New Changes to Workcover Legislation and what it means.
Changes have already taken place in respect of the changes to the Workcover legislation.
Please let us know how these changes have impacted upon your life.
.
Former WorkCover boss to stand trial for alleged corruption
The former director of WorkCover Qld, Harold Shand, leaves Brisbane's Magistrates Court after being committed to stand trial for alleged official corruption.
The former director of WorkCover Qld, Harold Shand, leaves Brisbane's Magistrates Court after being committed to stand trial for alleged official corruption. (ABC News: Jason Rawlins)
The former director of WorkCover Queensland, Harold Shand, has conceded there is a prima facie case against him on a charge of official corruption.
Shand, who was suspended from his job last year, is accused of paying a secret $60,000 commission to former Queensland Government minister Gordon Nuttall in 2002.
Both men appeared before Magistrate Linda Bradford-Morgan in a Brisbane court this morning for the start of a committal hearing.
But before prosecutor Tony Martin could deliver his opening, Shand's lawyer Tony Glynn conceded there was a prima facie case against his client.
Shand entered no plea after he was formally charged and was committed to trial in the District Court on a date to be fixed.
Aspects of Claims Agent’s Performance
Those surveyed were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is
excellent and 1 is very poor, a number of measures relating to the
performance of Employers Mutual.
In general, these ratings were in the range from 6.10 to 6.80, with only four
of the attributes tested being below this range, as outlined below.
�� Being able to contact your claims manager when you need to (6.80,
down from 6.99 in May 2007)
�� Having a claims manager with good people skills (6.60, down from
6.84 in May 2007)
�� Prompt processing of my expense claims and entitlements (6.60,
down from 6.70 in May 2007)
�� Having a claims manager who has good knowledge of the system
(6.60, down from 6.83 in May 2007)
�� The efficient handling of the paperwork relating to my case (6.50,
down from 6.74 in May 2007)
�� Having a claims manager who is understanding, and responsive to
my needs (6.30, down from 6.58 in May 2007)
�� Having a claims manager who is focused on getting me back to work
(6.30, down from 6.65 in May 2007)
�� Having a claims manager who is quick and responsive to managing
my claim (6.30, down from 6.61 in May 2007)
�� Being fair to the interests of all parties (6.20, down from 6.56 in May
2007)
�� Informing me of my rights, entitlements and obligations (6.10, down
from 6.47 in May 2007)
�� Being up front and open in telling me everything I need to know (6.10,
down from 6.45 in May 2007)
�� Having a realistic ‘Rehabilitation and Return-to-Work’ plan (5.90,
down from 6.20 in May 2007)
�� Having a claims manager who works closely with my Doctor,
employer and my rehabilitation provider on a ‘Rehabilitation and
Return-to-Work’ plan (5.80, down from 6.14 in May 2007)
�� Working with my employer in relation to a ‘Rehabilitation and ‘Returnto-
Work’ plan (5.60, down from 6.09 in May 2007)
�� Helping me find work that suits my skills and needs (5.30, down from
5.62 in May 2007)
Im not happy with my current rehab and have told eml i want to change rehab providers. I have sought rehab from elswhere but have been told by my case manager i have to stay with my current one because they are an eml rehab provider even tho the one i want to go to is workcover approved. My case manager told me i dont have the rite to choose and its upto eml who i go to. Can someone clarify this for me pleas? Can eml do this? My rehab provider is useless and wont let me go back to work even tho i have been cleared my employer keeps telling me they have no work for me. Its obvious the rehab provider is siding with my case manager who is not doing anything about my employer providing work for me. I just want proper rehab and to get back to work. Dont i have the rite??
I would suggest you write an email to your case manager and send a copy to the WorkCover Ombudsman with your issues. (send a copy bcc to Parnell or Brokenshire as well)
Posted by Make them accountable at 8:24 AM, 8/8/2008
Workers should have the right to choose their rehab consultants.
Perhaps throw in a dispute and see what happens.
The omnbudsman deals with non reveiwable decisions. So throw a complaint their way also..
Test the waters..
August 08, 2008 09:05am
SUPERANNUATION Minister Nick Sherry says the 9 per cent super guarantee is "not adequate" and the Federal Government will consider a mandated rise in super contributions.
