Description
A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.
My Links
»
»
»
»
»
|
Workcover discussion place for injured workers.
QBE
| I would like to inform QBE that I have been advised from my rehabilitation consultant that she has had Instructions from EML that due to the workload, monthly rehabilitation progress report for December will not be done. |
Posted by Peter.T at 10:40 AM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Outcome of QBE Tender.
http://www.qbe.com/australia/workers/pdf/QBE%20Connect%20Newsflash13%20(Jan06).pdf
SA Workers’ Compensation
Tender Outcome
On Wednesday, 18 January, the Workcover Corporation of South Australia announced its decision for the state’s workers’ compensation claims services tender. The result of the tender is that none of the incumbent agents has been awarded a new agreement. WorkCover has awarded 100% of the market to Employers Mutual Limited (EML), which is an agent in NSW and will be new to the South Australian market.
This follows a tender process in which WorkCover assessed the offerings of a large number of respondents. WorkCover has not provided feedback to QBE on our tender response at this point, however it has provided
details about its decision to the market (see http://www.workcover.com/). This appears to have been a cost-driven decision in a jurisdiction that already has the lowest fee structure for claims agents in Australia.
Naturally, we are disappointed by the news.
Our South Australian Workers’ Compensation team has always delivered excellent results for employers, injured workers, WorkCover and our organisation, and I am very proud of our efforts. We have contributed by reducing
scheme liabilities and, in fact, WorkCover rates QBE first among its agents in South Australia in its current performance measures.
From 1 July 2006, all employers in the state will be transferred to EML. Working in consultation with Workcover, we will advise employers of the transition process as soon as details become available. These have not been completed as yet.
QBE has other significant insurance business in South Australia and this decision has no impact on that business or on our Workers’ Compensation business in other states. We intend to maintain a presence in Workers’ compensation services in South Australia to
support our national business.
Our immediate concern is for employers, employees and, of course, our South Australian Workers’ Compensation team. We will be supporting you through this process in any way possible. In addition, we will work closely with
WorkCover to transition employers to the new agent in an efficient and professional manner and to minimize the risk and relevant liability effects as much as possible.
For more information contact your QBE Case Manager or Account Manager, or contact WorkCover on 13 18 55.
Colin Fagen General Manager
Statutory Classes QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
Edited by workedover1 on 12/12/2007 at 11:53 PM |
Posted by Reader at 12:06 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Outcome of tender process.
Why would there be any feedback as to why they did not win the tender.?
Did the AWB give any reasons to the public as to how they won their contracts?
No doubt any company that had the rights and well being of injured workers as its first priority in its injury and claims management would not have won the contract.
It would have been too much in contrast with the current scheme. |
Posted by Colin D at 12:10 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Workcovers appalling track record.
I have been informed of a lady who has had a compensation claim since 1989. She is now 65 and has not had a section 43 payment.
That is 18 years. She has been on income maintenance since 1989 and did not return to full time work after her injury.
No wonder the workcover liability is blowing out. What appalling management of an injured workers claim and at what cost to her sense of well being.
What is even worse Workcover are going to stop her wages now she has turned 65.
Too bad they never understood what return to work meant for this lady, never mind early return to work..
That must top the record over 20 years on workcover and not redeemed.
Workcover are failing dismally and it seems nobody is in control of this corporation or in control of the injured workers lives and how they are rehabilitated for that matter.
Edited by workedover1 on 13/12/2007 at 1:41 AM |
Posted by Life on Workcover at 12:16 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Social Cost
Pity Workcover do not understand the social cost of the long term claims like this one above. What a tragedy for her and her family.
I guess Workcover and EML treat these injured workers as their mainstay. Ie Long term claims that ensure that they have a guaranteed minimum amount of claimants.
The more long term claims the more business which translates to more $$$$$$.
Too bad that it all comes from a deficit rather than a surplus..
Edited by workedover1 on 13/12/2007 at 1:41 AM |
Posted by Redemptions at 3:46 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
sec 43
I think section 43 payments can only occur if the worker is still alive 28 days after the amount has been agreed upon. maybe the agent is waiting for this person to die to save them the payment.
Edited by workedover1 on 13/12/2007 at 1:41 AM |
Posted by waiting at 4:14 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Are they ever going to learn what is Wright?
Just found this story on a book about the state bank disaster, a few simularities with the WorkCover situation dont you think?
"At the time it wasn't much different to what everyone else was doing, it's just that many of the deals being made were doomed to failure. Almost overnight the bank had become a 'greed is good' bank, and it didn't have the backing or the know-how to make that work," Dr McCarthy says.
He says the blame for the $970 million collapse (later revised to $3.1 billion in nominal terms) landed unfairly on the shoulders of the Bannon State Government, when "much more responsibility lay at the feet of those people doing the day-to-day deals".
"Although these events happened a decade ago, it's clear that the lessons from the State Bank collapse have still not been learned," |
Posted by McCarthy says at 4:23 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
WorkCover redemption instructions
How much is Photocopying?
INSTRUCTION:
In an effort to streamline administration and reduce the time and cost of photocopying, Agents should provide the following in support of a redemption request:
•One only relevant medical report, preferably no more than 6 months old. If the worker is more than 55 years old, no medical evidence is required. If necessary, the Redemptions Officer will contact the Agent.
•Relevant Vocational Assessments, no older than 12 months,
•Where the section 43 lump sum entitlements are AGREED as part of an overall settlement, forward relevant medical reports relating to the proposed
settlement.
Stan Coulter
General Manager, Scheme Regulation and Compliance
|
Posted by who didnt fill the photcopy machine? at 8:01 PM, 13/12/2007 |
Link |
|
redemptions and sec 43
| I thought section 43s were supposed to be done not in conjuction with a redemption settlement? |
Posted by suspinsion at 8:31 AM, 14/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Dr Mr Minister?
I believe in 2003 the new board had instructions to increase its focus on improving return to work outcomes which included re-training.
Although i was unaware of this, I did however submitted to be re-trained due to the fact that the job matching identified remuneration was below half my notional weekly earnings. I was told however that I would be topped up to match my NWE by WorkCover. I thought retraining would have been a better option so i would not be a burden on the system and get on with trying to live my life knowing I lost my profession. This submission was rejected. I have again submitted for re-training as my depressive illness was getting even worse and it might bring some purpose back into my life.
Can I know be deemed to be able to do some capacity for work due that I have some capacity to be rehabilitated?
Even back then, I knew the system was not about re-training and returning to work and all about trying to deem a worker under section 38. And to blame the workers for staying on the system too long.
Can anybody tell me when the unfunded liabilty started to really become an upward trend, and is it just pure coincidence it started all about 5 years ago?
Who makes these decisions, and are they adhered too?
|
Posted by Keryn to the Max at 12:22 PM, 14/12/2007 |
Link |
|
No direction for injured workers in SA
The keryn to Max wrote
Can I now be deemed to be able to do some capacity for work due that I have some capacity to be rehabilitated?
I thinked the workcover not so good at the doing anything. If you thinked that the workcover do a review and say you go to work. Let them give you a job. Maybe you get a real job work in the office at EML or Workcover playing with paper all day. All day do a no work and the injured worker get worse all the time.
