article and Michael Argyle in “The Social Psychology of Work” both illustrate that depression is not new and that the role of work in mental health is not new. Next time depression sellers and wellness peddlers say that psychosocial hazards have only recently appeared, remember Argyle and Lehrer.
What would be more accurate is that we are in the most recent stage of trying to understand mental health in contemporary terms. We are almost redefining mental health for this century BUT from concepts that are already decades old and without acknowledging them. To deny history is to deny the origin of our selves and the efforts of our forefathers. We are denying the existing core body of knowledge in pursuit of trying to create a new one that we can control and exploit, when we should be building from that knowledge and giving credit where it is due.
<http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/when-looking-to-understand-psychosocial-issues-ask-your-grandparents/>
My parents and grand parents had a hard but simple life. I cannot complain about my up bringing. I had love and attention.
Question;So how does depression thru a work injury have anything to do with grand parents.
Answer; It's because I have lost that happy feeling I was bought up with as a child.
Question; Will my children and grandchildren suffer because of my workplace depression.
Answer; Probaly yes!
I was going to stop reading as soon as I saw the name "Charles Darwin" however I continued. I found it interesting that none of the data referred to post dates 1972! The same school of though during those periods also listed HOMOSEXUALITY as a Mental Illness! Now I'm not disagreeing with that, I think it's pretty close to the mark.
Just look at those sickos in Sydney every year, you can't tell me, they don't have some form of mental disorder.
Point being if the homo's can now claim a "GAY GENE" which of course no geneticist can find, what about a "Depression Gene", "Crime Gene", "Liar Gene" or for that matter an "Arsehole Politician Gene" maybe even a "Blog and SMS Gene"?
My whole point being, some things are simply choices, the problems arise when your choices are taken away as with in the workcover scheme, you're told to find work but in many cases must not do that which you have known all your life. This transitional stage is called rehabilitation and as so many have found out it's a bloody farce, merely job's for Labor mates for good quids!
Posted by Dr No or was it Yes? at 6:06 AM, 10/3/2010
A depression gene this might have a case. If I committed a murder and pleaded innocent due to my parents genes for the phschotic episosde, would I get away with it? Probaly so, Some dickhead drunk driver killed a grandmother walking to church and was sentenced yesterday. Had it reduced because his parents were alcoholics!
This world is Fucked!
To the above comment, a person I won't call a friend some 20years ago did something similar to that guy, he was drunk and killed a father and his 4year old son, waiting at a bus stop in Grenfell Street on NYE, he mounted the curb and killed them both outright. I remember being in a car with him a few years later, (he wasn't driving) and he was bragging about how he got off after admitting to everyone in the car, that he ran these two people down on purpose! But the kangaroo courts accepted his lawyers plea that he was "under the influence, and could not be held responsible for their deaths"!
I swear on my Grandmother's grave every word is true!, except possibly the boys age I don't recall the exact age but he was under 10yo. How sick is this? They suspended his licence for 18months and gave him a 2 year good behaviour bond!
He openly admitted killing these people just for the kicks, he was even proud of the fact, like it he had been some kind of hero, the world truly has some sadistic bastards in it.
Speaking of Sadistic Bastards!!!!
Everyone here should see this link, it's 1/12hrs long so make time for it. Pass it on to your friends and family! It mainly concerns the US, but you'll soon see the similarities to what has been happening in Oz ever since the Hawky years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ
Posted by You Must Watch This! at 7:41 AM, 10/3/2010
A $50 million cash grab from employers with good safety histories has been compared to America’s Prohibition regime from the 1920s.
WorkCover Corporation has told employer associations that its Bonus and Penalties Scheme – rewarding safer workplaces and penalising those with a poor performance history – will be axed from July 1, with no planned replacement by that date.
The moves comes despite promises made by the corporation in October 2008 that if the scheme was to be abolished it would be replaced by a new scheme in consultation with employers.