Comments
Kevin Rudd has convenienly overlooked another option. Drop the Keating initiated tax on Super and boost our balances that way. Good of Mr Keating to share his thoughts on this too!
Posted by: Jim of Strathalbyn 12:27pm today
Comment 8 of 8
Some of us do save for our futures in addition to super and do so in other ways and would prefer to not put more money into super than the current arrangement as the super rules keep changing. I'd rather spread my investments and provide myself with greater flexibility. Also I'm in a government super scheme where if I make a 1percent contribution that 1percent pays for limited income protection insurance. It does not bolster my super. I already have and pay for a much better income protection insurance scheme and do not want to pay for two as I will not benefit from the government one. Why not make each pay rise be part cash in hand and part super until over time the desired percentage is reached?
Posted by: Susan of Aberfoyle Park 12:01pm today
Comment 7 of 8
Yeah just good money after bad. thank god i never put my life savings in super
Posted by: Mabel Smith of Unley 10:39am today
Comment 6 of 8
How about the government make employee contributions tax free, and make all super payouts tax free, then maybe people will save more. In addition, the super contributions made by employers should be raised to 15% in lieu of pay increases and employees should be forced to contribute at least 5%, and higher rates for higher income earners. It works in Singapore, why not here.
Posted by: Citizen of Adelaide 10:30am today
Comment 5 of 8
Whilst I support the increase in superannuation from the exisiting 9%, I cannot help but see this as another aspect of our lives that will find itself means tested. Will this be applied across the board or will those earning above a certain amount not be able to have access to this scheme? Given his wording in this article, I cannot help but think this will be the case.
Posted by: CG of Adelaide 9:55am today
Comment 4 of 8
I am not surprised that increasing the level of employer contribution is not on the agenda - that would see the final death blw to small business and big business woukd be looking to other countries. How about the government reducing the taxation on super - that would be a nice start. I think it was the Hawke/Keating one that raised the tax way back when.
Posted by: Pam Howard of Seaford 9:38am today
Comment 3 of 8
What is the government going to do about the injured workers on Workcover that were sacked by their employers and denied their super entitltments for years? Seems a 20% drop in their wages is one thing, another 10% is another and then to have to spend thousands on lawyers to handle all the litigation loaded upon them by the bureaucratic bungling of the claims agents- it seems that in the end injured workers are better off just walking away and not bothering with Workcover- at least not being on Workcover they would not be supporting the system that is in itself bleeding profusely from its unfunded liabiliities.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 9:37am today
Comment 2 of 8
Why doesn't the Government just drop the 15% contributions tax, the amount of money going into everybody's super account will go up without any cost to employer or employee. It will only reduce the Government's unfair tax grab.
Posted by: tony of dry creek 9:26am today
I am looking at doing a redemption but am so confused at what i may be entitled to. I have been told so many different stories and dont know which one is the right one. I have a major shoulder injury which is only getting worse but after being told by eml that i wont get a huge payout ss i undertook studies last year for youth work they are now only going to pay me on what the award rate for a youth worker is, not what will happen in the future. why did my case manager then ask me what amount i though was fair if that isnt what they will pay me anyway, i got told i may be lucky to get 30000 for my injury and as i have refused surgery that may lowerf the payment, i need help
Shipley v The State of South Australia (Dept for Correctional Services) [2001] SAWCT 141 (29 November 2001)
Judicial Determination - Worker sustains compensable disability and is incapacitated for work - Worker unhappy with respondent's chosen rehabilitation provider - Nominates own provider not being a provider with whom respondent has agreement for provision of rehabilitation "programmes or services", but having agreement with WorkCover - Respondent refuses to approve "Rehabilitation and Return to Work Plan" prepared by such external provider - Respondent then rejects worker's claim for rehabilitation expenses - Whether such refusal and rejection is unreasonable - Definitional provision in the Act - Held: Failure of respondent to establish a rehabilitation and return to work plan in terms requested by external rehabilitation provider is reviewable - Respondent's refusal to approve plan prepared by worker was unreasonable - Worker is entitled to claim for rehabilitation expenses - S 28A
You will find the REPRESENTATION Counsel for the Shipley case for the Respondent (WorkCover) was Mr W Lines. The now new WorkCover Ombudsman. If he didnt know the law then, I am sure he does now!