Tell them you will work at the office for the case manager. If he give you a job it will be ok..you get better soon then and you help the injured worker because you understand the problem not like the boss now. |
Posted by A. Zolo at 12:58 PM, 14/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Industrial deaths
| There have been two industrial deaths over the past week, I hope common sense prevails and the families of these workers are not put through the torment of "The System" that other families of deceased workers have had to experienced in the past. |
Posted by any compassion at 3:59 PM, 14/12/2007 |
Link |
|
A. Zolo
I have been to one of these placements. It was an employment agency. One of my duties was to collect all the job applications from the weekends advertisement and sort them out into the different files so the employment consultant can go thru them.For example, they would advertise for forklift drivers, receptionist, packers or even boilermakers etc.
So my instructions was to file these by reading the applications. One of the questions in these applications was "have you ever made a workcover claim?" I was instructed to remove these applications that indicated yes and put them in one general seperate file where they were never given any further consideration but a letter of "unfortunately you have been unsucsessful" You will be kept on our file if anything should come up in the future.
Well those files went into the archives and I doubt never to be seen again.
Now that made me feel real good.
Funnily enough, I was made to sign a notice not to disclose on the operations of that business. |
Posted by Keryn to the max at 4:17 PM, 14/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Can an injured worker apply?
WorkCover is a statutory authority that manages the Scheme established under State legislation and is funded by employers to rehabilitate and compensate South Australians injured at work.
The ICT group is seeking a Test Analyst on a permanent basis to be responsible for creating and executing automated test scripts for all phases of testing (e.g. regression testing and performance/stress testing) for significant new applications development work planned for 2008.
To be successful in this position you will be able to display:
Comprehensive knowledge of the structure of test environments
Systematic approach to planning and testing
Strong knowledge of testing tools (SQL Enterprise Manager/Query Analyser/Quick Test/ Test Director).
Extensive automated testing experience (e.g. Mercury/HP tools, QuickTest and LoadRunner).
Knowledge of Java environments
Don't miss this opportunity to join WorkCover in an exciting phase of IT development.
To apply please send a letter of application and resume to Natalie Galka, People Group, WorkCover, GPO Box 2668 Adelaide SA 5001 or email ICTRecruitment@workcover.com
|
Posted by Discriminating at 2:24 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Section 38
Ideal candidates will have the following attributes:
These considerations are not required under any sec 38 review, but are required if you want to be a case manager at EML
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills;
Flexible and proactive approach;
Willingness to learn and apply knowledge;
Organisational and problem solving skills;
Strong computer skills.
|
Posted by Discrimination at 2:28 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
and another
De Poi.
Ecperience not essential ?????????
We have opportunities for Rehabilitation Consultants, where experience is not essential as training will be provided. Applicants from the Job Network system with appropriate qualifications are encouraged to apply.
A supportive team environment with a strong emphasis on individual training, mentoring, and coaching is provided. An attractive remuneration package above the industry average will be negotiated
Successful applicants will be required to obtain a police clearance.
|
Posted by maybe we can work in the industry at 2:31 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Problems with files Sandra?
PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & OPERATIONS MANAGER
An exciting role exists for an experienced executive personal assistant to join our team.
Your responsibilities will include providing a range of services to the managing director and operations manager, including diary management, arranging travel, and arranging catering.
In addition, the successful applicant will be responsible for administering a range of contracts, generating and manipulating reports in Microsoft Excel and Access, and troubleshooting minor computer issues (for example, printing problems, problems with emails and other files).
|
Posted by woops at 2:34 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Sorry Sandra
I should have highlighted this more
Generating and "manipulating" reports in Microsoft Excel and Access, and troubleshooting minor computer issues (for example, printing problems, problems with emails and other files).
|
Posted by again at 2:37 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Discrimination
Someone forgot to realise the first step in rehabilitation.
Injured workers are real people.
They can not be rehabilitated through a step by step diagram flow chart.
They need hand on experience form the top to the bottom.
Something Workcover has lacked unfortunately is its expertise in this area.
How can rehabilitation be at the top of the priority list when the main priority are tellingly in other areas.
ie
Litigate to the greatest possible extent to reduce and minimise claim costs.
( who cares about the legal costs or the impact to injured workers)
|
Posted by T. Rankine at 2:48 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Has the tide turned?
Friday, 23 November 2007
Liberal Member of the Legislative Council Rob Lucas said today that stunning evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry by senior Land Management Corporation (LMC) executives had now created major problems for Minister Conlon.
A hearing of the Legislative Council’s Statutory Authorities Review Committee was told by Mr Wayne Gibbings, Chief Executive of the LMC, that it wasn’t until early this year Mr Conlon had resolved the Auditor General’s concerns about his failure to delegate his authority properly to LMC officers.
“Mr Conlon made it clear to the Committee it was the Minister’s responsibility to ensure this was done,” Mr Lucas said.
“Mr Gibbings indicated they would get legal advice as to whether the Minister’s actions raised any questions such as whether LMC executives had made decisions or signed contracts which they had not been authorised by the Minister to undertake.
“If the legal advice confirms this, then there will be potentially significant legal implications and Minister Conlon would have to be sacked by the Premier.”
|
Posted by reader at 2:52 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
what now
There have been four workplace deaths in the past week, I just wonder how the new legislation (if accepted) is going to accomodate these issues?
|
Posted by mourning at 3:46 PM, 15/12/2007 |
Link |
|
work related deaths
| And then there are work related deaths that (stress included) that somehow seems to have gotten through the system? |
Posted by pepe.Z at 9:17 AM, 16/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Dr Minister, this is from your portfolio
Would you like to comment?
Here we have two families effected, one had to prove the loved one was working and two, the corpse was goods and materials?
Judicial Determination - Deceased was involved in the funeral business and was conducting that business for another - Deceased’s widow seeks compensation on account of his death - Deceased’s work activities involved driving a vehicle for reward - Whether deceased was a deemed worker for the purposes of reg 5(1)(e) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Claims and Registration) Regulations 1999 - Whether a corpse is “goods or materials” - Whether the vehicle involved was a commercial vehicle - Whether the deceased operated another vehicle for work purposes - Held that the deceased was not a deemed worker - Whether the deceased was working as an employee or independent contractor - Relevant indicia for and against discussed and considered - Held that the deceased was an employee - Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.
If you skipped this part, here it is again.
Whether a corpse is “goods or materials”
|
Posted by Victim of WorkCover at 1:05 PM, 16/12/2007 |
Link |
|
fit or unfit?
I found this interesting statement in a finding which I find a little baffling, I am no lawyer but could someone please let me know if this makes sense?
8 The notice then set out details of certain restrictions relating to limitations on the physical activity of the worker and enclosed copies of medical reports of Dr Meegan dated 20/12/2002 and 11/4/2003. The notice listed the skills the worker had developed in her past employment, and advised that Dr Meegan had been sent the job analysis of the "above position", and that he was aware of the critical requirements of the position. The notice then stated:- "You are both vocationally and medically suited to this position".
The notice then advised that Dr Meegan had indicated that the worker had the capacity for this position on a full time basis within certain restrictions.
If the worker was fit for that employment, why would there be restrictions placed opun her?
|
Posted by Baffled at 5:24 PM, 16/12/2007 |
Link |
|
WorkCover deaths
Here is another case where the family of a deceased worker had to prove that she loved her partner enough to seek compensation due to the unfortunate work related death
Rigney v WorkCover Corporation/Ngarrindjeri Land & Progress Association Inc [2007] SAWCT 66
|
Posted by Reader at 12:25 PM, 18/12/2007 |
Link |
|
A good read
| http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SADC/2007/136.html |
Posted by Whistling at 4:26 PM, 18/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Just another unhappy victim
When will people learn that when they become victims that they should just give up.
