Workcover blog for injured workers

Workcover Blog for Injured Workers by Injured Workers

http://www.blognow.com.au/podcast.php?w=workcover

Description

A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.

My Links

»
»
»
»

»

Workcover. Discussion place for injured workers and others.

Post here your comments about Workcover and your experience with the "system". Some say the psychological insult to injured workers by the management of their claims is far worse than the suffering from the physical injury itself. We look forward to your comments. Workcover and EML regularly check this site so feel free to tell them your real thoughts.
Posted: 4:30 PM, 18/9/2007	Add Comment

Labour hurts injured workers!

Looks like our friends in Victoria are also having legislation changes.
Please sign the petition here

http://vicworkcover.com.au/

The Court of Appeal recently handed down a decision preserving workers' rights. The Brumby Government is drafting legislation to effectively reverse the decision and reduce compensation.

We need massive public pressure right now to stand up to workCover insurers and the State government.

Posted by Me again at 4:25 PM, 19/9/2007

Reviewers

I read with concern that there is a call for long term injured workers entitlements to be cut due to the magnitude of the unfunded liability in WorkCover. I am finding it very hard to justify this as there has been a considerable amount, and if I can use an insurance quotation, “excess” paid by a worker from present and future earnings which also included the removal of the superannuation component due to ones unfortunate circumstances. Not only the financial loss, but the ability to cope with a long term injury places a heavy burden on ones rehabilitation. One has to remember that an insurance premium has been paid by the way of a levy for such protection and each member of Australia’s workforce has a right to claim if such an accident should occur.
The fact that WorkCover has an operational profit from its investments can only lead to the opinion that this decision would have been based on the performance of the management of the scheme, but what’s more confusing is the continual support in denial from the WorkCover Board and Minister that this is the case. So why change it? Maybe it’s more a profit decision and not a moral one.

Posted by Anonymous at 8:59 AM, 20/9/2007

Awards

What did the award (pats on the back) advertising campaign achieve. I read with interest that a worker was allowed retraining in Autocad just after a couple of months. I tried for 3 years to be retrained without success. Instead i was placed in occupations that would only offer less than half of my pre injury wage. This is not a fair system, thats what it achieved......
Posted by Me again at 9:19 AM, 21/9/2007	Link

Workcover bites the dust.

I would like to thank everyone on behalf of Veronica. She has been through a lot, the persecution by Workcover has persisted since 1996. Thats 11 years of crap from Workcover.
Cutting of her pay really sent her on a downer especially given that they started to prosecute her at the same time. That was almost the last straw. They acted unfairly, but what more can you expect from the den of rogues.
Surely they could have given her a redemption as she requested instead of alleging she had no injury.
After all my wife has been through I hope that Workcover have the decency to put the decision relating to her on their website.
Its a sad thing that this must happen to so many workers at the hands of those in Workcover who have no idea of the personal cost to families. I guess it all pays for their lawyers luxurious lifestyle and nice offices overlooking the city.

Posted by Peter T. at 10:39 PM, 21/9/2007

AWARD COSTS

Can anybody tell me how much the Advertising campaign would have cost for the WorkCover SA’s inaugural Recovery and Return to Work Awards. I have again noticed a quarter page "slap on the back, wasting our money" Media release in todays Advertiser (22/09/07). Add in the numerous pre award call for nominations in the print, radio and television, the advertising companies costs, and even the ceromony at the Hilton it just makes me sick and agitated that this system is allowed to be portraid in this way. This alone would have paid to open a Drop in Center that was talked about some months ago to help workers adjust to their injuries.
It just goes to show that the "INSURANCE" culture is still very alive in this callous system. If one is getting the perception that one is all rosey in WorkCover due to this misconception, than how can one justify a video surveillance that also has the same effect.

Posted by JohnR at 8:41 AM, 22/9/2007

Trask

I have just read the Trask hearing. There were a number of Doctors who i have been sent too for an "INDEPENDANT" examination. If they are independant, why do they specialise in giving evidence against workers?
Posted by Me again at 1:02 PM, 22/9/2007	Link

Specialists not so independent

I read about the Trask case above. My comments are simply this.
Here is a woman who is obviously sick, workcover puts all of their legal resources together to fight her and allege she is dishonest, the Magistrate she went before was obviously thorough and gave her a fair hearing. Workcover continued their fight. Obviously she was sick.
What becomes of the mongrels who put her through this horrid experience of ongoing litigation for years and years?
Perhaps a sacking should be in order for them all.
I wonder how much Workcover spent prosecuting her?
It seems inappropriate to me that such vast amounts of resources are directed at injured workers.
I also see that Dr Meegan is at the front again..I wonder how he sleeps at night?

I know of many specialists who earn upwards from $10000 a month from Workcover work. How could they be classed as independent when their bread and butter comes from Workcover?

Posted by P. Fotheringham at 5:24 PM, 22/9/2007

Trask

I also have read the transcript and what i read from it which i found quite interesting was that WorkCover lost an earlier dispute with this worker. Instead of appealing, their ego took over and simply took it upon themselves to hire surveillance to try and capture Ms Trask doing something wrong. This is very shameful and it is good that these independant specialist can be named in the transcripts so all can see.

Posted by Reader at 7:29 PM, 22/9/2007

Prasad Direction

An invitation to a jury by a judge to find the accused not guilty prior to hearing the defence case. The jury is entitled to decline the invitation and elect to continue the trial. At any time thereafter during the defence case, should it wish to do so, the jury can unanimously find the defendant not guilty.
Posted by Reader at 7:46 PM, 22/9/2007	Link

Resources of the state vs injured workers

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF WORKCOVER AND ITS LAWYERS. THE PETTINESS AND DISPUTES AND NAGGING BY OTHERS WHO MAKE OUT THEY ARE OUR BROTHER AND SISTER CITIZENS.
THE CASE MANAGERS THEMSELVES KNOW THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT OR THEY WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR CARREER PATHS SO OFTEN. THEY ARE OFTEN UNHAPPY THE WAY THEY SEE THE INJURED WORKERS BEING TREATED.
I WAS INJURED AT WORK MANY YEARS AGO AND DESPITE MY VALIANT ATEMPTS AT TACKLING THE ISSUES HEAD ON THE SYSTEM HAS OVERWHELMED ME. I GAVE UP ON TRYING TO RETURN TO WORK AND CLAIMED COMPENSATION FROM THE MOTHER OF ALL PIGS. BUT EVENTUALLY I FOUND THAT CENTRELINK BENEFITS WERE MUCH BETTER FOR MY HEALTH AND I GOT FAR MORE SUPPORT FROM THEM THAN I EVER RECEIVED FROM WORKCOVER. THE MONEY WAS NOWHERE NEAR AS GOOD BUT AT LEAST MY HEALTH WAS ON THE MEND. CENTRELINK MUCH TO THEIR CREDIT WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ENSURE I WAS REHABILITATED, THAT MY FORTNIGHTLY CHECK ALWAYS WAS IN MY BANK ACCOUNT AND THAT ANY HELP I NEEDED WAS EASILY OBTAINED. THERE WAS NO NEED TO ENGAGE LAWYERS TO ENFORCE MY RIGHTS. I ACTUALLY FOUND THIS ASPECT OF THE WORKCOVER SYSTEM SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT AND COULD NOT HELP BUT TO THINK THAT MANY WORKCOVER LAWYERS WERE SIMPLY FEEDING AND SUCKING FROM THE BIG MOTHER PIG. NOW I WANT JUST TO BE LEFT ALONE WITH JUST A SMALL PLACE IN THE SUN AND TRY TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT MOST HUMAN ACTIVITIES CENTRED AROUND EMPLOYMENT AND WORKCOVER ARE NOTHING ELSE EXCEPT VANDALISM OF HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS ON A MASSIVE SCALE.
ONE THING STILL TROUBLES ME THAT NOBODY HAS YET CAUGHT ON THAT UNCHECKED GROWTH = THE DEFINITION OF CANCER .
LOOK AT THE DEFICIT AND HOW MUCH IT IS GROWING LIKE A FESTERING INFECTIOUS GROWTH DOUBLING AND TRIPLING IN SIZE EVERY TIME THAT THE WORKCOVER BOARD DECLARE EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL. THEIR CLAIMS THAT EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL MUST SURELY BE CAUSING SOME UNREST IN THE RANKS AS THE DEFICIT KEEPS SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL.
WORKCOVER CARRIES ON AS IF THERE IS NO TOMORROW AND AS A RESULT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE ANY SHORT TERM RESULT.
AS FOR LAW AND JUSTICE . THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS DIMENSION OF THE WORKERS COMEPNSATION AND REHABILITATION ACT SURELY NEED TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. IF WE ARE TO BE CALLED A CIVILISED SOCIETY , WHY ARE WORKCOVER SO CONCERNED WITH APPLYING THE RULES CORRECTLY SO THERE OWN BACKS ARE COVERED , WHEN THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES BREAK THE LAW EVERYDAY WITH NO REMORSE AND NO COURSE OF ACTION OR REMEDY AVAILABLE BY THE INJURED WORKERS WHO FIND THEMSELVES AT THE MERCY OF THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW.
WHEN WILL THE MAKERS OF THE LAW AND THOSE THAT IMPLEMENT THOSE LAWS ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE TO INJURED WORKERS IN A MANNER. IF INDEED OUR LAW ENFORCERS AND COURTS ARE IMPARTIAL AND SEPARATE FORM THOSE THAT LEGISLATE WHY IS THERE SO MUCH INJUSTICE AGAINST INJURED WORKERS WHO FIND THEMSELVES AT THE MERCY OF WORKCOVER AND THE VAST AMOUNT OF RESOURCES IT HAS TO TARGET INDIVIDUAL WORKERS IN LITGATION.