One of the better smaller rehab companies is Costa Pericles Consultancy. They arent in it for the money and genuinely try their best to get a good outcomes for all parties. They got me into a course i liked and a few months ago i got a full time job. Unfortunatly there have been problems with EML honoring the promises with Rise though. Anyway I my rehab consultant was great she was very upfront and honest and definatly knows what rehab is unlike my previous provider.
I was with costa pericles about a year ago but my case manager transferred me to another provider because she said she wasnt happy with my rehab, i was only at costa for about a month so not much could happen? The company im getting rehab from now is much worse and my rehab consultant is a total idiot and ive been through at least 6 or 7 eml case managers all have told me i cant choose my rehabilitation provider as eml knows whats best for me.
I had the worst experience with rehabilition at Personel Placement Consultancies. They are just job seekers after all. Maybe it was just me but I thought they had a different agenda than what the WorkCover act was supposed to do and I expected too much. The thing is my Doctors were not too impressed with their tecniques. Maybe they were more interested in influencing the medical specialist instead of working with them.
Posted by How to influence Doctors at 6:45 PM, 10/8/2008
Hmm- This is the way I understand the case managers should interpret the Occ health handout of EML.
1)Strive for a caring attitude regardless of what you think. ie Bullshit yoru way through.
2) Could we arrange an assessment to arrange some pain counselling/activity/program that would help them?
"Then after their response could I call you after the assessment to talk about it"?
So you want my doctor to do some behind the doors deal with my case manager?
How low do they go?
Clearly this is raising issues of accountability and why not say it while the worker is present? (ensure your release forms cover this scenario- because case managers got no right to hold case conferences without you present if you do not consent)
3) He is reluctant to upgrade and school holidays is on the way?
What the heck does school holidays have to do with it?
Is this a typical suggestion that every injured worker on workcover takes time off because School holidays are approaching?
What a joke..most injured workers would prefer to be at work than look after their bloody kids 24/7.
This Occ Health handout simply shows how out of touch the agents really are and what poor negotiating skills they have.
If a worker has an injury simply sort the mess out- either he can work or not. If he can not work is he recovering, how can that recovery be sped up?
If not pay him out and let him get on with his life instead of engaging in all the crap and wasting millions of dollars sustaining EML and all of these WorkCover employees and Gurus who do nothing all day but meddle with peoples lives and waste employers hard earned profit.
Has anyone on work-cover ever sat back and thought about what has happened in their lives?
I have.
Being on Work cover is like havng a bunch of monkeys on your back.
Who are the Monkeys?
My Case Manager, My doctor, My rehab provider, My employer etc etc.
And all of them have really got no idea of how to rehabilitate me, heal me, manage my claim or get me back to work.
Seems like all they do is hang on for a free ride..
Peter, they have a job to do. Unfortunately WorkCover itself has corrupted the system so much - especial rehab providers, that half the time they arent doing their job correctly. The thing I hear alot from injured workers is that they are annoyed with being pestered, but I ask you this, wouldnt you be complaining if they werent always contacting you? Wouldnt you be saying they arent doing their jobs correctly? Would you rather just be allowed to sick back and be treated like your on the pension? You are an injured worker and the job for all parties including yourself is to get you back into the workforce and back to living a normal productive life, which certainly cant be done with you sitting back doing nothing.
I agree with the above comment as I have now been sick of work for 3 years, yes "3" years. I hate it and feel trapped because I know my injury is an obsticle when I am cleared to go back to work. I reckon they should be able to remove any disclosure on employment forms about having a workplace injury. It would give a lot of injured workers a lot more confidance without feeling discriminated against.
I also read the link about case managers "influencing" treating doctors and my Doctor made it that I had to be present for all discussions. Everything had to be in writing and wouldnt take phone calls from "insurance clerks". I can only guess my doctor had previous experience with such practises.
I think the one major problem is claims agents such as EML DIRECTING rehabilitation consultants what to do. It goes against everything and causes far more problems. Peter mentioned pestering above.. Peter these rehab consultants and doctors are pestered BY case managers to pester you, hence they really have no choice. EML have made it that if rehab consultants dont do EXACTLY what they want, then they simply don't get any business.. they are punished for being independant - while if you do whatever EML or happen to have a director on the WorkCover Board (ie. De Poi) then you get all the business and make a shitload of money. EML don't reward outcomes.. they reward whatever companies lick their arse and jump when they say!