They have no lawyers to help their fight and the boys club all stick together to make sure that the victims can not break the circle.
The only way is to tackle them one by one.
Target employee after employee. Thats the way it should be brought to answer all of its corruption because birds of a feather stick together, but once you get them away from the flock they become easy targets..
|
Posted by Trish at 8:02 PM, 18/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Tides change!!!
Workcover only have a power over injured workers so long as they do not take everything from them. But when they have robbed an injured worker of his job, his family and his life they are no longer in power. The injured worker will only then become free again to fight and take back what is rightfully his..
|
Posted by D. Ridgeway at 8:05 PM, 18/12/2007 |
Link |
|
case conferance
| I was recently involved in a case meeting with my rehabilitation consultant and case manager. They told me something that i didnt think was correct in what the act allowed me to do. After coming home, I had a look at the workers Compensation and rehabilitation act and found what they did tell me was indeed incorrect, so i wrote them a letter to confirm what was said as i checked the act but they denied saying it. Not only did they say they denied it, but they accused me of making it up, or say stated "misunderstood". The thing is I actually secretly taped the meeting. Does anybody know if i am actually allowed to use this if it goes to the tribunal? personally I would prefer not to keep it up my sleeve for the right moment. |
Posted by sony at 9:29 AM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
taped conversations
I think the law is clear that if you tape a conversation it can only be used o protect your interests rather than attack.
So if defending your claim and rights there would be discretion by the tribunal but there it seems there could be no valid reason why it could not be used.
Perhaps read the listening devices act to clarify yourself. |
Posted by reader at 10:55 AM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Listening devices and privacy issues
I was wondering. When you see workcover medicos they take down notes of the meetings and what has been said.
How is it different that a conversation is written down in pen and then produced to a court as opposed to one that is taped?
Workcover access all your medical records when they want through the use of section 110 of the Act.
They do not care for civil rights, your rights to privacy or whether you may have discussed personal matters with your doctors or health professionals, they will still access them and its been clearly demonstrated that nobody can or will do anything about it. |
Posted by No privacy on workcover at 3:46 PM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Listening devices vs written evidence
| The reason whay I have taped all my meetings because it is more accurate way of recording, simple as that. There are no mis-understandings just the facts. And thats whats its all supposed to be about. I have been mis-lead before and i have learnt my lesson. |
Posted by Sony at 4:59 PM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
medical opions vs facts
The facts upon which the expert has based his or her opinion must be proved by admissible evidence: It is not for the medical expert to prove facts except the facts of which he or she is entitled to give direct and admissible evidence.
Otherwise, the facts must be established by the appropriate witness.”
The issue was one of the degree of the psychological vulnerability in the worker and how he would fare if he was put in a job he found demeaning. The opinion of Dr Paterson was that he had a significant illness. In Dr Cotton’s opinion he had a mild condition, an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. If Dr Cotton got his underpinning facts wrong then it would impeach that opinion:
|
Posted by Anonymous at 5:12 PM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
What of misleading statements?
So what if a workcover employee makes a misleading statement about your claim.
Workcover employees say they are not responsible for misleading statements.
Well thats only until someone takes it to the full court to be decided.
I do not think parliament ever intended for workcover investigators or employees to make misleading or false statements and not to be answerable to anyone- or did they?? |
Posted by Misled at 6:25 PM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
THE corporate watchdog has launched Supreme Court action
ASIC contravened section 180 of the Corporations Act, which requires company officers to act with care and diligence.
|
Posted by tenat @ 100 waymouth street at 7:13 PM, 19/12/2007 |
Link |
|
WorkCover
| I hear the AWB are looking for ex WorkCover board members |
Posted by Linberg at 8:05 AM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Dr Cotton
How familiar is this comment from Dr Cotton, does he expect an all injured workers to be angry, I wonder how Dr Bob Barrat predented himself before he took his life?
"Dr Cotton was of the contrary opinion. He recorded his findings on examination as follows.
"On mental examination, he presented in a very pleasant, forthright, friendly, articulate and almost jocular fashion, smiling on occasions, forming an excellent rapport, and generally giving a good account of himself.
He was not at all anxious, upset, distressed or depressed, and he showed no psychomotor retardation or lack of emotional responsiveness.
He showed no thought disorder, disorientation, confusion or perceptual abnormality".
|
Posted by sounds familiar at 1:33 PM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Lupul v Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd [2004] SAWCT 73 (2 July 2004)
Dr Cotton may be a very experienced examiner. However he was clearly factually wrong when at his recorded history was "his mother died 15 years ago". the applicant made it clear that his mother died 33 years ago "So I could not have said 15 - that's nonsense". Further, contrary to Dr Cotton 's history the applicant did not have a childhood sister - the applicant's sister is younger than his eldest son.
|
Posted by mis-read at 1:51 PM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Coincidence
A report from Dr Cotton dated 9 December 1997 makes it clear that the worker (along with his tape recorder , mother and father) did attend Dr Cotton 's rooms on that date, but that the planned psychiatric assessment of the worker was aborted before it commenced.
|
Posted by woops at 1:54 PM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
How much is WorkCovers debt?
Mr Lindberg's 1999 resignation from WorkCover came a week after the authority announced a budget blow-out of $176 million for the previous year.
|
Posted by Eileen McMahon at 1:59 PM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
####################################
| http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/single-shot-euthanasia-how-to-make-your-own-suicide-pill-exit-international/ |
Posted by Anonymous at 4:01 PM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Cotton wool
It appears that being on WorkCover is less favorable to Dr Cotton than a criminal offence as such as this recent case where someone was charged with armed hold up. He has never considered i needed therapy, just that I exaggerate my conditions.
"Dr Cotton is of the view that you have reached a major turning point in your life. He considers that you need therapy to deal with the underlying issues that arise from your dysfunctional childhood" |
Posted by me at 4:15 PM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Show me the money
| WorkCover stated they had $600 million dollars in 2003, same year as the "new" board. where is the money now? |
Posted by Paul Roberts at 5:15 PM, 22/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Merry Christmas
Did anyone get a Christmas card from their case manager?
I got one from my employer.
Just goes to show how much EML really care.
I never got an invite to the Christmas show either.. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:29 PM, 22/12/2007 |
Link |
|
ruth
| Ruth Mitchell needs to be taken out of the system |
Posted by Anonymous at 4:09 PM, 26/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Suicide
Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders): Will the Minister for Health advise whether there is any attempt to categorise the reasons behind suicides and, if so, how many WorkCover clients of which her department is aware have suicided or attempted to suicide over the past year? Recently, a young WorkCover client whose family I had tried to assist with WorkCover difficulties suicided, and I am aware of at least another young person.
The Hon. L. STEVENS (Minister for Health): I am just wondering whether that question applies to my colleague who has the responsibility for WorkCover. I am not sure of the question. Do we categorise suicides? I will have to get information on whether we do, I am not sure.
|
Posted by penfold at 11:03 AM, 27/12/2007 |
Link |
|
WorkCovers own medical surgery
| I hope the new legislation is set up so there is an independant medical surgery, so whenever an injured worker is suffering from his return to work duties, these Medical proffessionals can take over the obligations. My Doctor is so frustrated with the current system its getting beyond a joke. |
Posted by Dr Ruth at 6:35 PM, 27/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Super and injured workers
I was injured at work. My employer said he did not have any work available but when he did would call me. ( this got him around the act in that he never sacked me) Anyway many years later I still have not received a call from him.
