Description
A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.
My Links
»
»
»
»
»
|
Review into South Australian Workers rehabilitation scheme
Please post here any articles relating to the review.
For any interested parties who wish to pass on any information to the review simply copy and past yoru comments here and they will be forwarded to the review.
Entries close 30 June 2007 |
Posted: 10:40 AM, 20/6/2007 |
Add Comment |
Recent Email
Thank you for registering an interest in the review of the South Australian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. This notification is to remind you that the closing date for submissions of 30 June 2007 is approaching quickly and to urge you to take the opportunity to make your views known to the reviewers.
The review is governed by its terms of reference which are set out in the attached link. The WorkCover Corporation has released a lengthy set of proposals which will, of course, be considered by the review. While those who are making submissions to the review may care to make reference to the WorkCover proposals, the primary purpose of the call for submissions is to elicit the views of stakeholders in relation to the matters set out in the review’s terms of reference rather than for a commentary on the WorkCover proposals.
To date there has been a very positive response to the call for submissions with a considerable number already having been received.
Whilst the formal stage for submissions will close on 30 June, further opportunities to contribute will present themselves post 30 June as Mr Clayton intends extensive consultation with interested parties and the community. This will provide parties with an opportunity to expand upon views that they may have presented in submissions as Mr Clayton is interested in gaining the widest possible perspective on issues related to the review’s terms of reference. The terms of reference can be found at: http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/wcompreview/about_termsofref.html
Bill Cinnamond
Manager, W/Comp Review
Sustainability and Workforce Management
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
GPO Box 2343, ADELAIDE SA 5001
Phone: 08 84633822
Email: Cinnamond.bill@saugov.sa.gov.au
Website: <http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/wcompreview/>
_______________________________________
Email in confidence for named individual/entity only.
Receipt, use, access, storage or reproduction of this
email (or part), including an attachment (or part),
by other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited
and unauthorised.
|
Posted by workedover1 at 10:43 AM, 20/6/2007 |
Link |
|
My submissions
Injured workers should receive fair and equitable financial and other support that should be delivered efficiently and equitably and enable the earliest possible return to work.
Workcover has control over injured workers in manner which is inappropriately balanced at times.
When one looks at the different powers and responsibilities it has there is no defined manner in which each power or responsibility should be exercised. Each exercise of power can be modified depending on the financial situation or the needs of a particular case. This can cause an imbalance within the system depending on who is overseeing the exercise of the power. This is also a dangerous balance when a corporation such as work cover can find itself with a spiraling debt which means that the boundaries can change significantly.
It is my submission that consideration shouid be given to the separation of some of these powers in line with its outsourcing of claims management.
Prosecutions should be conducted by the DPP.
Rehabilitation should be the sole responsibility of rehabilitation consultants claims managers shoudl not have control over rehab programs and this shoudl be overseen by rehab specialists.
In that work cover controls prosecutions, rehabilitations and carries out its own investigations. Claims management also overlaps all of these responsibilities.
It is apparent at least from my experience that each of the powers can shift in its boundaries dependent on which way Workcover wants to operate.
A claims manager can institute investigations of a claimant undertaking rehabilitation by surveillance etc.
Injured workers knowing this occurs are reluctant to engage in rehabilitation in a manner which may jeopardise their claims.
Workcover can adopt a position where they choose to prosecute an injured worker and pursue that injured worker to no end in its pursuit of them. This can intrude upon the private lives of injured workers, medical records being seized by Workcover injured workers then become suspicious of the system that is set up to assist them.
Video surveillance on injured workers is extensively privacy intrusive, it seems this method of claims management is used for redemptions of long term claimants rather than investigation of offences. This surveillance also causes a suspicion in injured workers of the system that is set up to assist them.
I submit that Workcover define the maximum length of injured workers claims to two years or some other set period of time.
That injured workers should be able to sue their employers or their insurers under Common law for permanent injuries suffered in certain circumstances. ( significant negligence etc which lessens workcovers repsonsibilities)
That injured workers be able to access Rehabilitation at any time after they are injured at work if they require rehabilitation services even if they are redeemed and as long as they have some permanent injury which places them at a disadvantage within the community.
That all injured workers be given an opportunity to apply for a redemption of their claim at any time and for such redemption to be heard within a set time period i.e. one month and that such redemption be overseen and assessed by an officer of the tribunal. Workcover being bound to comply with any redemption amounts set down by the tribunal members.
It is imperative that such redemptions be conducted independently of Workcover to ensure fairness within the system.
Workcover's failure to redeem injured workers effectively has a very significant impact on injured workers and their families.