Posted by P. Simons at 2:37 PM, 23/9/2007

Above comment

The answer to all your questions is quite simple. WorkCover is stuck in an "INSURANCE" environment. I am afraid my friend, its a dirty game.
Posted by Me again at 6:42 PM, 23/9/2007	Link

Section 43

Here is an important peice of information from the Mountain Pine Furniture Pty Ltd v Taylor case.
If this is the case, should everybody have their injury re-assessed?
I believe the Victorian Government are wanting to change their legislation because of this finding.

The first respondent challenged that second opinion on the ground that the Panel was not entitled to take into account the improvement in his neck condition consequent upon the surgery which is referred to in [4] above. He contended that the Panel had failed to comply with the direction in Section 3.3d of the Guides that, in assessing the degree of his impairment using the Injury Model, surgery to treat an impairment does not modify the original impairment estimate, which remains the same in spite of any changes in signs of symptoms that may follow the surgery and irrespective of whether the patient has a favourable or unfavourable response to treatment.

Posted by Reader at 6:56 PM, 24/9/2007

section 43

That is quite interesting that they do not have to take into account the healing process of ones injury. My case manager has written to treating and non-treating specialist for a percantage of impairment using the AMA guides. In giving instructions, they did not ask these specialist not to take in account such information.
Therefore does that mean my percantage was not correct? and do you think the case managers know this and have failed to act?
If there is anybody else who has had their percantage of impairment set and are not convinced, can you please write your situation on here.

Posted by DavidR at 2:55 PM, 25/9/2007

Permanence of injury

My sister was a salesperson and was injured in a car accident whilst working. She is now 27 and has a lot of life ahead of her.
I was wondering if anyone tell me if a worker has a brain injury and then recovers from that injury through extensive rehabilitation. Do they get compensation for the amount of brain damage they have at the time they apply for the lump sum payment?
My sister was a mess, after the car accident she was in a comar for two months, came out of the comar and had total memory loss and could not talk, walk and did not even know who her family was. The insurance company did not want to pay her any compensation and its been a fight every step of the way. She has done three years of rehab and it has paid off and she is now able to talk, walk and is now reading teenagers books.
The insurance company is claiming that her injury is not permanent as she is still recovering and undergoing rehab.
They said that in another year or two time she may have fully recovered to her pre injury state and not be elegible for a lump sum payment at all.
Can anyone give me some idea?
I want to arrange her a lawyer but if what the insurance company says is right she is not going to get much compensation back she might end up paying more money on lawyers bills than she will get back.
Are brain injuries permanent even though the original symptoms of the injury may subside.

Posted by Margaret Walker at 9:42 PM, 25/9/2007

Ms Walker

I also have an injury in which WorkCover have told me that it has to be stabilised before they can make a determination for a section 43 payment. (My injury occured 9 years ago).This contradicts with the AMA guidelines in the Taylor case. I continually ask for a determination even though they on one hand tell me that the injury has not stabalised but on the other hand they continue to try and reduce my income as they try and say it has stabilised. It gets pretty confusing. The question about a full recovery is another one which fascinates me as how can one tell the future. The only thing that is certain is whats happened in the past.

Posted by Me Again at 8:40 AM, 26/9/2007

WIRC newsletter

It was a huge week last week, Thursday I attended the WorkCover Conference at the Hilton, I paid for my own ticket, which strange as that may seem upset people for very different reasons. For me the reason was simple, I needed to attend the Conference to listen to and ask questions of the presenters without fear or favor.
Whilst Dr. Sally Nikolja –President Nikolaj Consulting Canada- was interesting, her approach of “Work as Rehab” did need a lot more detail for me to be able to comment on the effect of what she presented.
However Mr. Greg Tweedly -CEO Victoria WorkCover Authority- did make one statement that I like many others in the room found most interesting: “changing the legislation is not the best way to improve the WorkCover system”:, given that he was presenting at a South Australian WorkCover Conference that Minister Wright opened, and took the opportunity to push the need for the change of legislation, it really was a huge statement to have had heard delivered by another WorkCover CEO.
I attended the Achieving Return To Work: What are the drivers across workers compensation systems in Australia: Tim Bourne Principle from Bourne Lawyers also spoke about the current challenge that is facing WorkCover Corporation, and again the main theme of his presentation was against altering the legislation.
Again at the various breaks it was interesting to meet the other attendees, and once more face the question of funding for Work Injured Resource Connection.
Many of the people I spoke with found it incredible that WIRC is still without any funding body. I guess the question of funding will always be there, I am always hopeful that one day we will be able to announce that funding has finally arrived.
Over all it was an interesting conference. I did discover that what I already know and WIRC’s is working towards is still seen as possible within the WorkCover industry
Next it is not often I get to hand over a cheque that removes the entire financial burden that a family was facing after the death of their husband and father.
It is not often that I hand out greatful “thank you’s” either, however in this instance I need to say thank you to Garth Daniels of EML for the way he went out of his way to help ease the burden this particular family was under. Death claims are never easy, the pain of the investigation is very hard to go through as the support person, as I know what questions are coming, I also know the reasons for the questions, it is just hard to help the family get through it all.
On a personal note the widow left the whole process to me, she trusted me to do what was the right thing for her and her family. Not once did she question the length of time everything was taking, or why I needed her permission to talk to anyone. She just placed her faith in me.
I can not take all the credit, several people supported me through the claim as well, Rod always seemed to know when I needed a coffee, a chat, or just some one to just sit with.
Likewise Paul also phoned often just to give me someone to talk with about many things.
And Mary Lou returned in time to help me to laugh again through the end stages as we just waited the final process to happen.
However, the biggest thank you needs to go to Garth for his guidance and for his calm and professional manner as the claim went forward.
The Forum is this coming Saturday; many of you have already indicated that you will be in attendance which again is important.
The speakers have given up a part of their weekend to attend, and present what they believe and their reasons for what they believe.
It is important that as many of you as is possible attend, if you have a question that you would like to be asked, but do not want to ask the question yourself, I will be happy to read the question for you. There will be note paper and pencils at the entrance to the Community Centre for you to take notes on.
The last Coffee and Chat was very successful, I am hopeful that you will be able to attend the next coffee and chat on the 3rd Oct again at 3pm again it will be at Café 101 at 101 Lipson Street Port Adelaide.
For now I look forward to seeing as many of you as is possible on Saturday at the Forum.
Rosemary
http://www.cch.com.au/fe_news.asp?document_id=93842&topic_code=7&category_code=0&e_id=148404&printfriendly=1
CEOs, not boards, drive governance change: survey
Friday, 21 September, 2007
Content provided to you by AAP.
By Nick Lenaghan
MELBOURNE, Sept 20 AAP - Chief executives, not chairpersons or directors, are the greatest champions of governance in their companies, a management survey has found.
The Australian Institute of Management (AIM) says its findings shatter widely-held perceptions that boards are the key custodians of good governance.
The survey found that 83 per cent of directors and managers surveyed, reported chief executives to be highly or very highly involved in initiating or championing governance change.
Company chairs came in second on 69 per cent, while non-executive directors scored only 39 per cent.
Keith Hilless, AIM national president, said recent corporate scandals had pushed directors into the spotlight as key agents for good governance.
The unfortunate consequence was that the role of managers had been sidelined, he said.
"This survey provides a much-needed reality check on how organisations are really governed.
"The findings help restore the balance by recognising that directors and managers are both key players."
Mr Hilless said he hoped the findings sparked debate on the "whole of organisation" solutions needed for effective governance.
The AIM survey, undertaken in collaboration with researchers from the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland, elicited 379 responses from managers and directors of Australian organisations.
© 2007 AAP | Disclaimer
CCH Australia Limited
ABN 95 096 903 365

Posted by Reader at 4:37 PM, 26/9/2007

Case managers on a pedestal

Why is this Fergusson lady who runs wirc putting case managers on a pedestal because they are giving cheques to deceased relatives.
Is she that desperate to gain some recognition and a reputation that she has to resort to making such comments about case managers of EML.
Surely she has sold herself out to Workcover and the claims agents if she is making comments like she has in her newlsetter.
She will never win over the trust of injured workers if she is hanging with the wolves.