I get no super paid and have lost 20% of my income and whats left have to pay to keep all the greedy workcover lawyers in nice suits and cars.
Why is it that I have been injured at work, its my employers bloody fault, and I get to wear all the financial losses for the rest of my life and he gets off scott free to injure another worker another day?
Does not seem so fair to me.. |
Posted by Disadvantaged at 11:50 PM, 28/12/2007 |
Link |
|
What to do with Ruth?
| Struth if they get rid of Ruth they would be really ruthless |
Posted by Wondering at 11:51 PM, 28/12/2007 |
Link |
|
labor vs liberal
It seems like the injured workers may be a weapon in the government infighting and could be to our advantage as some of the mis-dealings might finally come to surface.
I know there are a lot of businesses who have been contacted and informed of some of the investments WorkCover own and are questionng why they are still been charged a high levy. |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:47 AM, 29/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Payment over christmas
| If the above comment about EML is correct that the workload is too much over December for monthly reports to be distriubuted, how can there be letters sent to 36,000 injured workers informing that there pay will be changed for the christmas period. Oh and another thing 36,000 postage stamps is being paid by Businesses in SA. |
Posted by QBE at 8:51 AM, 29/12/2007 |
Link |
|
email
| I have received an email from an unknown who put a link to this site, The way it was worded I think the email was generic to Employers of SA. Can someone please clarify if it is correct that WorkCover are holding back funds to have the legislation changed, thus far I have led to believe the Corporation has a huge debt and this is why my levy is currently high. |
Posted by pty ltd at 9:46 AM, 30/12/2007 |
Link |
|
To pty ltd
I too received an email about the with-holding of funds. I also read some submissions on how the new workcover is going to be run and there now might be a common law component involved (similiar to victoria). So not only would I have to pay a WorkCover levy, I might also have to take out on extra insurance policy.
I have also researched about the unfunded liability and what it actually means. It isnt an actual debt but it is what WorkCover would have to pay out in one lump sum to clear its total future debts.
This is in fact is how most finances are run, whether it be Governments, Corporations, Small Businesses, Mortgages or the simple visa card, even though there would stll be a cash flow. Somehow i think the levy is just another revenue raiser!
|
Posted by small business at 4:21 PM, 30/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Paid Holidays never end..
I would like to know why Workcover pay me $1050 every fortnight and will not give me a redemption.
Its been going on for years, I am now sick of the system and all of the crap that goes with it I want out!!!!
They have paid me over $250 000 in wages and its likely they will keep paying me for the next ten years as I have seen nothing change for the past five.
But my problem is they do not want to give me a redemption and want to keep paying me..Surely $150 000 paid in a redemption would save them thousands in the long run..
Anyway I do not mind at the moment as I can sit back and watch the cricket every day..While Workcover pay me..what better holiday could anyone want..no wonder so many injured workers stay on Workcover.
but maybe when cricket is finished I would like a redemption |
Posted by R S Hole at 11:12 PM, 30/12/2007 |
Link |
|
above comment
| It is ashame that you are the 1.6% of injured workers that ruin it for the genuine workers who try and get on with their lives. I for one do not like staying at home and being a bean counter. You deserve to be stuck at home and live your lazy life. |
Posted by suffering at 8:34 AM, 31/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Doctors complains soar.
I note these have been posted in response to a comment by the Advertiser about Doctors Complaints.
If you can not follow the link here are some of the comments.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22978609-2682,00.html
I also had Workcover try and collect my records from my childhood days. My GP rang me for my authorisation and I told him he can only supply my injury details. The WorkCover lawyers wanted everything (even if i was circumsized, etc.) I was fortunate my GP didnt fall for the tricks they are forced upon.
Posted by: John richards of beaumont 8:35am today
I am interested to know where they get the figures about complaints from. I complained to the medical Board about Workcover seizing all of my medical records and they did nothing about it. They told me they were allowed to do it. Well so much for who holds the records having any say how they are handled. I do not really feel comfortable seeing doctors anymore because I am concerned about my confidentiality. They did not just take records relating to my injury but all of my medical records right back to my childhood.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 2:05pm December 30, 2007
I came out of hospital today. My specialist was very offended to know that I had consulted another physician to get an independant overview of my whole medical status which is now fairly complicated. Why did that happen? His and a couple of others' unwillingness to explain to me what was going on. Will I complain? No. But in my own interests I will find another specialist.
Posted by: missprissy of picketfences 8:35pm December 28, 2007
There are genuine medical professions in this industry. Unfortunately legal industries such as WorkCover have manipulated and interfered with what these medical professions are supposed to do, and that is look after our health. It is up to the AMA to make a strong point and refuse such bullying tactics from industries that are more concerned about the DOLLAR.
Posted by: wayne mattner of plympton 4:49pm December 28, 2007
|
Posted by Reader at 3:30 PM, 31/12/2007 |
Link |
|
Redemption joke
I have asked redemption questions on here before and i thank everyone for there replies. So heres the latest saga after 5 months and 4 tribunal hearings about a redemption which eml pushed for and after all my back pay and section 58 b were being held because they were working on an offer and after putting off another hearing until january because they said it had to go higher up to be approved. After spending $800 dollars on a doctors report im now being told that there will be no redemption because on a pmc it was stated that i would not return to my normal job so i needed retraining. they have not even looked at the doctors report which included all my injuries not just the ones specified on the pmc which my specialist was treating. my specialist only wrote that on there because he was so sick of eml not doing anything to help me get off the system.
I would like to congratulate eml and there lawyers on there exceptional communications skills and that after 5 months they still are not on the same page.!!
keep up the good work
|
Posted by Anonymous at 4:36 PM, 2/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Wheres the review
| The results from Mr Wright of the review should be available shortly, after all it got a months extension before its released date of the end of November. Yes it has been released to the Minister but the Minister hasnt released it. So whats another million dollars a day here or there? |
Posted by waiting at 6:00 PM, 2/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Redemption joke
| It is called influencle skills, nothing more, nothing less. It sin their job description. |
Posted by job applicant at 6:02 PM, 2/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Rehabilitation and file review.
I have recently received back a freedom of information request.
In there i got a file review form which was held on a solicitors file. I do not know why it was with the solicitors because it was from the claims manager.
I do not understand something thats been written. I put in for a redemption and then all of a sudden a file review takes place.
The legal recommendation states
No basis for worker's current dispute. Referred to arbitration. Maintain position. Continue to review Fraud units stance. "throw the book at him"
Id just like to comment that " the ordinary person does not like the book thrown at him."
So I am going to throw the book back at Workcover.
Look out for more posts from confused..
For who doth the bell toll?
The bell tolls for thee Workcover..
|
Posted by Confused at 9:57 PM, 2/1/2008 |
Link |
|
File review
| The above comment is "throw the book back at him' probaly comes from the same company "SA GREAT" chairperson comes from. |
Posted by Nigel at 9:18 AM, 3/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Redemptions
Me thinks there is an unwritten instruction to halt all redemptions at the moment, looks like EML, Minter Ellison and Rehab providers want their share before the review is released.