The ongoing need for medical treatment would be reduced, the incidence of derpession would be reduced and the costs of claims management could also be significantly be reduced. Claimants on the system are frustrated in their attempts to redeem their claims sometimes taking up to two years to negotiate redemptions. This cost is significant when weekly income maintenance is being paid and is sometimes more than the redemption paid.
That Workcover as a corporation be restricted to prosecuting persons only for fraud committed against work cover where no injury has occurred and not targeting injured workers to push them off the system. This could be done through the current tribunal system at far less cost to Workcover and the employers. It comes at a high cost to injured workers, the society and the families of injured workers who are prosecuted for offences which they are unable to properly defend against a corporation with unlimited legal resources. Many times this imbalance can cause unfairness and injustice. The difference between betyond reasonable doubt and "on the balance of probabilities" means many injured workers could find themselves prosecuted even though they are legitimately injured and have not made false statements.
Penalties should be in place for Workcover if it fails to comply with its own legislation. Especially in regard to the illegal discontinuance of weekly payments to injured workers. See Trask V Workcover 2005.
A separate complaints authority should be set up to investigate complaints against work cover. The Ombudsman is clearly understaffed and unable to undertake this effectively and in any case is unable to investigate any issues within Workcover.
My other significant submission to ensure the Fair and equitable running of the scheme is that
the current board be replaced with representatives that have a legal background, representatives from medical and rehabilitation sectors. That such appointments be made independent of the boards members and that the board and all of its members be prohibited from having any financial interests in the Medical, legal or rehabilitation industry at the time of their appointment and membership of the board.
|
Posted by Peter F at 5:02 PM, 30/6/2007 |
Link |
|
Bully Boys submission
National Enquiry to the Workers Compensation & OHS Issues.
Dear Sir/Madam
I write as part of the public submissions request by this enquiry into the Workers
Compensation and these issues also relate to OH&S concerns relating to “Bullying” in
the work place. As a result of a Workplace Injury 6/8/01 I submit the following for
your perusal and intervention into the Workers compensation system here in W.A.
Although I must also express that I do not believe these issues are just a state-by-state
concern. They are National and as an Australian I also feel I speak for many other
who have been subjected to primitive practices under the Workers Compensation
schemes across Australia, that may not for personal reasons and ill health are not be
able to express their own experience. These are very much Federal concerns, and will
impede on own welfare system if allowed to continue.
Despite my injury being substantiated by the Insurer and my employer they continued
to deny weekly payments and payments of medicals throughout my ordeal.
Due to W.A legislation in relation to “stress” claims they argued predisposition for
illness.
The dehumanizing methods used was an Insurers Psychiatrist that is also a Medical
Practitioner who resides on the Register for Panel Membership Under Section 145B of
the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation ACT. This Psychiatrist ignored all
evidence I supplied in relation to my injury, making no mention of the correspondence
or the details surrounding internal investigations by my employer into the “Abusive,
Bullying & Intimidation” of a Site Manager in their employ. These practices
aggravated my injury, no support or concern for my well-being was ever protected or
supported by the Workcover processes
The internal investigations by my employer and the Workers Compensation
investigations relating to statements that my manager after reporting serious concerns
relating to breeches of contract under the “JobNet work” and the abusive working
environment under the management of this particular woman, the Insurer and my
employer denied the existence of a report into another staff
members resignation on medical certificate and the subsequent findings of similar
abuse in the forms of management surveys. These admissions finally came the
morning prior to the commencement of the 2nd prior to preliminary review that I was seeking an order to obtain the denied documents.
At this point in time I was suffering from the devastating effects of Major Depression
and Serve to extreme levels of Anxiety.
Workcover review was set for the 20th June. My injury was not in question and
despite the findings of the investigations I was merely setting myself up for a
“Character Assassination” and the Insurers Psychiatrist 2nd report, and the site manager
(who had resigned earlier), my friend and work colleague who had supplied the
letter to the insurer were the first to be witness against myself at review.
I was advised by my lawyers whom I have since learnt are not known to work in the
“workers” best interest, I was subjected to what is commonly known by Workcover,
an agreement known as a “Global agreement”, this agreement allows for nominal
information to fill in the gaps of a form 15C. This practice has been confirmed as
“Insurers practice” by Workcover, there is no information available as to these Unjust
agreements, the required statement of benefits that are required under Section 76
Workers Compensation ACT is fabricated as NO weekly payments ever commenced.
Also on form 15c all medical ect were NOT paid by the employer or insurer prior to
the agreement and did not undertake to pay them. As a requirement of this “Global
agreement” I had to pay for these out of the amount I received $45,000.00 although the
agreement states that I was to be paid $49,350.00, all medical paid etc.