Posted by Nick R. at 6:21 PM, 26/9/2007

case managers

I also agree that this case manager Ferguson is talking about is just simply doing his job. It must be time for clutching at straws when case managers are praised for the simple fact of what they are employed to do. If an injured worker was to fail to participate in one component of a Rehab plan, they lose their entitlements. Please Ms ferguson, dont sell the souls of workers right, i too have to agree with the above writer.

Posted by j.carbone at 6:35 PM, 26/9/2007

Another loss for WorkCover re:Dr Shopping

A classic example of Dr Shopping from WorkCover. Zielinski v WorkCover Corporation/EML SA (DP World Adelaide Pty Ltd) [2007] SAWCT 49
Posted by Reader at 7:15 PM, 26/9/2007	Link

Zielinski v WorkCover Corporation

Zielinski v WorkCover Corporation/EML SA (DP World Adelaide Pty Ltd) [2007] SAWCT 49
WORKERS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL (SA)
ZIELINSKI, Vladimir Robert
v
WORKCOVER CORPORATION/EML SA (DP WORLD ADELAIDE PTY LTD)
JURISDICTION: Application for Directions
FILE NO/S: 6338 of 2006
HEARING DATES: 24 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF: His Honour Deputy President Judge BP Gilchrist
DELIVERED ON: 25 September 2007
CATCHWORDS:
Application for Directions – Request by compensating authority for further independent psychiatric assessment of worker – Worker refuses to submit to further assessment – Issue not raised with Tribunal promptly resulting in possible delay to commencement of trial – No compelling explanation why further assessment is warranted – Application dismissed – Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.
Mitsubishi Motors Australia v Warren (Unreported) JD88/1995
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr A Martin
Respondent: Mr M Calligeros
Employer: Ms J Kellett
Solicitors:
Applicant: Lieschke and Weatherill
Respondent: Minter Ellison
Employer: Kelly and Co
Zielinski v WorkCover Corporation/ 2 Gilchrist DPJ
EML Limited SA/(DP World Adelaide
Pty Ltd) [2007] SAWCT49
1 On 24 October 2007 a trial is scheduled to occur between Vladimir Zielinski and the WorkCover Corporation that concerns WorkCover’s rejection of Mr Zielinski's claim for compensation that he made in March 2006.
2 WorkCover now wishes to have Mr Zielinski independently medically examined by a psychiatrist who has had no prior involvement with this case.
3 An appointment has been made for 2 October 2007. Following the examination a medical report will have to be prepared and sent to the parties and that may in turn result in further enquiries being made of those medical practitioners who have previously been involved in this case.
4 Given that the examination, if it is to occur, will take place only three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing there is a reasonable possibility that it might result in the trial having to be adjourned.
5 It is against this background that I have effectively been asked to determine whether Mr Zielinski’s declared refusal to submit to the proposed examination is in all the circumstances unreasonable.
The facts
6 Mr Zielinski’s claim is based upon an earlier accepted claim in respect of an injury that he sustained to his neck in 1999.
7 The earlier claim was accepted for a closed period of about two months duration and as I understand it, the matter lay dormant until the more recent claim was lodged.
8 Whereas the original claim only alleged a physical injury the later claim included complaints of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
9 In light of the breadth of these allegations and that the delay following the initial injury WorkCover, understandably, carried out extensive investigations before determining the claim.
10 It arranged for Mr Zielinski to be interviewed and the transcript of that interview occupies some 45 pages.
11 It arranged for Mr Zielinski’s general practitioner, Dr John LePoidevin to be interviewed.
Zielinski v WorkCover Corporation/ 3 Gilchrist DPJ
EML Limited SA/(DP World Adelaide
Pty Ltd) [2007] SAWCT49
12 It had Mr Zielinski independently examined by a psychiatrist of its choosing, Dr Leslie Ding.
13 Before making its decision it also obtained a report provided by Mr Zielinski’s treating psychologist Dr Radek Stratil and copies of correspondence between his treating psychiatrist Professor Andy McFarlane and Dr LePoidevin.
14 It did not make its decision until October 2006.
15 In resolving to reject Mr Zielinski’s claim, it relied substantially on a statement that Professor McFarlane had made in a letter to Dr LePoidevin wherein he said “given his description of how the accident occurred on the water front, in my view the severity of his reaction is not with keeping with the degree of injury or threat he was exposed to at the time. The generalised nature of his anxiety would not be explained by this accident, given the lack of similarity of the triggers to his current anxiety in those circumstances.”

Posted by Reader at 7:22 PM, 26/9/2007

Depression

The comedian Spike Milligan is rumoured to have the following inscription on his tombstone, "See, I told I was sick..."
Posted by Spike at 10:35 AM, 28/9/2007	Link

Untitled Comment

WorkCover in crisis
Article from: The Advertiser
GREG KELTON, STATE EDITOR

September 28, 2007 02:15am
WORKERS' compensation liabilities have blown out by a further $149 million, increasing pressure on the Government to cut benefit payments.
The WorkCover unfunded liability for 2006-07 is now $843 million - up from $694 million in the previous financial year.
There have been mounting calls from business and even the WorkCover board over the past 12 months for cuts in workers' benefits and also in the WorkCover levy.
The Opposition said the scheme was now in freefall and action should have been taken sooner to rein in costs.
In a statement yesterday detailing the unfunded liability increase, WorkCover chief executive Julia Davison said the board had identified changes in November last year it believed were necessary to rein in the liability.
Unfunded liability is the balance between assets and liabilities, including estimates of the costs of claims over the next 40 years. Among the changes proposed were cuts to workers' entitlements, capping entitlements to medical expenses, limiting solicitors' capacity to charge injured workers and ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved.
Despite the board recommendations, Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright announced in March there would be an indepen-dent review of the scheme, which is due to report in two months.
Ms Davison said there had been no further deterioration in return to work rates but insufficient improvement to avoid the increase in the estimated claims liability.
She said the corporation had warned in its last annual report that without significant and sustained improvement in return-to-work rates, the unfunded liability could have increased by $250 million to $300 million.
Mr Wright said the liability figure was disappointing but not unexpected.
"What it shows is that in terms of long-term injuries, we are not doing well enough in getting them back to work," he said.
Mr Wright said the appointment of a new claims manager had seen improvement in the return-to-work rate of other injured workers and this was the "first step in turning the ship around".
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said $149 million was "a very significant blowout".
He said the Government could have taken action on the board's recommendations much sooner and, as a result, the scheme would now be under control, instead of being out of control.
"This review is nothing more than a contrived delaying device to ensure tough decisions will not be made until after the federal election," Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

Posted by Anonymous at 2:24 PM, 28/9/2007

Legislation or management???

As many have already said. Before the current labor goverment came into power the Liberal Government had the funding under control. If they could do it without any changes to the legislation can it really now be a problem with the legislation as the board likes to tell everyone???
Its a big blowout and it takes a lot of talent to clock up that amount of unfunded liability.

Wonder Why it is blowing out so much. If its not the legislation as many say Is it the way its being managed or the employees?

Posted by Ozzy Ostrich at 2:41 PM, 28/9/2007

UNFUNDED LIABILITY

There is no reason the current legislation has to change, i do agree it has to be adhered to, but thats about it. The unfunded liability is for future payments not for current payments and the WorkCover board has gloated they have managed it well. What they have failed is building the foundation so the future costs wouldnt be substantial, that is poor management. You should notice the current Labor government has a similar policy where they also state they have a CCC rating, but are failing to "maintain" their future obligations, in other words "having short hands in long pockets".