Documents obtained by The Independent Weekly show widespread concern among employer groups that they have not been consulted and that a replacement scheme has yet to be designed.
The documents show the groups were invited to a meeting with WorkCover staff on February 26 this year – but only after the corporation’s board had already made its final decision to axe the incentive scheme.
Attempts to lobby the State Government failed when Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica told the Australian Industry Group he was in caretaker mode until the election on March 20 and could not deal with the matter.
The documents also reveal WorkCover’s new computer system, “Project Harry”, is unable to handle calculations for either the current incentive scheme or any replacement scheme.
The cash grab is estimated by employers to lift WorkCover’s levy revenue by around $50 million – a 7 per cent increase.
The document trail goes back to October 2008, when Julia Davison, CEO of WorkCover, wrote to the head of a leading employers’ association. In the letter, Ms Davison revealed the Bonus Penalty Scheme was not reviewed during the State Government’s controversial reforms to WorkCover.
“At the time (2006-7) a decision about the Bonus Penalty Scheme (BPS) was deferred on the expectation that the issue would be covered in the Clayton-Walsh review of the broader WorkCover Scheme. However, it was not addressed in the Clayton-Walsh review or the Government’s recent amendments to the WorkCover Scheme,” the letter states.
The letter then advises that WorkCover’s board had decided to continue the scheme until July 2010.
“During this time, stakeholder consultation will be conducted to determine whether an appropriate, simplified replacement scheme can be developed,” the letter promises.
And that’s where employers say they have been sold out.
More than 40 representatives of various employer bodies attended a “consultation” session last month, only to be told the decision had been made.
James Rock, from the Australian Industry Group, emailed other organisations on March 2.
In the email, he summarises the meeting with WorkCover and notes:
• WorkCover made the very late admission that there had been no consultation on the ending of the BP scheme, because the board had already made its decision.
• WorkCover maintains that there is no evidence that BP schemes assist in the prevention of injury or return to work … apparently it was not deemed necessary to actually ask employers their views and experience. AiGroup’s feedback directly contradicts WorkCover’s view on this point.
• Finally, it was made clear that WorkCover will not extend the BP scheme as their new IT system (Project Harry) has not been equipped to manage it for the 45,000 employers that would be affected.
In separate emails between the Civil Contractors Association, the Motor Trade Association and Self Insurers SA, it was decided the various groups would raise their concerns with Mr Caica, but he referred their inquiries to the board of WorkCover, saying he was in caretaker mode in the lead-up to the March 20 state election.
When The Independent Weekly contacted the Minister’s office, he was quick to respond.
"The decision to discontinue the bonus penalty scheme effective 1 July 2010, was made by the WorkCover Board back in July 2008,” Mr Caica said.
“I support WorkCover's current discussions with employer groups to explore options for a future scheme which better rewards those employers with superior performance in fulfilling their OHS and Workers’ Rehabilitation Compensation obligations."
WorkCover’s Ms Davison told The Independent Weekly the board would decide on a replacement scheme at its March 22 meeting – but she was unable to advise whether a replacement scheme had been devised.
“WorkCover began considering a new scheme in early 2009,” Ms Davison said.
“A significant amount of material was analysed to determine the best design principles for a possible replacement scheme and to put forward potential models to help refine the consultation process.
“This information formed the basis of the consultation paper that was released to stakeholders in November 2009.”
But employer groups told The Independent Weekly that options for a new scheme were not canvassed at the February 26 meeting.
The Registered Employers Group SA expressed concern WorkCover was considering continuing a penalties regime for bad employers, but discontinuing the bonus scheme for good employers.
“It is inconceivable in this modern age that the position adopted by a statutory authority would be that ‘sticks’ matter more than ‘carrots’,” a spokesman for the group said.
“Was the banning of alcohol the answer during the prohibition period in America?
“Punitive measures should only be adopted where there is evidence of criminal neglect or gross recklessness.”