How ironic that the South Australian government are about to bring in a new law in relation to WORKERS will have the right to ask for more flexible working arrangements and be protected from discrimination over family responsibilities when case managers are made to believe to doubt injured workers injuries because "school holidays are coming up soon".
I wonder if injured workers are proteceted from such discimination or will they be seen as hindering their rehabilitation by spending time with their kids???
"The changes to the Equal Opportunity Act will protect both female and male employees from discrimination on the grounds of "life responsibilities" associated with family and caring. The Government moves are outlined in a paper produced to respond to a parliamentary committee investigation into work-life balance which reported earlier this year".
SA Labor Considers Injured Workers To be Criminals
Rann couldn't give a stuff about the homelives of injured workers. It's evident through the actions of eml and workcover that he belives injured workers are criminals and bludgers. he doesn't care about work injuries one little bit. Just about him and his pals on the workcover board making $$$ while the state compensation unfunded liability increases more and more
I've learnt not to believe a word my case manager at employers mutual says. They are total liars. And my rehab consultant has been trying to sec 38 me. Thank god I have an advocate.
WorkCover has instructed Employers Mutual Limited to put through as many redemptions as they can to make their statistics look good before the end of the year so the Rann Government can reveal he is taking care of the WorkCover problem. Also you watch after January 2009 the amount of people thrown off WorkCover when the Medical Panel is established - it will be swift and ruthless and very pro-making WorkCover look good. That's why you will find it will have only doctors that are "WorkCover Approved". Prepare to fight injured workers because WorkCover is counting on you being "victims". I can tell you right now WorkCover is already patting themselves on the back.
If Case Managers have made false or misleading statements about your claim then its time should really be brought to the new WorkCover Ombudsmans attention.
Perhaps they could go be made to go to rehabilitation like the injured workers.
Perhaps injured workers could organise meetings for them and call it "Liars Anonymous".
I
You may be correct in Rann patting himself on the back but the left faction of the Labor Party still have not forgiven Rann for reducing workers rights. This isnt about the current 3000 workers on the system but the future tens of thousands injured workers (voters) who will be experiencing how tough life will be.
Where was that left faction when these changes were put through??? I didnt see any of them being publicly vocal especially in the media when labor chose to put these changes through, nor did I see any resignations in protest. The entire labor party are traitors.
Both state Labor and Liberal are sell-outs and both receive large donations from Ms. Sandra De Poi - self-proclaimed "queen bee" of the WorkCover Board. Hence why the legislation was passed through swiftly with little debate or argument.
I'm actually quite surprised though that Liberal Rob Lucas has recently began to investigate corruption within the WorkCover System and Rehabilitation providers. I can say from personal experience that the WorkCover complaints unit is entirely useless. They claim to "investigate" but all they really do is work in league with those being complained about (generally Case Managers and the way their claim is handled) to come up with an illogical explanation for negligent actions.
If you have any personal complaints or have any concerns with the WorkCover system or treatment by your Rehabilitation Provider or Case Manager, then I would suggest writing your concerns to Rob Lucas. He seems to be only politician at the moment actually ACTING on anything and has publicly queried concerns of conflicts of interest and corruption within WorkCover.
His details are:
Write: North Terrace
Parliament House
ADELAIDE SA 5000
Phone: 8237 9313
Fax: 8237 9562
You can also fill out a contact form with details here: http://www.roblucas.com.au/Contact.asp
As stated, he seems to be the only politician actively doing anything about this. Even Kris Hanna doesn't seem to be doing much at all.
Also, just a point raised several times on here. if you are an injured worker and on WorkCover, YOU HAVE RIGHTS. Don't let WorkCover or Employers Mutual bully you to do anything you don't want to do. You have the right to legal advice, advocate representation and you have the right to choose who rehabilitates you. WorkCover and Employers Mutual have already proven on countless occassions they cannot be trusted when it comes to injured worker's rights, and given the already proven conflicts of interest on the WorkCover Board it's fair to say that WorkCover is corrupted to the core and no longer works in the interest of the injured worker and getting them back to work. It works more for the pockets of WorkCover board members who are financially profitting from the rehabilitation (or lack there of) of injured workers and of the Labor Party who are putting MATES on the WorkCover Board and have been for several years now leading to the increased unfunded liability blowout.