Posted by Me Again at 3:12 PM, 28/9/2007

Stop Gap measure

It sounds as though Workcover will be able to pull itself out of the shit if it can change the legislation so that injured workers do not get paid until their disputes are settled.
Its so easy.
When they are injured do not pay them.
Tell them to take it to court if they disagree.
Injured workers will be forced to sell their family homes because they do not have the income to pay the mortgage.
Workcover short changes them and offer them a payout or give them the option of taking the matter through the courts for the next ten years.
This would have a fantastic effect on Workcover's unfunded liability because they would be taking people to court and paying for Workcover's lawyers on the income that should have been paid to the injured workers. Better that Workcover fight the injured workers on their income which they are not getting anyway than funding it out of their own purse. The more they use up the injured workers income the better the fight. Workcover would be in a good position to take bets on the side of who will win the fight if injured workers do not get paid until their disputes are settled.
What will be the end result. Either lots of injured workers will get a raw deal and not pursue their rights to compensation because it would be easier to go on social security benefits, or on the other hand Workcover would increase its blowout tenfold over a few years.
With the current team..the latter looks most likely..but the unfortunate reality is that many more Workers and their families will suffer and injured workers will have to sell their Family Homes because they can not afford the mortgage and the food bill because they are not receiving their proper entitlements.

Posted by Bruce Davis at 5:04 PM, 28/9/2007

Vulnerability of injured workers

Currently the act preserves the rights of the injured worker to ensure Maintenance is paid if there is a dispute. I note a proposal of the board recommending "ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears or interest paid to the worker where the dispute was resolved in favour of the worker." I am interested to know how injured workers and their families are supposed to put food on the table if they are not receiving any income maintenance until their disputes are resolved? How would you guarantee that Workcover would not engage injured workers in extensive litigation simply to cut off their income and to put them and their families in a vulnerable financial position?
How many injured workers have had to sell their family homes to defend themselves in litigation against Workcover to date?

Posted by Jeff Thompson at 8:52 PM, 28/9/2007

Forum on today..

9.30am for 10am start ‘til 1pm Enfield Community Centre 540 Regency Road Enfield SA 5085 (Bus Stop 18 on the 100 Circle line Bus)
Posted by Rose at 8:58 AM, 29/9/2007	Link

Forum

Dont be fooled, the new legistalation has already been drawn up and waiting for the new review to be completed which will have no bearing. It has been stated it has to be running by July 1st next year, firstly it would take some months to develop such a complex and then put to the upper house to be cleared. So how do i know, a legal person who helped develop it told me.
Posted by Me again at 4:53 PM, 29/9/2007	Link

New legislation

Why would they bring in a system where workers would have to wait until their claim is cleared before any entitlement is paid. Can you imagine the extra Depression and stress this will cause.
And another thing, How many claims are lost throught the Tribunal? not much......
This is just another knee jerk reaction and like all the other knee jerk reactions in the past, i wonder who will take responsibility?

Posted by On the Dole at 4:57 PM, 29/9/2007

Workcover forum

I went to the forum today and must say it was a very interesting day. Mr Purse and Mitch Williams and Mr Xenophon. Its great that these politicians devoted their time to the forum. Its important that they are aware of the real issues and of course they heard them straight from the injured workers themselves today. Rosemary Fergusson must also be congratulated on her work in organising the forum. It was also interesting to hear from the guest speaker Mr Moore about redemptions and how the system should work but does not because there are too many jealous public servants.
What too of the high staff turnover at EML, why is that? Surely its a good job in the centre of the city with good office and nice people to work with...although if the old wood which was left over from Workcover and the previous claims managers moved on to EML when the changeover took place then its likely there has been no change and the problems are still there. What also of the rumour that EML have not changed the balance sheet at all like it was predicted. Seems instead of saving 100 million as expected in the first year the liability has just continued to grow..Billion dollars just around the corner..

I was wondering what the issue was about where that lady got up and stated about the young child who from the time he was 4 years old until he was 12 years old was being used as an informant by Workcover while they were investigating his father.
Was it the case that the child was giving information to his mother who was then passing the information on to Workcover or did Workcover get the information form the child himself?
What was that about Workcover collecting and using documents from Family Court Proceedings in the investigation of his Workcover claim. Surely there are laws in place to prevent that happening or is it the case that Workcover are above the law??
What business does a workcover corporation empowered to manage Workers Compensation injuries have in collecting documents that relate to the custodial proceedings of an infant child and documents that were provided to the Family Court for those proceedings..
As she said What checks and balances are in place to ensure the rights of children in these situations and to ensure Workcover and their investigators do the right thing.
Surely something can be done when such a young child's rights and privacy are violated and his innocence exploited and manipulated by a State Government corporation.
This was just one issue that was raised but there were plenty more.
Like Workcover wanting to change the legislation to stop workers payments until their disputes are settled.
Yet it seems there are a number of cases where Workcover simply stopped injured workers wages anyway without regard to the Act.
The risk of suicides of Workcover claimants, and the high number of suicides by Workcover claimants.
Great to see Mr Clayton also who took the time to attend, I am sure his recommendations will be helpful in the future when the new legislation is considered.
Lets hope that some funding becomes available for the continuation of the forums into the future.

Posted by D. Martin at 5:55 PM, 29/9/2007

Forum

I also attended the forum, unforunately i asked only one question. Now that the speakers have spoken, maybe another day could be set aside for workers to ask common questions about WorkCover and not just their personal experience, i know it is easy to as questions that relate to your own.
Maybe we can ask questions here on this site and have speakers answer them thouroughly in a controlled environment, for example, not being under pressure and sought the correct information.
I know someone asked the question about the new act already written up, but this was denied but i was also told by my case manager that the new legislation has been written up, hense i should take a redemption as soon as possible, as i would not be entitled to anything when the new legislation kicks in on the 1st July 2008.

Posted by r.carbone at 8:58 AM, 30/9/2007

Forum

There was a Lady who asked the question about "Sick Building Syndrome" as Riverside bulidings airconditioning system has to be monitered due it it private owner, but government buildings do not get checked. I have a respitory problem and am wondering if the lady has the same problem as I. If so, can she please contact Rosemary so maybe we can offer each other some help.
Posted by David.R at 9:17 AM, 30/9/2007	Link

New legislation

If if the new Legislation comes into effect where injured workers are not paid until their claims are approved.
Example: Joe the boilermaker injures his back at work, EML does not accept his claim as they state it could have happened while Joe was at home. So what Joe does is continue to go to work injured, puttting his injury and his co workers at risk whilst his claim goes through the appeal process. Can he then get the sack? In goes another claim for unfair dismissal.
Lets bring on the new Legislation, the Employers and Safe Work SA would not be impressed.

Posted by Crazy at 9:53 AM, 30/9/2007

Where is the monkey.

I went to the forum and noted that Workcover simply presented a few young spokespersons to answer questions. Its obvious they were simply employed in the correspondence section of Workcover. But where was the real man behind the scenes Minister Wright or Mr Carter or one of their appointed chiefs to take and answer real questions.
Missing in action again.
This is something that everyone has learnt to expect with this government that when things are going wrong noone will be there to answer to any questions about the problem.
Surelyif Minister Wright had some concerns about how Workcover was performing he would want to hear it first hand..no..obviously he does not care enough about it..
My congratulations go to Mitch Williams of the liberal party and Nick Xenophon No poklies MP of the Legislative Council and Kevin Purse and those others who donated their time to hear and take notice of the real problems in the system.
I know who I will be supporting in the future..

Posted by Missing in Action at 10:21 AM, 30/9/2007

Forum Speakers

I was also at the forum and must say it was great to finally hear Phil speak and see the passion he has for our plight. I and many others share his pain and assure him he is not alone in facing the darkest moments of his life thanks to WorkCover and EML.

His understanding of the Legislation and the Business that is WorkCover makes me wonder why he isn't on the board. He made several excellent points and backed it up with the evidence that is hard to doubt. I assume that is why despite his invitation to answer any questions posed by WorkCover on his figures was not challenged.

I also saw the young (false) blonde from WorkCover smirking and shaking her head in an attempt to put him off. I say to her that she was very very lucky because I was close to wiping that smirk off her face with my walking stick. It is that contempt and ignorance that Phil spoke about and if, as he said, she is responsible for the Complaints Resolution Unit that he so effectively caught out conducting one sided investigations, she should be hanging her head in shame and not smirking.

I hope Mr Clayton saw their performance for what it was and has the courage to tell WorkCover what they are doing to those they should be supporting.

Posted by Reader at 10:51 AM, 30/9/2007

Where were the case managers

I did not see any case managers at the forum. I would like my case manager to turn up one day. I could then ask him in public why records have disappeared from my file when he has been in charge of it. I wonder sometimes if the case managers get a bonus for every claimant they have on file?