WorkCover’s board next meets on March 22 – two days after the election – to decide levy rates for the following year and any further decision on the incentive scheme.
In my one of my above posts titled "Re:From "The Advertiser" 6th March 2010". I told you all about the denial and how Labor would be hiding from any accountability for anything, by using Boards to place the blame!
Judge Now, Here is the proof!
Taken from the directly above post; "The decision to discontinue the bonus penalty scheme effective 1 July 2010, was made by the WorkCover Board back in July 2008,” Mr Caica said."
Major Cop out!!!!!!!!!!! These guys are an organised Mafia, make no mistake! They are just petty criminals that need to be impeached for treason against the People of the Commonwealth!
If your case manager, rehab adviser, independent examiner or (insert your preferred moral sellout here) constantly and seriously breaches the workers comp act, who can/will prosecute them?
Serious question. We hear of workers being prosecuted under the act, but never those working the system.
I understand that the workcover ombudsman can't or won't, so who would prosecute? surely not workcover?
There is a part of the WCR ACT that excludes individual employees of Workcover or it's operatives from any legal liability! That does not exclude Workcover Corp however, but even then if you were successful in prosecuting Workcover Corp, the fines are so minuscule it would have no impact on anyone but yourself.
The system has been setup in such a way that these people are free to do as they please, the only action of recourse available to you is, to inflict serious personal harm upon these individuals!
That is unless you have a water tight case which you could prove in the civil courts. The best courses of action which would be breaches of the Anti-discrimination Act, and/or the Commonwealth Human Rights Act, which no one is exempt from, but would cost a fortune.
Conclusion:
Just buy a baseball bat, and practice swinging it really fukin' hard! That is unless Mr shitface Rann hasn't outlawed playing baseball too, like everything else!
Fuck, I hate Rockspiders!
Posted by Mickey the Rockspider at 4:03 AM, 14/3/2010
Ridiculous as it may sound and I certainly don't incite you to commit such an act of violence, it is nevertheless true and the only avenue of recourse open to you, here's why!
W.C&R ACT 1986
Section122—Offences
(1) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this Act is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence against this Act for which no penalty is specifically provided shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $2 000.
(3) Proceedings for an offence against this Act shall be disposed of summarily.
(3a) A prosecution for an offence against this Act must be commenced within three years after the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
(4) Subsection (1) does not render the Corporation, a member of the staff of the Corporation, or any person acting on behalf of the Corporation, liable to prosecution
for any act or omission related to the administration or enforcement of this Act.
Subsection (1) implies that such person is guilty of an offence. Then Subsection(4) removes all liability and accountability from that person, (person being EML and it's staff or any approved rehab provider)
Even if Subsection (4) never existed the maximum they can be punished under the law is a $2000 fine (peanuts for a multi $billion Corporations) But their technique to date as with the Thompson case and others not reported is to financially ruin the person making the claim, by continued delays, appeals and injunctions.
What Section 122 of the Act does in fact do is, give them the right to do just as they please, while giving the worker the right to be shafted from behind!
Typical when you consider than Rann used to work as a PR media person for former Labor Premier Donald Dunstan, a well known faggot! and possibly even a member of the infamous "Family".
Yes, that's right you bastards. There are some of us who still remember this group of sick fucks, and how none of them have never been brought to justice, even though the police knew who some were!
So if a worker breaches section 120 (dishonesty) they can be hit with $50,000 or 12 months of pillow-biting, but if a case manager blatantly bullshits on their notes, returns, etc, in order to deprive you of a benefit under the act, and for their or their employer's financial benefit, they get away with it!!
This system is completely rooted!!!!!
One wonders, if a case manager's breach of the act exposes them to civil actions. Eg, if you can prove that they breached section 120, and that you suffered a loss as a result, does this open the door to a civil damages claim, as they have acted outside of the act?