Yes I did sign this agreement and please refer. These letters are dated prior to signing the agreement, in which my layers ignored and yes I did sign
them. Heaven knows why. The mental health Act should have been invoked as I was
in no fit state to full understand the repercussions of such and agreement and was
mislead into believing that the outstanding issues were Industrial related and could not
be addressed. This agreement has prevented myself from seeking the Justice I need to
move forward. It has also allowed further detriment. Employers response to return to
work conditions within 4 days of signing the agreement.
Despise numerous and at times desperate attempts to have these matters addressed and
resolved, I come up against a brick wall. The Workers Compensation agreement has
taken away all my rights as decent human being. I see no way forward. I signed away
my rights to rehabilitation because my employer is a large National based community
and JobNet work provider who lead me to believe that I was more than welcome back
as investigations etc had taken place. Medical reports were provided 24/7/ to my
injury management the day prior to signing the agreement. Written advice as to return
to work condition and grievance findings handed down 29/7/.
I do not have the financial means to take the matters through our judicial system. To
obtain justice cost “Big Bucks” that I just do not have. I am unemployable, as I need
to declare Workers compensation claims on any employment application. “Stress” as
a basis for a claim is not going to be understood by any prospective employer. If I
have to explain my circumstances it will be seen that I am just a “Mere Trouble
Maker” regardless of the “Abnormal” and “Unbelievable aspects of my Claim” that
have been substantiated.
Drastic changes and federal intervention need to take place to stop the corrupt and
gutter practices of the Insurers in the W.A Workcover. An independent enquiry
should consider the workers who have been subjected to further abuse and
victimisation when claiming VAILD workers comp claims. It is the system that is
corrupted by Insurers that continue to make huge profits and the workers who are
returned to the community to then be beggars of the social welfare system. Many of
whom simply cannot cope and ultimately chose to end their life. Whose families’
breakdown, lose more self esteem and confidence and then have to rely on government
assistance to live out a very sad future existence.
I also further wish to support Evelyn Field submissions to this enquiry. I have never
met this woman nor been in contact. I have researched this evil in the workplace and
have read her own submission to this enquiry and visited her web site Evelyn M. Field
is a counseling psychologist and an Accredited Speaking Member of National
Speakers Association of Australia. She is the author of “ Bully Busting” (Finch
1999) and is currently completely her second book to assist targets, employers
and bullies to deal with workplace bullying.
If I can further assist with enquires relating to my experience please do not hesitate to
contact myself.
Yours sincerely
Ms Julie Marie Bates |
Posted by JMB at 9:49 PM, 4/7/2007 |
Link |
|
Lawyers told to ‘call WorkCover’s bluff’
Qld has seen a decline in WorkCover cases going to trial but a plaintiff lawyer has suggested lawyers “call [WorkCover’s] bluff” if they are not satisfied with WorkCover offers. Adam Taylor, Shine Roche McGowan partner, told the Aust Lawyers’ Alliance (ALA) Qld conf on the Gold Coast that “if WorkCover aren’t making adequate offers, take it to trial”. He said lawyers had a big role to play in successful compulsory conf deliberations. “When you are at a conf and are not getting adequate offers you have to ask why. Don’t just say WorkCover are being nasty again. Is the matter not worth that much or have you not prepared the case properly?
One big thing that gets in the way of matters settling is a lack of preparation before you attend the conf. That starts from your notice of claim.” Taylor said proper pleading of events, particulars of negligence and causes of action were far more likely to induce an adequate settlement offer than presenting a case that was improperly prepared. “If you turn up at conf and change the argument you had in the notice of claim, WorkCover aren’t going to like it and you will get an inadequate offer from them. From a plaintiff lawyer’s point of view, you have to give them a reason to settle and that means evidence. You have to get your evidence together, you’ve got to have adequate statements and, if necessary, hand those over.”
Kylie Houghton, WorkCover Qld c/law mgr, agreed proper case preparation was vital in settling claims. “You need to get your evidence to us before a compulsory conf. Once we have your case we can tell you if we can settle or not and what sort of offers we can make.” She said WorkCover Qld was currently settling 85% of matters pre-trial. “We’re moving in a really good direction. Injured workers are being compensated and these matters are being solved without the need for litigation.”
Houghton said WorkCover procedure was that if a case was not resolved during pre-trial proceedings, it went back to a case mgr for review. “We want injured workers paid. The longer claims are on our books, the more we have to pay.” She said disclosing evidence the day of a compulsory conf was “not good enough” and lawyers needed to disclose evidence early. |
Posted by Peter F. at 11:14 PM, 8/7/2007 |
Link |
|
Looking for a lawyer
I am looking for a lawyer to represent me in my workcover claim.I was told by a friend that there was a company called Dick Turpin and associates. I have looked in the phone book and can not find them..Has anyone ever used them and do they know their phone number?
|
Posted by A. Preston at 4:51 PM, 25/7/2007 |
Link |
|
A Principle of Fundamental Importance
It is important in matters of this type to be reminded of the comments by Mr Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v United States (1928) 277 US 438.