I say that because I read the independent weekly this week and on the front page is an article about "private prisons coming to south australia"
Peter Christopher however the Public Service association chief industrial officer stated that " we've seen in the United States that private prisons operators have a vested interest in keeping as many people as possible behind bars. They lobby for tougher sentences. There's no interest in rehabilitation".
The editor of Prison privatisation report international , Stephen Mathan, famously explained it this way: Its capitalism 101. You've got to expand your markets. You've got to fill your beds"
Many who can see through the clouded mist can surely understand that Workcover have no interest in rehabilitation, or getting injured workers back to work or redeeming them. The more injured workers on the scheme, the more business they have.
Pity the government of the day do not see it this way. They are too full of their own self importance and putting themselves up on pedestals often with an element of a cost at the expense of injured workers. But also employers when one looks at the cost of the scheme overall.

Posted by Maureen at 11:30 AM, 30/9/2007

Maureen

I have received my FOI 107B, but unfortunately it had other injured workers case notes but not yours, sorry i couldnt help you.
Posted by Crazy at 11:42 AM, 30/9/2007	Link

Workcover. Feathering its own nest

In systems such as Workcover where there are elements of behavioral bias against injured workers, overconfidence and indulgence in profit making by management has been established as a prevalent psychological bias infecting claims managers and management alike. This makes the system increasingly less efficient by creating more business in the form of excess overservicing and inbuilt strategies to underservice and underperform to increase returns and productivity with exceptional predictability. In doing this the formation of contracts for fixed periods has allowed many models to be developed and ultimately big corporations are sold a package which performs well in one set of circumstances which then gives other buyers an incentive to enter into contracts to develop similar models. This incentive of other models interferes with reasonable judgement and corporate greed can often be an everpresent reason in which systems can be sold to less informed government with a predictable outcome in which overconfidence causes investors to overinvest in a scheme which can only be set to fail in different circumstances. This sort of information acquisition of other projects when this past experience information could have been used instead to improve market efficiency by driving more efficient systems based on redemptions and better claims management would have resulted in a system which produced far better results with a system designed closer to the true values in the local setting in which it is implemented.
There is also the problem that the real impact of overconfidence on misinformation in the Workcover system is undoubtedly having a significant impact on the unfunded liability and on the number of injured workers who will never return to work because of the requirement for a system like Workcover to increase its injured workers holdings and numbers to become more efficient and to increase its profits.
In all it can be described in one line..
Workcover wants to have more injured workers so it can grow as a corporation and make more money. Thats why it has let its unfunded liability get out of hand..Once the contracts finished. Money in hand . jobs finished.. Often the task of cleaning up is left to some other charity organisation.

Posted by Prof at 11:49 AM, 30/9/2007

Where is the money invested

I wonder if the board and all of the associated persons with their fingers in the pot have to disclose where all of their money is invested or what financial interests they have.
Surely questions have to be asked when workcover has so much money invested. Are Workcover investing their money overseas in mining operations such as in South America?
Or do they have stakeholdings in the legal companies spending the millions each year when redemptions woudl have surely been a much cheaper alternative.
One must ask these questions as everyone knows there is a lot of money being invested and people should not be left wondering where it is being invested.

Posted by Wiondering at 12:29 PM, 30/9/2007

Legislation and interpretation

Many may think that Section 42 and 42 B of the Workers Compensation Act can be read as having a discretion on the behalf of Workcover as to whether they should redeem or not. There lies a challenge to the legislation which is quite evident.
The act says "may" redeem. It is generally accepted that where "may" is used in legislation it is as a general rule to be interpreted as meaning "shall".
The discretion to decide on the use of the word "may" does not nescessarily rest with the corporation. It is a challenge that is wide open to claimants and legal challenge for anyone wishing to get a redemption.
Good Luck. Although the current government will likely just change the legislation to suit themselves, but many could get in before the changes take place by applying for a conciliation conference and forcing the issue through the tribunal.

Posted by Reform Workcover at 3:27 PM, 30/9/2007

Dodgy contracts?

ACT auditor-general asked to investigate Workcover
Posted Wed Jun 9, 2004 8:18am AEST
The ACT Opposition has requested the auditor-general investigate Workcover over a series of allegedly undisclosed contracts.
Payments of more than $1.5 million have been issued from the Workers Compensation Fund for legal advice from a major local law firm.
Occupational Health and Safety commissioner Erich Janssen told a budget estimates hearing last week details of the arrangement were on the Government website.
But Opposition leader Brendan Smyth says no records of the contract have been found.
"I've written to the auditor-general to see if this agrees with standard practice - the Government's own procurement practice to see whether or not the Government's in breach of their procurement guidelines or indeed the Financial Management Act," he said.
"Because $1.5 million isn't an amount of money to be scoffed at and the fact that it's happened over two years and we were unable to get clear answers indicates that something's wrong."

In south Australia s the auditor general does not have any power over workcover

Posted by Reader at 3:34 PM, 30/9/2007

Board member

Could it be that a certain WorkCover Board member has an interest other than business with a local labor minister. What hope of fairness have we got now,,,,,
Posted by Leon DePoi at 4:56 PM, 30/9/2007	Link

Blah, Blah, Blah

WorkCover releases annual results
RELEASE DATE 27/09/2007

WorkCover’s unfunded liability increased to $843 million (compared with $694 million in the previous corresponding period), after a loss of $149 million for 2006-07. The Scheme is 64.7 per cent funded, compared with 65.0 per cent at 30 June 2006.

“The result we are seeing now was identified in WorkCover’s 2005-06 annual report. At the time, we indicated that without significant and sustained improvement in the State’s return to work rates, there was the strong possibility of a $250m to $300m increase in the estimate of the claims liability,” said WorkCover CEO, Julia Davison.

“During Employers Mutual’s first year of managing claims for WorkCover SA, there has been no further deterioration in return to work rates. However, there has been insufficient improvement in the return to work rate for long-term claims in the first year to avoid the previously-identified, possible increase in the estimate of the claims liability.”

The WorkCover Board, in November 2006, presented to the South Australian Government, a range of proposed legislative changes that it believes are necessary to create the type of return to work incentives that have proven effective in other, more successful jurisdictions. The Board considers its proposals would be optimal in improving return to work outcomes, while balancing the interests of injured workers and the employers who fund the Scheme. The Board’s proposals remain the subject of an independent review of the Scheme, announced by the Government in March 2007. The review is expected to be completed in November 2007.

Ms Davison reaffirmed her belief in the ability of Employers Mutual, the Scheme’s claims agent, to make improvements in return to work rates. “But it is becoming increasingly clear that as well as effective case management, there needs to be improved legislative tools within the Scheme in order to achieve significant improvement in return to work rates of the scale required in South Australia.”

In August 2007, the Government confirmed its confidence in the Board, with its reappointment1 for the maximum term of three-years.

Media contact:
Danielle Martin, WorkCover SA – (08) 8233 2381 or 0418 295 324

1 Mr David Klingberg retired from the Board in August 2007 and has been replaced by Mr Tom Phillips.

Posted by Me Again at 7:49 PM, 30/9/2007

Bankrupt

When you have a chairman of the WorkCover board who specialises in insolvencies, the natural knee jerk reaction would be to disolve the company (by removing the unfunded liability) and start again. I wonder if they treat their marriages the same way?
Posted by Me again at 7:55 PM, 30/9/2007	Link

Insolvency

Insolvency is a financial condition experienced by a person or business entity when their assets no longer exceed their liabilities, commonly referred to as 'balance-sheet' insolvency, or when the person or entity can no longer meet its debt obligations when they come due, commonly referred to as 'cash-flow' insolvency.
Posted by Me again at 8:00 PM, 30/9/2007	Link

Chairman of the board (enough said)

Biography

Bruce was one of the founding Partners of the Adelaide practice in 1992 and is the Managing Partner.

Bruce has spent over 25 years in corporate recovery and insolvency. He has worked across a broad range of industries in both overseas and the Australian jurisdiction.

Bruce has conducted work for all of the major financial institutions within Australia and has been involved in a number of Government appointed restructurings and reviews.

Bruce has had a number of high profile appointments, including Harris Scarfe, Balfours (twice), National Wine Centre and the Basketball Association of South Australia.

Bruce was recently Chairman of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia, an Official Liquidator and is a director of a number of Government and private entities.

Posted by Me again at 8:03 PM, 30/9/2007

Who appointed who?