Trust me buy a Baseball Bat, it's quick, it's easy and it'll deliver sure & swift justice! I know where your coming from and I think that crosses into the boundaries of what the legal knob-jockeys like to term mixed law! It's going to cost you a fortune to fight it in their system, because it's a mixed law case it'll likely go to the Supreme Court for judgement, a cost that could easily run into 6digits given the fees involved!
Try to understand something, the Law is designed to protect the guilty not the innocent. You see the innocent cannot be prosecuted and so need no protection! I know this sounds totally twisted, but it's true!
Take the buzz word of the 21st century for example "Terrorist", governments around the world are trying to stick this label onto anyone they can where there might be some hope of it sticking, yes even here in Australia too. In fact in the US they can hold you indefinitely without you seeing a lawyer or even a family member, they don't even need any evidence, the fact that you are innocent means nothing!
So when so called lawful governments pass laws like this, it's easy to see who the real terrorists are, and always have been. Governments!
Workcover has been the one issue that Labor will not address in the upcoming election, they have steered completely clear of the subject, even though it has been mentioned in readers comments at "AdelaideNow" on many numerous occasions, infact even Advertiser newspapers deliberately left it out of a newspoll recently as though it was a non issue, that those who are suffering as a result of Rann's mafia policies did not even exist, but his sexual indiscretions were of far greater importance than any injured worker, as "His Affair" was included in the polling. This was picked up on by many readers but they were just totally ignored!
That my friend is the system you are trying to fight, one that has become so corrupt from the clerks right through to those at the very top. They appear to even control the media now! Again I say get a baseball bat, cause that is the only way you'll get any justice with this Mob of Cunts!
For those who are wondering, No I'm not a "Terrorist", a Patriotic Vigilante maybe, but this is quite acceptable under "Natural Law" when the Law itself has become corrupted to the very core, as it has under the guidance of Rann and his mob of teamsters!
Coming soon to Internet Cafe's everywhere! "The Tax System Explained and Laid Out" at no cost to the public, showing why every man, woman and child is being taken for a ride down the alley of highway robbery, by those who claim to be honourable and respectful members of society!
Yes that's right you scumbag fuckers, I've cracked your tax scam with the help of Workcover! And oh boy, what a low life criminal scam it is too!
Didnt I hear somewhere the WorkCover ombudsman suggested an injured worker might be able to "sue" a provider due to them secretly weighing down an item during a physical examination and the worker re injured himself.
They may be not guilty of an offence, but surely duty of care under common law as the Ombudsman suggested
I injured my other leg being 'assessed 'by a so called professional and asked that it be logged at the time. When I went back later after recovering,guess what no one knows any thing about it my files had gone missing as they presumed I would not be back as the injurys where substantial, now I have both legs wobbling and only paper work for one.
Doctors Lawyers Ministers all members of the same societies!
Re-injured during an examination? Nah that couldn't happen particularly if they were "fly boy" doctors, these dudes have impeccable standards, never lie on reports and have the patients care as the #1 priority! Could you sue them? Probably if you could find a lawyer willing to do so, don't like your chances of finding one in Adelaide however!
Let's face it, the scheme is completely stacked against anyone that who is injured, and your options through common law are very limited, not to mention costly. Lets take a look at the current legal system as it now stands!
You as a member of the public, injured worker or both. You are charged with an offence or crime that you didn't commit, the onus is upon you to prove your innocence at your expense. You are injured because a doctor's failure of duty of care, the onus is once again upon you this time to prove such an offence! What's wrong with this picture? I'll show you!
You must prove your innocence when accused. If you accuse a doctor you must prove their negligence, and that's fair enough. However in both scenarios it's you who must prove everything! But, if the Crown accuses you, they need prove nothing and only need state that you are guilty, to have you dragged before the courts! Just this factor alone shows just how stacked the deck truly is, and that a miscarriage of justice has been attempted before you ever stepped foot in a courtroom.
Like suggested previously, buy an Axe or a Baseball Bat!
Posted by All for one, and one for all. at 1:58 AM, 17/3/2010