Newly sworn-in Member of the Legislative Council, the Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC has asked me to forward to you, and your members and supporters, the below extract from the Maiden Speech that he made on Tuesday 29 July 2008.
Robert was sworn in on Thursday 24 July 2008. If you wish to make an appointment with him, please contact his Personal Assistant, Cherise Burton at his office on 8237 9458.
Workcover
I want to talk about WorkCover, and this might come as a bit of a surprise, particularly to the Liberal Party. I shook my head when I heard what was happening with WorkCover. I was well aware of what was going on with WorkCover in the early 1990s and the unfunded liability was blowing out. By 2002 the unfunded liability had come back to between, from memory, $35 million or $40 million up to $70 million-in other words, it was manageable.
The last couple of years that I was in the House of Assembly, I heard questions to the then minister asking what he was going to do about the unfunded WorkCover liability that was blowing out. At that stage it went to $200 million. A few months later, in answer to another question, it was suggested that it was $300 million and then $400 million. A few years later, the Premier said publicly that it was $1 billion-a third of the State Bank debt in unfunded public sector liability.
I found it interesting that the minister was left on watch all the time that this was happening. I understand reports were not presented to parliament on time, if at all, during that period, yet the government left that minister on the watch. I suggest that, at best, the minister was asleep on the job. That minister then brought in legislation that will kick workers right where it hurts-not just workers, but also their families. That happened in the mid-1990s and workers lost out then, and we were in a bad state of affairs at the time. The economy was not booming, the tax revenue was not there and there was massive unfunded debt. So why, I ask this council, do workers have to suffer again?
I have been out with police on patrol. I attended a situation of domestic violence with them, and I will give an example, as it illustrates what can happen. A police officer goes to the back door, another goes to the front door; they have already seen the lady badly bashed; the guy, who is off his head, sees a police officer and myself at the front door and races to the kitchen. What does the police officer do? Either he backs off, calls for back up, risks that person injuring or killing themselves or, alternatively, bolts through the door and tries to ensure that that person does not get the carving knife from the kitchen, as clearly he was trying to do. When I was with that police officer, fortunately he got there just in time. Imagine that police officer having that carving knife ripped across his shoulder. I do not necessarily think that injury would be fixed in four or six months or even a year. I am not just talking about the physical injury but also the mental and psychiatric injury, yet this parliament, thanks to both the Labor government for implementing it and the Liberal Party for supporting it, has allowed that legislation to go through.
Why should any wife or husband say goodbye to their loved one in the morning, expecting them to come home at night safe from their job, only to find they have had an accident in the workplace and that their whole life is totally disrupted because of it? Injured people have come into my electorate office and, if the physical injury did not get to them, WorkCover certainly did. I have seen no reform with WorkCover in terms of its management, its board, or responsibility by the CEO. I have seen no reform in any of those areas. The only 'reform' I have seen is to kick the worker.
I am not happy when I see an increase month after month in our WorkCover account when it comes through. I do not like that, because my input costs are already too high running our farm business. Having said that-and I pray it never happens-if any of my workers get injured I want them looked after. That is not a bad request of WorkCover: to look after them until they return to work. The ridiculous argument that everyone is out there rorting is a furphy.
There is already legislation in place for the rorter and, in fact, I used it proudly when constituents would come to me and dob them in. There is a mechanism to put an inspector after them and they go after them pretty quickly. They did not rort any more because they were not on the WorkCover system. Do not blame the rorters for this. Most people get back to work fairly quickly because they actually enjoy going back to work. However, that small percentage who cannot return to work are broken and their families are broken-and I have seen it. They end up becoming addicted to alcohol and drugs (at times). They are homeless, the kids suffer and the government has to provide all this other backup support, both commonwealth and state. What has been done in this parliament is a joke, and if I get one chance and one chance only to try to turn some of that around, I will.