Its good to see that this blog site got a few mentions on Adelaide Now website. Now its all for all to see. |
Posted by halt, who goes there? at 12:06 PM, 3/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Independent anti-corruption commission
MY NEW YEAR wish for South Australia is a simple one. I wish Mike Rann would explain, not only in clear terms but with convincing arguments, just why he is so implacably opposed to even consider establishing an independent anti-corruption commission. So far, he has argued that it would be a "festival of lawyers". Not convincing - commissions in other states have a low proportion of lawyers on staff, and their successes have been very, very important.
He has also stated that the auditor-general and the ombudsman are the watchdogs. They certainly are and very effective ones too. But they cannot watchdog where serious corruption might be occurring - they do not have the authority to do so. The Liberal Opposition has taken the initiative by promising legislation this year. The Government should pre-empt it.
Queensland's anti-corruption commission was formed after a royal commission found corruption reached right to the top level of government. Since then, it has found and dealt with more corruption issues. In Western Australia, a similar process followed WA Inc and, again, corruption at the top of government. Since then, ministers have been forced to resign over more corruption matters. The New South Wales Commission has had equal success.
I must admit to being baffled by the Government's absolute opposition. There is plenty of support. Try this list for starters. The retired and much respected auditor-general, Ken McPherson; respected Labor figures such as retired senator Chris Schacht, and retired Labor MHR Rod Sawford; Director of Public Prosecutions Steve Pallaras; the SA Law Society; and a raft of other solid citizens and groups. Labor senator Linda Kirk called for a commission, then lost her preselection.
Are they all wrong? Does Mr Rann know better than they do? If so, how about informing us of the reasons.
It will cost money - one estimate was about $15 million a year. But the potential benefits are worth every dollar. If there is no existing organisation which has the authority to "muckrake", where is the transparency? I'm very happy to put in my $15 a year to be convinced that there is an organisation willing and able to deal with any corruption found in this state. I'd be happy to pay even if it found nothing. Having a protective device is worth the money. Mr Rann praised auditor-general McPherson in his role as the state's "principal anti-corruption watchdog". Mr Rann is correct in that assessment. But it has been a role which is seriously limited in what it could do and how it could do it. It lacked the tools and the powers to get into the serious levels of corruption. The recent exposures in WA needed telephone taps to properly "muckrake" and pull out the corrupt people and practices for the courts and the Parliament to deal with.
As I said, I'm baffled. The Government might be firmly convinced that SA is so "clean" that there is no corruption, not even a whiff of it. But naive is not an accurate description of the history of the Rann administration. Or is there something to hide from the massive powers of a corruption commission? Or is it that the state cannot afford the money or believes there is no value for money?
Whatever the reason that Mr Rann depends on to utterly oppose the idea, why not tell the public why they cannot have the protection offered by the commissions in three states and, apparently, soon in Victoria as well? Now that would be a nice New Year present.
|
Posted by dean.jaensch@flinders.edu.au at 3:44 PM, 3/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Corruption
| I am all for a corruption committee to be set up on the operations of WorkCover and EML. This organisation is NOT operating under the guidelines and should be accounted for. |
Posted by MitchellR at 5:46 PM, 3/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Amended accounts
I have had surveillance carried out on me.
Its obvious to me that surveillance has been carried out at times which have not been disclosed to me..I mean the surveillance guys are so obvious looking..and they hang around day after day..the surveillance is notably folloing and filming also..its not passive and staying in one spot..
I carried out a Freedom of information application and noticed for some of the surveillance records the accounts have been returned from the investigators amended.
I have not found any originals which were actually amended.
Has anyone else come across this rather peculiar practice? |
Posted by Stalked at 7:29 PM, 3/1/2008 |
Link |
|
stalked
| I have had the same done to me, what i usually do is take a photo of the number plate with my phone and put it in a lodging system I have set up with the times and dates. I have even asked my case manager that i do not mind being under suivellance as long as they dont bother my family as i have nothing to hide. They denied any activities. |
Posted by me at 7:52 PM, 3/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Who is in control?
Can anyone advise who is actually in control of Workcover?
The CEO seems to do not much more than put a pretty face to the corporation.
All the employees do what they want.
The board make all the right sounds to have the legislation changed and seem to instruct everyone within the corporation of what and how they should be doing everything.
The minister who is supposed to be in control sits back oblivious to the unfunded liability which grows by a million dollars a day..
If everything collapses and the State says they can not afford Workcover any more who accepts responsibility for all of the mess?
Who accepts any responsibility for the actions of the claims agents or other employees who might be negligent? |
Posted by Irresponsible at 7:32 PM, 4/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Election coming up..pass the buck
Read about the State Bank..nobody really cared..even with the board having luxury apartments and yachts.
SA State Bank: guess who's paying
4 August 1993
By Liam Mitchell
ADELAIDE -- Yet another report on the collapse of the State Bank has come and gone -- again with neither concrete proposals for action nor suggestions on how to avoid future disasters.
The auditor general's report, released about a month ago, merely said that there were some questionable dealings involving the board members of the Beneficial Finance Corporation, a subsidiary of the bank.
The latest report brings the current cost of inquiries into the dealings of the bank to approximately $35 million. It follows on the heels of the royal commission's report into the collapse. The royal commission is still to make its final report on whether prosecutions should proceed, which is expected in September.
The auditor general found that Beneficial Finance contributed $1 billion of the $3.15 billion loss by the State Bank. Much of this was through funding speculation and property investments.
The report also details abuses such as a luxury apartment on the Gold Coast, furnished at a cost of $120,000, for the use of its directors when on business. This apartment was also used by the board for recreational purposes. The appointment and upkeep of a luxury yacht for the same purpose in WA came to $850,000.
Financial and property speculation were said to have been ill directed and not checked out thoroughly, with the report describing it as “gambling” with public money.
However, as if $35 million is not enough to say that there is a problem, the state government has announced another two inquiries, at a cost of a further $3 million, to gauge whether criminal or civil proceedings should be undertaken to prosecute someone (anyone!) for the disaster or to recover some of the money.
$38 million later, and the government might finally have a scapegoat it can run with into the state election, which is due by March 1994!
However, there are a number of issues that have not been taken up in the whole series of inquiries and claims and counter-claims.
While John Bannon accepted political responsibility for the disaster and resigned as premier -- to the back bench, where he still draws a handsome salary -- the question of accountability has not really been brought up.
During the 1980s, the State Bank, along with numerous other institutions, lent substantial amounts for speculative purposes. When the speculative market came crashing down, losing the money invested, the banks and their guarantors -- in the case of the State Bank, the government -- were left holding the bag.
For the Bannon government, this meant successive bail-
outs of the State Bank of $3.15 billion, as well as political dealings between the two to hold down interest rates prior to an election.
Bannon has now paid for his irresponsibility in dealing with public money (at least in terms of public face). There may even be a few of the top bureaucrats from the State Bank and Beneficial Finance prosecuted as scapegoats. However, this is only the tip of the accountability iceberg.
The Arnold government is seeking to distance itself from the problems with the bank. With an election around the corner, it must do its best to scapegoat a number of individuals to keep the attention away from the system that allows public money to fund investment projects for private companies.