In August 2007, the Government confirmed its confidence in the Board, with its reappointment for the maximum term of three-years. When do the public get a say in re-appointing the government. Surely the decision would have been based on exceptional past performance..LOL... Yet to see any logic in the way the current government thinks..
Posted by P. Davis at 8:59 PM, 30/9/2007	Link

New legislation

If and when the new legislation will come into effect, i hope the decision makers take into consideration what effect it could cause if entitlements are cut and a string of suicides that would occur.
Posted by LucG at 8:28 AM, 1/10/2007	Link

Employee Ombudsman

I have contacted the Employee Ombudsman with my issues with WorkCover, unfortunately i was told it was not in their jurisdiction. Upon some research in the anti-discrimination web site concerning Employees, here is some information that is of some interest.
1981 Handicapped Persons Equal Opportunity Act
Prohibited physical impairment discrimination in employment, education, providing goods and services, accommodation, clubs and associations, and granting qualifications
Made it unlawful to victimise a person who complained about discrimination
Prohibited discriminatory advertisements - Fine $1,000
Allowed discriminatory rates of pay
Allowed the Equal Opportunity Commissioner to investigate and conciliate complaints
Established the Handicapped Persons Discrimination Tribunal which could award compensation, order the discrimination to stop or make other loss or damages orders.
People on WorkCover should be under this umbrella dont you think?

Posted by DavidR at 2:31 PM, 1/10/2007

Discriminated against but no course of action

the fact that someone is handicapped and not able to handle their workcover claim or because someone is handicapped and is no longer employed by their employer is something that nobody will ever touch. Those in charge of the discrimination act will simply say..we do not have any benchmarks for injured workers so we can not do anything about it.
If it was a person with a natural handicap or a handicap that occurred outside of work and they were discriminated against by their employer or an agency it woudl be a different story.
Fact is they would not bother prosecuting for a $1000

Posted by Discrimination at 3:01 PM, 1/10/2007

letter to the advertiser

Dear Sir,
re :WorkCover 'inaction led to blowout': Adelaide Advertiser 1st Oct '07.
The Public Forum in regard to WorkCover that was held on the 29th Sept '07 heard from a range of speakers, each one indicated that there is nothing at all wrong with the current legislation, the blame for the mess that WorkCover Corporation and WorkCover system is in is solely the fault of 12 people who have "played their own game" at the expense of not just injured workers, but every employer in South Australia. Those 12 people are Minister Wright Industrial Relations Minister, Treasurer Foley, WorkCover is a Public Corporation, thus it falls in the portfolio of the Treasurer Foley, WorkCover Board lead ineptly by Chairman Mr. Bruce Carter and finally CEO Ms Julia Davison who appears to be little more than a figure head CEO.

Minister Wright keeps saying that he has every faith in the new WorkCover Board, this is hardly a new Board, it has been in place since '03, and also "in camera" since '03.
Minister Wright tells us that he has faith in the new claims management, yet has a high rate of case manager turn over, that in any given week it is possible for an injured worker to have a multiple of case managers.
Also the same gross mishandling of injured workers claims continues -loss of receipts, doctor shopping and non payment or incorrect payment of the injured workers income.
Minister Wright has faith in the WorkCover Board that gifted away the Employee Advocate Unit to SA Unions and Business SA, that is after a senior WorkCover manager told a Public Forum that no such thing was ever going to happen.
Minister Wright also allowed the WorkCover Board to gift away the RISE system, this was where long-term injured workers could go to find a new job after they had been terminated from their pre-injury job.
Minister Wright trusts the WorkCover Board and EML so much that he has allowed the gifting away of sec 58 B & C from WorkCover to EML.
And now Minister Wright has in place yet another Review into the WorkCover Scheme "The most important Review in 20 years" is what Minister Wright said.
In '02 Minister Wright had a Review named the Stanley Report, when he announced that he said "this is the most important Review that has ever been done." The Stanley Report now gathers dust.

In '02 WorkCover Corporation had an unfunded liability of just under $70million, for a Corporation the size of WorkCover, that was a very small debt.
Now in '07 with Minister Wright at the front end of this disaster WorkCover Corporation has an unfunded liability of close to a BILLION DOLLARS.

I sat with injured workers on Saturday, I heard their pain and felt their anger, it was clear for all to see just how totally frustrated they all were because they are being blamed for something that they have no control over.
It was also clear to see that Minister Wright was not in attendance, nor was there any representative from his Office in attendance.
WorkCover Corporation sent 3 staff members who did nothing what so ever to remove the anger or the fears of the injured workers, if anything they just added another layer of pain to the very people who's lives they control.

I have the utmost respect for both men who are conducting the current Review, no doubt when it is handed down it will have a solid blue print for Minister Wright to work with.
But then so did the Stanley Report.

What we need now is not another Review, we need a full Parliamentary investigation.
We need the doors not just opened to the Board Room, we need the removed so as there is no where for these people to hide.

We need Premier Rann to ask Minister Wright and Treasurer Foley to stand aside whilst the investigation is held.

Mostly though we as injured workers need to understanding and the support of every South Australian, we did not create this mess, all we did was go to work one day and did not return home as a whole person.

Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson
Founder
Work Injured Resource Connection

Posted by Riose at 3:02 PM, 1/10/2007

Blame game

As injured workers we have been warning that the system is mis-managed without success. Now that the blame game has started, isnt it ironic that the one who wants to change the rules is the team that is losing!
Posted by Crazy at 8:51 AM, 2/10/2007	Link

Stateline

Transcript
WorkCover Not Working
Broadcast: 28/09/2007
Reporter: Angelique Johnson
IAN HENSCHKE: WorkCover's unfunded liability has now blown out to $843 million. Politically it's the focus is on the figures, but Stateline has gone behind the money to see what the bosses and the workers make of the scheme.
Their arguments differ over the causes, but they are unanimous on one thing - WorkCover is not working.
Angelique Johnson reports.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: There are more than 36,000 South Australians on WorkCover.
DEREK THOMAS: All I see is the pointy end which is the worker ringing me up distraught because they believe they're get a rough deal either from their employer, the rehabilitation provider, the claims agent.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: 65,000 employers are tied up with the scheme.
DAVID FRITH: At the moment we are the worst performing workers compensation system in Australia.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: On both sides many are fed up.
57-year-old Donna Cunningham is one of them. She injured her back and shoulder while washing a resident at the Hillside Lodge aged care home in the Adelaide Hills. That was in 2003. She has been on WorkCover since.
To make matters worse, overcompensating for a weaker right shoulder caused her to injury her left one.
DONNA CUNNINGHAM: I have had to sell my home that I bought three years ago and renovated, because I now can't get out of the driveway. I can't vacuum carpets. I put French doors in my home so I can't clean windows any more.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: That might not sound like the end of the world, but Donna Cunningham wishes she could do simple cleaning chores and return to work.
Her injuries mean she will never be able to work as a carer again, but she says she is willing to do anything - make cups of tea, even talk to elderly residents.
Her doctor has approved those type of light duties, though her employer, Masonic Homes, has told her it has no suitable work.
Stateline spoke to Masonic Homes. Its CEO said it regrets the situation but was within its legal rights.
DONNA CUNNINGHAM: I thought I would always have a position, and I was led to believe I had a position with Masonic, but that has not happened. So that's deeply upset me. I can't sleep. I am on antidepressants again, and I have lost seven kilos in weight, and I just can't get over the fact that I am basically not wanted any more.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: In WorkCover's own language its vision is best possible recovery, faster return to work.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union argues the reality is far from that. It says the Cunningham case is typical - because after four years and thousands of dollars of rehabilitation, she is not back at work.
Derek Thomas is an organiser with the AMWU, and says many workers have ended up with further psychological injuries because of their experiences on WorkCover.
DEREK THOMAS: The claims agent's doing one thing, or thinking one thing, and the rehabilitation providers are doing another, the employee doesn't know who to contact, the worker is then on a treadmill, or a merry-go-round, trying to find out what their rights are, who they can speak to about individual issues.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: The union says one of WorkCover's fundamental flaws is too few businesses are in it.
About 40 per cent of companies in South Australia are self-insured, including the State Government. They fund WorkCover claims themselves, and don't pay WorkCover levies.
The union says the key is to cut the number of employers outside of WorkCover.
DEREK THOMAS: Well basically they are a law unto themselves. I deal with exempt employees all the time, and they send out a letter to a worker saying we are allowed to do this under the WorkCover system, they don't provide the clause or the section of the WorkCover Act that allows them to do that.
DAVID FRITH: The world "exempt" is frequently used. They are not exempt from anything. In fact the self insurers meet higher standards if possible than indeed what are known as the registered employers.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: David Frith from Business SA says business isn't to blame for WorkCover's woes. It is the worst performing scheme in the nation. it has the highest rate of workers receiving weekly payments, the highest average cost per compensation claim, the highest ratio of injured workers who do not return to work in the first six months of their claim, and the highest WorkCover levy cost for business.
Business SA has outlined its concerns and other criticisms in its submission to the WorkCover review.
The lobby group and even WorkCover's own board are calling for changes, including capping and cutting some worker benefits. The review was commissioned by the State Government in March. It is expected to be completed by the end of November.
JULIA DAVISON: The absolutely critical thing for us to do in this scheme is to turn return to work rates around. We are confident that we can do that with the combination of the management efforts we've put in place, with Employers Mutual and with legislative reform.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: WorkCover's unfunded liability has escalated, up from $56 million at the end of the 2001 financial year to $843 million last financial year.
Independent MP Nick Xenophon is worried that the State Government will punish workers for what he says has been mismanagement of the system.
He says two years ago the Auditor-General rang alarm bells about WorkCover.
NICK XENOPHON: The fact that there was a lack of financial oversight, that the Auditor-General couldn't look at WorkCover's books, and he drew some parallels with the financial oversight that applied years ago in relation to the State Bank leading up the State Bank disaster.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: It is also argued that another recent change is contributing to WorkCover's woes.
Last July it was announced that the insurer Employers Mutual Limited, or EML, would take over as the sole manager of all worker claims. Stateline has been told the change hasn't been a success because there is now a lack of competition.
It is claimed EML doesn't properly understand the State's WorkCover legislation because it is from interstate, and that it is struggling to handle the workload by itself.
EML declined to comment.
JULIA DAVISON: We have absolute confidence in Employers Mutual. We undertook an extensive process in selecting them. They are by far the best performer in New South Wales. What we have seen in terms of what they have done to date, we have been very pleased with.
ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: For Donna Cunningham, who is at the pointy end of workers compensation, the debate over WorkCover's woes is clear cut.
She believes there is too much politics, too much talk and not enough action for injured employees.
DONNA CUNNINGHAM: To me it is all black and white. If a person is injured they get help, they get support.
DAVID FRITH: We are extremely disappointed that the Government has hidden behind a review - a review which is due in mid-November - and we can only assume it is of political timing because it will be after the federal election.
We have wasted a year in which reform should have taken place.
COLDPLAY SONG: And I will try to fix you ...
IAN HENSCHKE: The Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright declined to comment.