I put a final challenge to the government now and the Liberal Party as well, which is in bed with the government on this-and I know why: because they were intimidated, not by the government but by others. If members of the Liberal Party had used their brains-and I bet some of them in the party room would have been raising this-they would have said, 'This is the potential ripple effect to roll the Labor government.' Make no mistake about it, I knew when the former Liberal government was in trouble on certain issues. Monitor your phone, monitor your emails, monitor your faxes and monitor the people who knock on your door in a marginal seat and you know when you are in trouble.
The ripple effect could have built up to a tsunami. If the Libs had used their initiative and not got sucked in, it could have been steaming ahead in the polls now. However, do members know what will happen at the next election? It is good for the Labor Party-very clever. They will say, 'Don't blame us for WorkCover: the Liberals supported it.' It will let them off the hook, but the poor worker and their families are the worse off. I say that it is very disappointing and I use that word underestimating how damn disappointed I am.
I say to those families that, when you are injured and all these doctors start to freak you out and all these people interview you, and your wife says, 'You are home for the third month in a row and I am getting sick of you', and the guy says, 'I am going down the pub'; and the kids miss out, the food is not on the table and everything implodes, go and talk to the people who voted for these changes and challenge them. Because, make no mistake, this will destroy families. We do not stand for that in Family First. We stand for building families and communities, and I am very pleased to see that, along with other crossbench members, my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood voted against those mad amendments.
Kind Regards,
Daniela Trelease
Office of the Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC
I have noticed a link on this site on Fix WorkCover. Its seems to be a Victorian site and i could be wrong but didnt Alan Clayton base his reforms on the Victorian Model?
Redemptions are been paid at a rapid rate at the moment. I just hope injured workers are fully aware that there could be some scare tactics happening due to the reforms coming in next year. Remember, the last thing WorkCover would want is having to continuely pay injured workers "top up" until retirement age as stated in the new reforms. Remember a redemption can only be paid when there is a top up of $30 a week or close to retirement.
Posted by Wright back at you! at 8:06 PM, 12/8/2008
Injured workers who take a Redemption will be left to fend for themselves and will most likely end up unemployed and unemployable. That money will only last you so long, meanwhile you make Workcover look good... Basically rewarding them for their negligence.
Posted by I was sect38'd by De Poi and all i got was this lousy tshirt at 10:20 PM, 12/8/2008
Be wary of investigators and Case managers making false or misleaidng statements.
Be wary of Case managers making false or misleading statements to doctors to try and increase the pressure on you.
Investigators from WorkCover have also got a history of making false or misleading statements. Just because nobody has done anything about it does not mean it has not happened many times in the past- the new Workcover Ombudsman will have to resolve these issues now as and when they arrive. It will make for interesting times as the previous State Ombudsman did little about it.
There is no need to name them here. They know who they are and that the balls will come bouncing back in their court one day...
In regards to comments above, if WorkCover offers you a redemption at this point in time DO NOT ACCEPT. They are only offering it to you to get you off the system as swiftly and quickly as possible to make their statistics look good. The fact is your EML case manger(s) have probably made so many mistakes in your claim (I can tell you right now that WorkCover is constantly inundated with complaints about EML case managers and the way they handle their files), that you will have a case for negligence in the way your claim has been handled. It is imperative that you seek legal counsel as soon as possible. Do not do ANYTHING your EML case manager tells you to do without legal advice. WorkCover has taken advantage of injured workers and their lack of knowledge about their rights under the WCA for quite some time, and it is more than likely that your rehabilitation consultant is working at the direct instruction of your EML case manager and is not giving you advice or proper rehabilitation. It should be made clear that both your claims agent and rehabilitation in this state has been severely corrupted by WorkCover. WorkCover is meant to be there to protect and help injured workers and employers to implement and sustain a return to work - in stead it is being abused by a corrupted WorkCover board that is extremely pro-employer and anti-worker. If your employer does not want you back EML will do everything in it's power to ensure you don't go back there - EVEN if you are fit to return to your pre-injury duties. And don't get me started on those injured workers needing to find a different employer.. EML & WorkCover are very stringent with their training and generally don't care what injured workers want - they instruct rehabilitation providers to find WHATEVER work they can for the injured worker with no though on what the worker is skilled for or whether the worker will be happy in the new job.
To Insider,
I have to agree with your views on WorkCover now wanting to redeem to hide their dirty work of the past.