The Liberals too are seeking to keep the issue of gambling on the stock and property markets off the agenda and are calling for the head of the Labor government.
Meanwhile government charges are increasing to pay for the massive budget deficit created by the bail-outs of the bank. Electricity charges for households are to go
Up, while business actually gets a cut in its rates, and government charges and fees are increasing.
Add to this the imminent loss of another 600 jobs from the public service, on top of the 3000 jobs already cut since the crisis began, and a picture emerges of the government using taxpayers' money to pay for the bank's losses.
The issue of who pays for the bank's collapse has not been mentioned in the media or the inquiry reports. Who was it who benefited from the speculative boom that gave way to the crisis? Who made money from the bank's wheeling and dealings?
It is this section of the community -- big business -- that should be paying for the crisis, not ordinary working people who made no profit from the bank's speculation. |
Posted by Who cares at 9:08 PM, 4/1/2008 |
Link |
|
When will we get similar legsilation?
Effective from 1 September 2006, two new pieces of Victorian legislation create significant criminal and civil consequences for illegal destruction of documents and evidence. These add another layer to the already complex legislative regime for document retention. It is particularly important for companies to understand their new obligations in relation to the way they store or destroy all documents, including emails and other electronic documents.
The Victorian Crimes (Document Destruction) Act 2006 (the Document Destruction Act) and Evidence (Document Unavailability) Act 2006 (the Document Unavailability Act) amend the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 and Evidence Act 1958, respectively. The Document Destruction Act introduces new criminal consequences and the Document Unavailability Act introduces new civil consequences. This issue has been highlighted in several high profile cases in recent years.
The Document Destruction Act applies to conduct carried out in Victoria. In practical terms, it applies to companies that are resident or do business in Victoria. The Document Unavailability Act applies to civil proceedings conducted in Victoria.
Criminal consequences
The Document Destruction Act creates a new criminal offence in relation to the destruction of documents. Where documents are reasonably likely to be required in any ongoing or potential future legal proceedings, a person who knows this and destroys or conceals the documents (or authorises or permits another person to do so) with the intention of preventing the documents from being used in a legal proceeding is liable to prosecution for the new offence of document destruction. The Document Destruction Act does not give any indication of when a document will be "reasonably likely to be required", so it is recommended that documents that may be relevant to any existing or possible future dispute be retained.
Both individuals and companies can be prosecuted. For companies, the conduct, knowledge and intention of officers of the company are automatically attributed to the company. The Document Destruction Act also introduce a "corporate culture" test for assessing a person's intention to prevent a document from being used as evidence, and offers a limited defence of "due diligence".
If found guilty, the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment for individuals and approximately $300,000 for companies. |
Posted by Still shredding at 12:10 AM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Destruction in the system
There is so much destruction of documents at a state level that they will never legislate it.
If Workcover were held accountable and got a $300,000 fine every time they destroyed an injured workers documents the unfunded liability would be peanuts compared to the fines they would accrue in a year. |
Posted by All shredded out at 12:31 AM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
shredded or misplaced
| Whats the fine for giving another injured workers a file of another worker? Maybe if i was to speak out, I would be the one to receive the fine to shut me up? |
Posted by Blackmail at 11:34 AM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Psychologist reports of other workers received under FOI
I have also received another workers psychologist report. It was very personal also.
I gave it to the worker and let them know. I understand that they made a complaint to workcover and the ombudsman and nothing became of it.
Thats typical though.
|
Posted by Privacy no issue at 11:47 AM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Ombudsmans complaints a joke
I find that the Ombudsman is underresourced and the resources are totally inadequate to deal with issues properly.
I have had matters before the Ombudsman for a number of years and they are slow to do anything that would really put Workcover or the government on the spot.
If you make a complaint be sure that they will tread carefully around the edges. They obviously like to keep all of the public servants onside- which is natural I guess as they are all public servants themselves.
So where is the integrity and the separation of their power if they are employed by the government to investigate administrative issues of the government? |
Posted by worked over at 1:23 PM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Anti-corruption
Former Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie says an independent anti-corruption fighter is essential in SA.
"For politicians, these independent bodies are a political nightmare, but for public administration, they act like a truth serum," Mr Beattie said in nationally-published opinion.
"The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission caused me, as premier, enormous political pain and, more than any other organisation, put my government at risk on several occasions," Mr Beattie wrote.
"CMC investigations or inquiries caused me to lose a deputy premier and two members of state parliament, while one former minister went to jail, another is facing court and a couple of other ministers lost their portfolios.
"So, why am I consistently on the public record as one of the CMC's strongest supporters, and why did I, as premier, refer many of the matters to the CMC that subsequently caused me such pain? The answer is simple. Queensland needed, and indeed all states need, a watchdog beyond government control to maintain honesty and integrity in public administration."
NSW Premier Morris Iemma has already insisted that SA is "crazy" not to have an independent commission against crime and corruption.
SA is one of only two mainland states without such a corruption-fighting body.
|
Posted by Something to hide??? at 2:52 PM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Suicide fears as long-term benefits are cut
SCORES of seriously injured, long-term WorkCover recipients are having their payments reduced or stopped by the authority in an "unfair" process that could leave some suicidal, according to industry experts.
Leading WorkCover practitioners have called for greater transparency and care by the authority and its doctors, whose reassessments have denied some long-term claimants payments and treatment after more than 10 years of regular benefits.
Workers' Occupational Health Centre physician Helen Sutcliffe estimated up to 50 seriously injured workers would have had their benefits reduced following adverse reassessments.
"I don't think there's any doubt that many long-term WorkCover recipients are being targetted," she said. While a re-examination of claims was reasonable, the way it was done was "inappropriate" and "unfair" for quite a number of people, she said.
Dr Sutcliffe said some had been left in a such vulnerable position physically, mentally and financially that she "wouldn't be surprised if there's suicides as a result of this".
Similar concerns about poor processes have been raised by lawyer Paul Mulvany, the principal of Workforce Legal and former judge of Victoria's Accident Compensation Tribunal, who has had more than 30 years' experience with WorkCover.
He said there had been improvements to the authority in recent years, but there remained "pockets of sub-standard performance" including "inappropriate determinations" for long-term claimants
|
Posted by Meaghan Shaw at 7:12 PM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover SA Recovery and Return to Work Awards 2007
How much did the WorkCover 2007 "pats on the back award" campaign cost?
NSW must have some control over their departments.
WorkCover's Adverts 'Devoid of Meaning'
Unions have called on the WorkCover Authority to withdraw a costly print and television advertising campaign that has seemingly no connection to workplace safety.
As the fund struggles under mounting debt, WorkCover has commenced the mainstream media campaign that revolves around the song 'Someone to Watch Over Me'.
It differs from previous WorkCover campaigns that have been targeted directly at raising awareness of workplace safety and employer obligations.
Instead, Labor Council assistant secretary Mark Lennon says the current advertisements appear to be an exercise in marketing WorkCover's "brand recognition", featuring stylised images of fish buckets and nursing homes.
"Why a monopoly provider like WorkCover needs to position it's brand is beyond me," Lennon says.
"We have no problem with WorkCover raising public awareness of workplace safety issues, but the current campaign is devoid of meaning."
"At a time when the WorkCover scheme is under alleged increasing cost pressures, the current campaign is nothing short of an insult."