“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teachers the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:14 PM, 26/7/2007 |
Link |
|
Submission
I have made a submission to the review however it is quite lengthy.
If anyone wants to read it, feel free to email me and I am happy to forward it.
I have also been advised that I will be invited to meet with the reviewers to discuss my submission and issues relating to my experiences on the scheme. If anyone has any issues they think should be raised, feel free to drop me a line. |
Posted by PhilM at 11:15 PM, 17/8/2007 |
Link |
|
Review..is it just a facade?
I wonder if this review is for real or whether it is just a facade and cover up. Surely Workcover is not going to change its legislation on the advice of a review. What happened to The Stanley Review. Lots of resources and effort went into it and nothing changed. There were not any significant changes to legislation or the way Workcover treated its "clients". I refer to injured workers as clients of Workcover however many would have good cause to dispute that any clients would be treated in such a disrespectful manner by any corporation entrusted with looking after their rehabilitation.
What is stopping Workcover from paying its mates to carry out some huge review and tailoring all of the outcomes to suit itself?
At the end of the day it seems that there is a already a pre conceived idea that legislation from some other country might be implemented with a bit of tweaking.
Not being one to speculate but can anyone tell me if there is any truth in the fact that Consultants from Canada have been engaged to promote Canadian legislation in South Australia as best practice legislation throughout the world?
|
Posted by Grapevine at 9:56 AM, 2/9/2007 |
Link |
|
Review
The "Independant" review panel has done work for WorkCover previously, just do a google search and its there. I also believe that a new legislation has been drawn up and waiting to be handed to the upper house. There was a review by members of the upper house some two or three years ago and the same old problems just keep popping up.
My suggestion is write to all the members of the upper house with your concerns.
You can find them here.
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/LegislativeCouncil/Members/List+of+Members.htm |
Posted by researcher at 9:59 AM, 3/9/2007 |
Link |
|
natural unjustice
| If there are changes to the legislation, one has to remember we are not criminals, but decent human beings who simply got injued at work. For to be penalised for that is just simple natural injustice. |
Posted by Innocent at 6:56 PM, 5/10/2007 |
Link |
|
SARC
As one of the most vocal and I hope credible critics of the mess WorkCover's Board and Management has created, I can assure everyone that this is the Review that will bring meaningful change.
The SARC report will not only explain what went wrong but when it went wrong, why it went wrong, what the warning signs have been and how to fix it so the real stakeholders, namely SA Businesses, SA Taxpayers and of course Injured Workers will all be better off. This is the review where the questions will be informed, questions that won't perpetuate the myths regurgitated by WorkCover’s uneducated spin doctors who should also lose their jobs.
I have put money on it that by the end of this review, Bruce Carter's carefully staged credibility will be in pieces because he has simply failed in his duty as Chairman, especially considering he is supposed to be an Insolvency expert (then again, he lost over a Billion Dollars in 5 years so he is pretty damn good at it). Carters time is up as the Governments Golden boy and he will be relegated to the shysters gallery where he belongs after the Wine Centre and Basketball debacles.
Julia Davison might be able to return to being a school teacher because heaven knows we need them. One only hopes she stays clear of accounting and business studies after her efforts at FMC and now WorkCover.
These people will be exposed in the course of the review due to their refusal to try and understand the very system they are supposed to run.
Imagine getting onto an aircraft with a pilot (Captain Narcissist) who simply can’t fly the plane yet pretends he can. When the alarm bells go off he ignores them, when his mistakes are pointed out he moves to silence the critics and again ignores the message. This plane is going down and thankfully it is going down nose first so the first real victim will be the errant pilot. The rest trapped on this flailing flight with Captain Narcissist will be ok albeit after a terrifying ride and what will be a bumpy landing.
Carter had the opportunity to hear and consider the informed dissenting view but his carefully coiffed head was so far up his own a$$ that he refused to accept some pleb might just be right.
Tim Marcus Clarke had the same defence and look at where it got him!
PhilM
|
Posted by PhilM at 10:55 PM, 3/12/2007 |
Link |
|
|
Useful Links
SA Unions worker survey
Have your say
WCT Recent Decisions
Workcover Forum
workcover victims
Media Mikes Privatisation agreement
Federal Return to work Monitor report
Austlii Legislation and Case law
Claim Assist
Investigation Standards
State Ombudsman. Last resort but unlikely to assist
Courts Home Page
Liberal Party Media Page
WCT and other Forms
Workcover gone bad
alternative workcover forum
adelaide talkback-workcover
Voice of industrial death
|