Please correct me if I am wrong and I would like some views on this, but does the new legislation stipulate that injured workers have to have some sort of vocational rehabilitation into suitable employment before they can be "legally" forced off the system if the injured worker can prove that there has been no "successfull" rehabilitation. I think we all know vocational rehabilitation has been ignored by rehab companies over the last few years.
If this is the case, the practises of lack of rehab will certainly surface when they start to attempt these new reforms. So i guess the instructions would be to get rid of these issues before they have to be dealt with.
All it needs is one successfull decision in the supreme court to make it formal.
De Poi did a report on me some time ago but i didnt quite know what was going on. I was summoned to their offices and did all these questions and tests. When I did a 107B application I found a "employment targeting report" it was about 120 pages long with 5 job descriptions that they were trying to match me with. The pay for these jobs were less than half i was getting working at the quarry. I had no experience with any of the jobs at all. I thought to myself if I had the experience to work these jobs workcover will have to pay me a damn lot of top up for the rest of my life. anyway after about a year i had more surgery on my back and they sent me to de poi again and i knew what was going on. I again did a 107B and they sent the exact same "targeting report" 100 odd pages probaly just photocopied. I wonder how much this would have cost WorkCover. I rang my boss and told him and he could not believe the waste of money.
Does anyone happen to know what exactly constitutes an investigation by workcover of a claimant? Is an investigation where Workcover put you under surveillance or does it involve other things as well and if so what?
Do all LONG TERM claimants on workcover get investigated or is it only a select few? Does anyone know for a fact that they have been investigated and if so how did you know?
If all long term claimants get investigated and there are literally thousands on the system (something like 3000) then that must waste an incredible amount of money.
I can tell you one thing about long term claims... The majority of them are just sitting gathering dust in EML's long term claims unit. The long term claims are a major embarassment for EML and Workcover and are their biggest concern and most rehab providers balk at dealing with a claim over 3 years old because Workcover has just let the case sit there hence its very difficult to get alot of them back to work. Not to mention De Poi and other companies such as Personnel Placement (EML's preferred rehab providers) prefer easy claims that they can get off the system to make their CAPO stats look good.
Subsequently guess who is charge of EML's long term claims unit? You guessed it, corrupt Workcover board member Sandra De Poi's best mate Ruth(less) Mitchell - a very well known hater of injured workers.
In regards to investigations, there is NO END to what Workcover will investigate, nor the tactics they will use. Workcover no longer protects injured workers and helps them recover from injuries, it sees injured workers as the enemy and will do as much as possible to make a worker's life hell if it wants to. Thats what happens when yo have an entirely corrupted system that refuses to take responsibility for it's own mismanagement of claims leading to a blowout of the unfunded liability.
So who exactly represents the interests of injured workers on the Board not? Not that Janet Giles ever did anything useful, she is a total sellout to workers, and now we have a rightwing labor appointed union stooge. But why isnt a former injured worker with experience of dealing with Workcover and Claims Agents on the Board?
Also ive had dealings with Ruth Mitchell. Total b***h!
Yep, long term claims will be targeted before 1st April 2009, they will be trying wage reductions, breach's the lot and maybe offer a token redemption.
To find out if you are under surveillance ask your case manager.
Make a note of their response.
Do a 107B request.
If it shows anything that has been claimed exempted do an FOI application.
Chances are that the FOI may give you more information than the 107B as the onus on disclosure falls in favour of disclosure rather than withholding ( which it does under the corrupted system know as section 107B of the Workcover Act).
I think Workcover spend hundereds of thousands of dollars targeting some injured workers whether they are sick or not just to get them back.
Rosemary told me that even Bruce Carter when he was chairman pushed the investigators to target an individual injured worker because he complained about Workcover to his member of parliament..
BTW- If your case manager starts making false or misleading statements to your doctors and rehab people and starts asking questions that are inconsistent with your injury, chances are the case manager is targeting you and you are under investigation.
Surveillance and investigation are two different things although Workcover seem to have trouble defining it as they use whatever tactics they can to push people off the system.