Edited by workedover1 on 2/10/2007 at 7:16 PM

Posted by Reader at 1:28 PM, 2/10/2007

Workcover mentioned in the family court portal..

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=592&start=0&kfs26=0#post_2017
Posted by Read Me at 3:52 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

Where is the anti-corruption board Mr Rann?

We need an anti-corruption board as soon as possible. Reading the above comment and the relative link gives cause that there is something drastictly wrong with our society.
Reading the transcript of stateline was interesting as how could there be 36,000 claims. I had a quick look at WorkCovers annual report and it does not correspond. Are these figures inflated to create a false impression or they are correct and Business SA has a major problem on their hands with employer negligance.

Posted by WayneM at 4:15 PM, 2/10/2007

Stateline

Sorry, i thought there was 36,000 claims but i misread. here is what it stated. ANGELIQUE JOHNSON: There are more than 36,000 South Australians on WorkCover. WOW, thats a lot of people on WorkCover, can you imagine 36,000 people protesting against any new legislation. Bring it on
Posted by WayneM at 4:19 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

36000 Workcover claims..

One must wonder why no attempt has been made to clean and purge the system of its long term claimants. Surely it would be cheaper in the long run..Who knows they may even find more previous or current employees rorting the system. Its been known to have happened before.
Posted by D. Davis at 4:31 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

What a disgrace

I read this article also..there seems to be something really seriously wrong with the system when this sort of problem occurs . What a system to be using a young children involved in custodial proceedings like a pawn. I hope Workcover and the Minister Wright address this problem and I also hope the Family Court also do something about it..

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=592&start=0&kfs26=0#post_2017

Posted by D. Davis at 4:40 PM, 2/10/2007

36,000 claims

Employees, as in WorkCover employees?
Posted by WayneM at 4:43 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

36,000 claims

Workcover v Musolino He was a former employee and set up a few mates to all get workcover benefits. Seems he knew how to rort the system. Probably learnt how at one of those training sessions. No doubt all employees would have to do them as part of their employment at Workcover. Who really keeps track of who the injured workers are on the system. Do they take photoid of them all?
Posted by Anonymous at 5:47 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

show me the money

This is quite interesting as i received my 107B file some two years ago which included the printout of all payments paid related to my claim. On it was fees paid to a Chiropractor, but the funny thing is that i actually have a respritory disease, i have never seen a chirpractor for WorkCover nor for myself. When i questiooned these payments, i was told it was inhouse charge?????????
Posted by Me again at 7:00 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

Contact the ABC

Here is a page you can send comments to the ABC. If enough people put in a complaint, they might publish the correct facts. http://abci.com.au/tv/contact/abctv_form.htm
Posted by Julia at 7:05 PM, 2/10/2007	Link

Family Court issues and Workcover

Many injured Workers unfortunately end up with family, custody and child issues. Often ending up not only litgating in the Workers Compensation tribunal against Workcover but also in the Family Court.
A link has been added on the home page of this site which directs you to a self help forum. I hope that nobody needs this resource but it is essential for those who find themselves in a relationship breakdown.
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/

Posted by Gary at 9:31 AM, 3/10/2007

36,000

I still can not believe there are 36,000 workers on WorkCover......
Posted by WayneM at 11:33 AM, 3/10/2007	Link

ABC

Thank you for your email to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The reference number for your email is xxxxxx. Your email will be considered by ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs. If your complaint is about a matter of personal taste or preference, Audience & Consumer Affairs will ask the manager responsible for the program to provide you with a response. If your complaint raises a serious editorial issue - such as factual inaccuracy, lack of balance, or inappropriate content - your complaint will be investigated by Audience & Consumer Affairs. Audience & Consumer Affairs is a separate unit within the ABC which is independent of program areas. Audience & Consumer Affairs assesses complaints against the requirements set out in the ABC's Charter, Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. The ABC endeavours to respond to all complaints within 28 days of receipt. However, please be aware that due to the large volume of correspondence we receive, and the complex nature of some enquiries, responses may at times take longer than four weeks. Thank you for giving the ABC the opportunity to respond to your concerns. A fact sheet about the ABC's complaint handing procedures can be viewed as a PDF on this webpage : http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/audience_complaint.pdf. Yours sincerely, ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

Posted by Julia at 5:00 PM, 3/10/2007

Return to Work

Regulation 9 0f 1996
Standards & requirements - Rehabilitation and return to work plans.
(c) it must have as its objectives-
(i) the return of the worker at the earliest practicable time to suitable employment at a level of remuneration which, as near as practicable, is not less than the worker's pre-injury remuneration;
(ii) other specific objectives (not inconsistent with the objective referred to above) appropriate to the circumstances of the worker specified for that purpose in the plan, but at least including one of the following:
(A) the worker's return to the pre-injury employment with the pre-injury employer;
(B) the worker's return to different employment by the pre-injury employer;
(C) the worker's return to the pre-injury employment but with a different employer;
(D) the worker's return to different employment with a different employer;

Does this mean the job goals stipulated should pay the same amout of money as the pre injury wage?

Posted by Crazy at 8:06 PM, 3/10/2007

Unachievable goals in rehab..

This is the operative part of the act.
is not less than the worker's pre-injury remuneration;

As all injured workers know its unachievable in most cases. What is as close as possible to pre injury wages?
80%, 50% or is 30% good enough?

Rehabilitation is a waste of time and don't workcover already know it. But its a good money spinner. Just ask the rehab consultants.
Its easier for workcover to simply keep paying injured workers until it finds a way to force them off the system.
Many ways it can do this. By threat of prosecution, by cessation of weekly income maintenance, by threat of changing the legislation or tactical litigation over an extended period of time or by simply legislating to take away injured workers rights and paying them peanuts.

Posted by I. Bradley at 11:00 PM, 3/10/2007

Regulations

Thanks for that, now I know why my job goals stipulated only have pay rates that are only 1/3 of my pre injury wage.... Somwhere for them to fill in the empty spaces in these plans, and they deny there is mis management.....
Posted by Crazy at 7:52 AM, 4/10/2007	Link

Regulations vs case management manual

I have just had a look at the case management manual on Rehabilitation and Return to Work plans.
It has failed to include this part of the regulation,

(i) the return of the worker at the earliest practicable time to suitable employment at a level of remuneration which, as near as practicable, is not less than the worker's pre-injury remuneration;

Mr Potter, just in case you overlooked this section, (mis-management) There it is.