The Labor Council will approach the NSW Industrial Relations minister John Della Bosca to withdraw the advertisements and channel the funds into more productive areas.
|
Posted by John Della Bosca at 7:37 PM, 6/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Federal Court
| I am investigating on taking legal action through the federal system against EML/case managers as they are a NSW company. A QC I have spoken too has taken some interest in what I have told her so far. Lets hope finally we get to make accountable these bad operators on the treatment on injured workers. |
Posted by Andrew.S at 12:34 PM, 8/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Duty of Care
| It seems like the wheels are slowly turning, not only did I think I was by myself, little did I know there are other parties in the same position. In one of the above comments a "struth" was mentioned, I wonder if she is the same person who i also had problems with. Is she a case manager leader or operations manager? |
Posted by Andrew.S at 7:51 PM, 8/1/2008 |
Link |
|
HIH
In sentencing, His Honour Justice Wood recognised that Mr Cassidy has, and will continue to provide assistance to ASIC during the course of its investigations and any future prosecutions.
‘The sentencing of Mr Cassidy to 15 months jail reflects the community’s belief that company directors who act recklessly, and by so doing, distort the true financial position of a company, should be held accountable for their actions’, Mr Lucy said.
‘Conduct which misleads regulators, and the market more generally, undermines public confidence and puts at risk the investments of shareholders. The jailing of Mr Cassidy sends a very strong message that this type of conduct will not be tolerated’, Mr Lucy said.
|
Posted by David Partridge at 1:34 PM, 9/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
The failure of a director to carry out their duties with integrity and honesty is a very serious matter. The jailing today of Mr XXXXX illustrates how serious ASIC and the courts view such matters. ASIC will continue to vigorously pursue company directors who fail to uphold the high standards the community expects’,
The charges were prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
|
Posted by Andrew.S at 1:39 PM, 9/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Crunch looms on WorkCover's future
Some State Government backbenchers have warned against WorkCover reforms that would disadvantage employees.
A review of the WorkCover scheme in South Australia is due for completion in late November.
The Government is keen to reduce the scheme's growing unfunded liability, currently more than $700 million.
Some Labor MPs fear that could mean cutting workers' benefits.
There is also a push from the business community to make WorkCover more competitive with interstate systems by cutting employer levies.
Some MPs have warned of Labor Party trouble if the SA Government takes that path, saying part of the ALP's ideology is to protect society's most vulnerable, including injured workers.
But some backbenchers argue employers should pay more, to help improve the compensation scheme's position.
Posted Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00pm AEST
Updated Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:12pm AEST |
Posted by ABC NEWS at 7:36 PM, 9/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Workcover budget blowout
Easy to fix the problem.
Pay all of the injured workers a redemption at two years.
Reduce the amount of work for the claims agents and all of the rehab officers and companies like de poi etc.
Millions saved and much better system..
I can hear the bell ringer coming!!! |
Posted by Fall guy at 12:03 AM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Dr X
I am suffering from depression and anxiety since my work accident some 7 yeras ago. My specialist noticed I should see a clinical psychologist at the time. Anyway, after i saw him he thought I needed some extra help so I put in a claim through Royal and Sun as they were known at the time and they sent me to see a certain psychiatrist who thought i was faking. Subsequently my claim was rejected, so I sought legal help and after 18 months and all the crap that went with it my claim was finally accepted. Initially i didnt want to put in a claim but some of the job hardening I was sent to was making my condition worse, and it did as I am worse than before still to this day.
On a monetary value that cost me $12,000. Mentally value there is no limit.
I now have to see the same psychiatrist for a section 38 "Independant" review as instructed by my case manager. The same psychiatrist who thought I was faking, the same psychiatrist who cost me $12,000.
How can this be Independant? I now hate this person for how what he has cost me mentally and financially.
|
Posted by not well at 10:19 AM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Review
| Has anybody know if the review is finally reday to be presented? I believe it has been completed some months ago by Walsh and Co but was "prepared" for release? |
Posted by Wright at 2:19 PM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
marty
| Marty has no feelings, I think he has already forgotten he had a wife. Didnt I read somewhere he was in the sack again? |
Posted by Dr X at 2:38 PM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Marty
| Yeh, its ashame Marty isnt a dentist |
Posted by Springfield at 3:10 PM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
How contradictive is this story?
Just shows you are not allowed to try and recoup what ever life you have got left after a workplace injury. Completely opposite to what pschychologist try and encourage.
On Thursday, 5 July 2007 a Port Lincoln diver, Jeffery Ian Thompson, was found guilty of dishonestly obtaining WorkCover income maintenance payments – finalising nearly a decade of investigations and court hearings.
Mr. Thompson was found guilty of 16 counts of dishonestly obtaining WorkCover income maintenance payments and was ordered under s120 (3) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 to repay $90,000 in compensation plus $60,000 to reimburse investigation and prosecution costs. He was also sentenced to two years and four months’ jail with a non-parole period of five months. The amounts were determined on the basis of the duration of the offences and the fact that Mr. Thompson would not have the capacity to pay any greater amount.
Between 1996 and 2002 the WorkCover Investigation Unit received information on Mr. Thompson alleging capacity fraud. WorkCover conducted an investigation into his decompression illness claim, which began in 1994.
The court found that Mr. Thompson did suffer decompression illness in or about March 1994, but that he had recovered, and his recovery was complete at least by October 2002 when he traveled overseas.
http://www.lawsonrisk.com.au/files/newsletters/Lawson_Newsletter_Aug_07.pdf |
Posted by finalised, yeah right! at 3:26 PM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
EML, its time to leave the house
| Heard a whisper there is another insurance company who has not been involved in WorkCover SA before interested in becoming an agent. Can anyone confirm please? |
Posted by Big Brother (mole) at 5:20 PM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Thompson Case??
Is that right in the Thompson case..sounds rather weird??
Must be a misprint..
Injured in 1994 and received information form 1996-2002 is alright I can clearly understand that part.
But if he recovered around 2002 why did they keep him on Workcover for so long and not give him a redemption?
How come he was kept on after 2002?
Why did it take them 5 years to finish the court case?
Hmm I bet this is not finalised just yet.. |
Posted by Reader at 10:31 PM, 10/1/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover advertisements
I have just read a couple of stories on here and what makes me think is as one of the comments suggests, there is some contradiction in what WorkCover want you to do and how they act.
Take the return to work adverts that would have cost a fortune, it shows a hand pictured child playing with his father.
Now what if the father was with his child at the park playing with his child, does that mean he is a fraud?
It was also quite interesting to read that in NSW they stopped their WorkCover from Advertising themselves as a "product". Maybe something they should be looking at here. |
Posted by Injured father at 10:01 AM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Workcover fraud
One of the biggest problems that Workcover faces is that its investigators have been so focussed on catching out Workcover frauds that they have lost sight of what their real jobs are.
Many injured workers will tell tales of workcoiver investigators dreaming up all sorts of scenarios and making misleading statements to doctors in order to achieve an end..