Posted by Crazy at 7:59 AM, 4/10/2007

Regulations

If you can not find this person employment at the remunation rate, wouldnt it be better for all parties just to offer a fair redemption???? Or you want to play mind games and allow the system to suffer with a blowout
Posted by r.carbone at 11:16 AM, 4/10/2007	Link

Accountant

Will this accountant show the reviewers the findings?
Posted by r.carbone at 4:21 PM, 4/10/2007	Link

stop the rot

Whats the diffrence between the gang of 49 and the gang of 9 (WorkCover Board)? Everyone is appealing for the gang of 49 to stop hurting people.
Posted by Crazy at 5:11 PM, 4/10/2007	Link

Easy Come..... easy Go.

Money just continually pours into Workcover through the levies charged. Why bother to stem the flow out of the coffers when it pours in so readily?
Plenty to go round for the Rehabilitation providers, the lawyers the employees and the board and even a little left over for the injured workers. Tough luck for the injured workers because Workcover litigates them and what they do get is then subject to the grab from the lawyers.
The longer they stay on the system the more the providers earn as more numbers mean more profit.
With so many their fingers dipping in the pie no wonder nobody is doing anything about the mess they call workcover.
Pay out the injured workers, cut the number of claims managers and employees by half, and I am sure there would also be plenty of room to cut the legal fees by half again.

Posted by No Accountability at 10:01 PM, 4/10/2007

Just another tax

Maybe you are right, its just another tax paid by the Employer levy, add the investment portfolio, pay the maintenance to rehab and lawyers to keep the system going but fail to pay the outgoings (injured workers) in which the system is there for and there you have it.
Question.
1. Has the new board (3 years old) improved the unfunded liability?
2. Has EML improved the system as it has now nearing two years like it had been promised?
3. Has the sole legal company also improved the system?
Finally, is the unfunded liability just a number the Government and WorkCover Board use as scare tactics?

Just an example. An invester can have commercial properties worth $100 million, there is a loan of $80 million.Part of this income of this investment property is servicing the mortgage, the rest is invested somewhere else. Although this investor has $100 million worth of investments, he cries poor because he owes $80 million.
Maybe the Federal Tax can look at the Workcover Books?

Posted by Just wondering at 8:58 AM, 5/10/2007

Show me the money

Business SA who has a member on the WorkCover Board has also stated they want the legislation to change since the magnitude of the unfunded liability and the high levy rate.
If there is a surplace of monies, therefore isnt Business SA knowingly allowing the employer levy to be so unessesarily high?
Bring in the new legislation and with it common law so every injured worker would be allowed to sue their employers.

Posted by Crazy at 9:13 AM, 5/10/2007

Victoria

I found this site in relation to common law in Victorian WorkCover

Common law claims
A worker who is injured in circumstances involving the negligence of an employer, fellow employees, or the occupier of premises where the worker is working, may have a claim at common law for damages.

To establish negligence, a worker needs to show that:

The employer owed a duty of care to the worker.
The employer breached that duty.
The worker suffered injury as a direct result of the breach.
Examples of negligence claims would include

Failing to provide safe equipment.
Failing to provide safe premises or access to premises.
Failing to provide competent fellow workers or adequate training.
Failing to provide a safe system of work.
In negligence claims, the court looks at:

What is reasonable in the circumstances and
Whether the employer has taken all reasonable precautions to eliminate the risk of injury.
Negligence can also be claimed where an employer has breached a statutory duty imposing a standard of care under specific legislation.

Breaches of statutory duties can lead to employers being prosecuted under the legislation and exposed to liability for negligence at common law.
Generally, once a common law claim is finalised, a worker is not entitled to further weekly WorkCover payments for the injury.
Medical expenses may continue to be paid depending on the settlement reached in relation to the common law claim.
Legal advice should be sought as the right to pursue a common law claim is not automatic There are legislative restrictions affecting common law claims for work related injuries, depending on when the injury occurred.

Posted by Crazy at 10:15 AM, 5/10/2007

Above comment

Here is an interesting section of the above comment and i wonder if the rehabilitation consultants (job seekers) adhere to these requirements when placing injured workers in job placements? Failing to provide competent fellow workers or adequate training
Posted by De Poi at 12:11 PM, 5/10/2007	Link

Is it right?

I don't like retrospective legislation. The concept that you can change the rules that people have been operating under and suddenly make what was yesterday a perfectly legal activity, illegal not only today but yesterday as well is disturbing to say the least. It goes against the whole concept of a fair justice system by ensuring that people cannot have the certainty that the legal thing they are doing today is not going to land them in front of a judge in the future.

Posted by Anonymous at 7:17 PM, 5/10/2007

Law

18. The Rule Of Law
18.6 Retrospective Legislation
Laws should apply prospectively and not retrospectively A person should never be made to suffer in law (criminal or civil) for an act which was not unlawful when he committed it. Retrospective legislation destroys the certainty of law, is arbitrary and is vindictive, (being invariably directed against identifiable persons or groups). Such laws undermine many characteristics of the rule of law.

Posted by Anonymous at 7:27 PM, 5/10/2007

Law

The essential idea of a legal system is that current law should govern current activities. ... Retrospective legislation "is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the existing law".

That statement points to one way in which retrospective law is unfair; that is, that it disappoints the expectations of those who assumed that the quality of their past acts would be assessed on the basis of the law as it then stood. There have been all sorts of analyses of it. Tim O'Dwyer, in Queensland Lawyers Weekly, described it thus:

The New South Wales Bar Association describes retrospective legislation as almost always unfair per se. The ACT Law Society says that in general it is opposed to retrospective legislation.

Posted by Anonymous at 7:30 PM, 5/10/2007

Help our Victorian friends

Sign the petition to prevent the government taking away our WorkCover entitlements. http://vicworkcover.com.au
Posted by Anonymous at 7:42 PM, 5/10/2007	Link

Petition the Government

With the upcoming changes ot the Workcover system perhpas now is as good a time as ever to petition the government.
Some reforms might be put to parliament like.
Redemptions should be mandatory after two years or in cases where it is decided by a judicial officer that it is unreasonable that such redemption occur at a later time once the injury has stabilised.
All prosecutions be carried out by the DPP who is independent of the government and workcover.
That a separate bodytake over the role of managing the claims and legal affairs which has only an interest that all tribunal matters are argued fairly and on reasonable terms and where there is no financial interest in whether disputes are won or lost.
THis would stop a lot of corruption in the system where evidence is witheld, doctors are paid for odd jobs and lawyers are paid exorbitant amounts of money for giving tailored advice instead of proper opinions..
Stop the rot!!!!
Start a petition in South Australia.

Posted by R U whingeing at 10:05 PM, 5/10/2007

No Labor attendance

I have sent this into the Advertiser, lets hope it gets in.

In response to David Pisonis (member for Unley) opinion in the Advertiser 6/10/07 in relation to the Glenside Hospital secrecy concerns forum in defence that he attended the public meeting as it was stated there were no MPs in attendance, I have no doubt he was there with the shadow mental health minister representing the people as i have attended 4 WorkCover forums and a public No trams protest in the past to address similar concerns and the same scenerio has occured where NO Labor MPs have attended although they were given personal invitations to listen and or speak. Credit goes to the Independant and Liberal represenattives who used their spare time to attend but it seems this must be a common practise that when the constiuents needs to be heard the Labor Government MPs decline to listen.

Wayne Mxxxxxx
Plympton

Posted by WayneM at 8:32 AM, 6/10/2007

WorkCover reforms

Has anybody on this site read the what WorkCover wants to change in the legislation. It clearly shows that they class workers as simple number and files and the main objective is to continue to underate them by removing any rights they have. Surely they must realise they are talking about human beings, ones that have families to feed and love. How can they cap medical costs when lack of treatment will may not be enough for one to recover. This is against human rights, and I hope who ever thought these recomendations were acceptable have never dealt with an injury or even a death. This has meade me so angry that maybe they should experience a trauma so they can understand what the real world is all about.
A prayer for the recomendation makers.

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

Posted by Justin Schell at 5:58 PM, 6/10/2007

Quick Vs Workcover

One must wonder about the legislation and why Workcover have section 38 reviews which are to me designed to decide what an injured workers capacity is.
Surely in this process injured workers must be found to have " less c