Must be something wrong if investigators have to make misleading statements to further Workcover's interests. |
Posted by Blind Freddy at 11:58 AM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Thompson case
| I think someone in WorkCover are using Thompson as a scape goat, or for personal reasons.(just like the morgan case) I hope for the systems sake it gets sorted out because there are people in WorkCover who should not be getting away with what they are doing. I would dare say most employees of WorkCover and some providers would agree but are also too scared to tell. The system is a good one if used correctly. |
Posted by personal at 12:11 PM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Whats more important
I would like to share my experience as I was removing materials from a roof at a workplace. As i was told to do the job in a hurry like most workers, I used a forklift with three pallets as a scaffold. Little did I know there was a officer from SafeWork SA watching me and taking photos. When I had finished (took about 20 minutes) he came up to me and reported me for an offence. I had to have a taped inteview in their rooms in front of three officers and was asked questions so my employer could be prosecuted. As I was answering these questions to my surprise they showed me about 50 photos they had taken as evidence.
I stopped and said "You saw me work in an unsafe environment and you were aware of such, you took time to take these photos, and I guess you were waiting for me to fall, Did you fail as a duty of care to tell me i was in danger?"
The inteview finished, the tape recorder was turned off and was never given a copy and never heard from them again.
The moral of the story is they lost focus on safety and were more concerned about prosecution. Just like WorkCover and its Rehabilitation Consultants. |
Posted by Dont care at 2:52 PM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
review
Any news on the review results yet? I am wondering if they are waiting until after the parliamentary enquiery?
|
Posted by waiting at 3:53 PM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
here is a good read
| http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23019490-37562,00.html |
Posted by reader at 3:55 PM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
carbon offset company
| I would like to know which company WorkCover and EML are using to offset their carbon credits with all the unessessary paper work, reports and disputes they cause? |
Posted by investor at 3:59 PM, 11/1/2008 |
Link |
|
greed
GOOD vs EVIL
Pretty easy to work out who is the evil when injured workers will have their entitlements cut! |
Posted by not well at 10:20 AM, 12/1/2008 |
Link |
|
What rights?
Why should you have any rights?
My job and income depends on you not being able to exercise your entitlements and rights.
I will do anything to protect my cosy job in the office in the city.
And if you did not already realise so many lawyers and managers and companies make a living out of milking workcover and injured workers it would cause a public uproar if the employers and injured workers knew that the system could be managed with less staff and lower levies and more realistic payouts for their disabilities.
Thats why we do not give redemptions to injured workers and why we keep them on the system to torment them and their families. It gives us more injured workers and makes us a bigger corporation with more corporate muscle to throw around and exercise over injured workers as individuals
|
Posted by Office worker at 11:44 AM, 12/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Employers and Employees have been ripped off by the current board
PEOPLE found guilty of price-fixing could face jail terms of up to five years under beefed-up legislation proposed by the Federal Government.
The Government today released draft legislation to amend the Trade Practices Act, adding jail terms and harsher fines for companies and individuals who engage in serious cartel conduct.
Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen said that under the amendments, people convicted of cartel conduct could face up to five years' jail and/or fines of up to $220,000.
At present, there is no provision in the Act for the jailing of anyone proven to have engaged in cartel behaviour.
"The Government intends to criminalise serious cartel conduct to send a very clear message to the business people who engage in such behaviour - cartel activity is theft, it is a form of stealing from consumers," Mr Bowen said.
|
Posted by The Advertiser at 12:19 PM, 12/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce Carter and emails received under FOI
I did an FOI application and I found emails between Workcover and Ferrier Hodgson.
Turns out Bruce gets his secretary Carmen Beck at Ferrier Hodgson to send emails to Workcover about me.
What concerns me is now my personal information which should be held at Workcover is now being held at Ferrier Hodgson an accounting company. Why is it going from Workcoevr to Bruce at his other Job anyway?
I wonder why Bruce is so involved in an injured workers claim.
Talk about a corporation vs the little guy.
Bruce writes to Kathy O Donnell in response to an email she sent him.
He says:
"When are we able to move this matter forward. It must be a priority.
Bruce.
Is this Cartel behaviour?
Anotehr question.
Does anyone know what the job description for the Chairman of the Workcover board is?
I would not have thought it involved the management of injured workers claims. |
Posted by Jeff Thompson at 11:36 PM, 12/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce Carter
| Seeme like Bruce Carter is protecting his decisions at any cost. This is where an anti-corruption committee should be in place to protect actions just like this. |
Posted by crazy at 9:47 AM, 13/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce Cartel
| Maybe Bruce Carter is trying to bankrupt WorkCover as this is what his company Ferrier Hodgson main expertise is? It happens all the time, shift its assets and show its debts. Come new legislation time and we have a new name. |
Posted by crazy at 10:19 AM, 13/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Is Bruce a claims manager also?
I worked for this company where they trained everyone to do as many jobs as possible. This way if anyone was sick there was always a replacement.
Came time when they offered redundancies and lots of management moved down the line because they could not find work elsewhere.
Perhaps Bruce is looking to the future and thinking of doing case management when the walls collapse.
|
Posted by Confused at 4:40 PM, 13/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Doing Time
| Will "The Cartel" be looking for a job before or after he spends time with the boys? |
Posted by plenty of work at 5:14 PM, 13/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Whats up with the board?
I wonder why the Board is picking on one injured worker at a time?
Surely its not fair play a corporation headhunting just one single injured worker.
I thought there was a law against Unconcscionable conduct?
I wonder what was behind stopping his pay illegally also.
Would not even be a fair fight if he had no money to pay for a lawyer. |
Posted by Peter Trask at 6:24 PM, 13/1/2008 |
Link |
|
"The Board"
| I am sure "The Board" wouldnt mind me saying this but they are EVIL, The head of the board's job is to bankrupt struggling businesses. he has no feelings and just not care. There is no use in trying to find a compassion side to this man as there isnt any and you would be wasting your time. |
Posted by crazy at 8:05 PM, 13/1/2008 |
Link |
|
A good bye
| Seems like the Basketball stadium was a good buy. How can one find these great investments before they are handed to mates? |
Posted by ABC at 7:29 PM, 14/1/2008 |
Link |
|
Misleading statements by case managers and workcover employees
I have been going through some of my medical reports and also the letters written by Workcover and my case manager to my doctors.
On numerous occasions they have made misleading statements to them.
In the interviews with doctors Workcover investigators like Ian Basey have also made misleading statements about me.
But nobody seems to care.
I complained to the Ombudsman, not much intervention form there I can assure you.
I would like to know from anyone why in South Australia this can happen and nothing is done about it and nobody seems to care?
I mean look at it realistically.
Workcover prosecute about 50 injured workers a year claiming breaches of section 120 of the Workcover act.
I doubt any of those are workcover employees or case managers.
I wonder if that same 50 people ( or a majority of them) complained about misleading statements made by their case managers or workcover employees or the way their claims were bing handled?
Worse still I wonder how many of them complained to parliament about the actions of Workcover only to find that Bruce Carter from the Workcover board was pushing the top dogs in Workcover to prosecute them for something to make Workcover look all squeaky clean and give them a good image.
The writing is on the wall that this is what happened to Thompson.
|
Posted by confused at 8:43 PM, 14/1/2008 |
Link |
|
To Confused
The questions to your Doctors are loaded, they are well worded that the Doctors has only one way to answer them, the answer the insurance company wants. It is a tecnique and part of the industry, lawyers use it all the time in court. I have had case meetings where I can prove it (they are on tape). Just waiting for my day in court. unfortunately most workers are pushed to the limit so they have to accept it.
Have a look at the daily cause list in the Advertiser, workers are starting to fight back. |
Posted by crazy at 9:03 PM, 14/1/2008 |
Link |
| | |