"An update of my workers compensation file held by WorkCover and or its agents
I totally agree with the above comment. You have every right to ask for 107B file. The guys down at independant unit are pretty helpful. You will be totally amazed how they treat you by some of the comments they write. Depending on how long you have had your claim you will not receive everything as it is easy to pick up when things have happened on your file without explanation. You will find in your file the case manager only communicates with rehab and yourself. You will never find communication with the assistant CM, the CM's team leader or even EML'S legal rep. If you are not happy then do a FOI (freedom of information) you will find the form here,
Are you people really that naive? Case Managers are terrible with their files and misplace documents and dont log certain actions and contacts. If you want complete evidence request a copy of your rehabilitation file, rehab consultants are required to keep detailed case notes and copies of ALL email and other correspondence and it must match up with the invoicing for auditing purposes. Your rehab file would be much more revealing and precise.
Rehab files are a good sourse for information and the above comment is right that they are supposed to note everything. Thats why when there is a rehab meeting with Doctors they are busily writing everything down instead of actually discussing your case. I dont know why they just dont do what I do and tape record them!
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)
RENATO CASTELLO
August 16, 2008 02:03pm
PREMIER Mike Rann today suffered an extraordinary attack from Labor faithful over the Government's controversial WorkCover laws.
In an unprecedented embarrassment for the Government, part of the 200-strong crowd at party's annual convention rose for a standing ovation during a fiery speech condemning the legislation.
The convention then unanimously censured the Rann Government for slashing workers entitlements through its WorkCover reforms and for refusing to listen to the trade union movement.
The condemnation was led by Australian Workers Union secretary Wayne Hanson who delivered a stinging speech against Labor MPs for "trashing" the traditional Labor values leading to cries of "shame" from the floor.
It came as union delegates, members of the party sub-branches and parliamentary wing rejected a plea by former Labor MP Ralph Clarke to rejoin the ALP.
As Mr Hanson moved the union-backed motion he said he spoke "not in a tone of anger, but more to say what needs to be said".
"Comrades the content of this bill is s–––, comrades this s––– has got to stop," he told delegates gathered at the German Club.
"We need to tell our Labor politicians that what they did was wrong, we need to tell the community that the industrial movement is poles apart with Parliamentary Labor on this issue.
"We need to tell Labor politicians that we expect to retain their genuine Labor values not trash them.
"It is my hope above all hope that every single delegate to this convention will stand shoulder to shoulder and side by side with the workers and support his censure motion."
His speech – watched by MPs including former Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright who oversaw the reforms – brought a rousing applause and a standing ovation.
Mr Rann, sitting behind Mr Hanson, appeared to shift uneasily in his seat, as the union stalwart took aim at the Premier accusing him of going back on his word to protect injured workers rights.
Under the reforms injured workers entitlements have been cut in a bid to rein in WorkCover's $1billion unfunded liability.
Mr Hanson's passionate speech came just moments after Mr Rann said he was committed to the interests of workers and was not prepared to "stand by and preside" over the slow and inevitable demise of WorkCover.
"I was not prepared to stand by and watch the cost of the scheme grow thereby reducing the state's competitive advantage – maintaining the status quo was not an option," he said.
After the meeting Mr Hanson said the Rann Government had denied the union on two separate occasions to debate the legislation.
"I think that it's time our Labor politicians recognised that if they want to be in accord with the general Labor populous then they've got to consider the trade unions and they can't continue with arrogance," he said.
Labor West Torrens MP Tom Koutsantonis who supported the WorkCover changes said the censure motion now meant the party could move on.
"We've had the debate, we've had the argument and now we can move on," he said.
Mike Rann, you just dont get it you ignorant peice of S***T
You stood by for 6 years doing NOTHING whilst injured workers were telling you!
"I was not prepared to stand by and watch the cost of the scheme grow thereby reducing the state's competitive advantage – maintaining the status quo was not an option"
Funny the WorkCover board has always had a union leader on it and nothing has been done. Janet Giles herself was on the board while these changes in legislation were being and did sweet f**k all until she realised her top union job would be under threat if she stayed on it under these changes. And now another union stooge who supported the amendments is on the board. Perhaps the unions should also look within for traitors against workers.
Posted by Will adelaidenow publish any comments? at 7:32 PM, 16/8/2008
AdelaideNow Once Again Refuses To Publish Comments
I notice there are still no comments published, yet on other articles put on the site after the mike rann embarassment article there are comments. What is AdelaideNow afraid of?
Just some questions I would like Good News Mike to publicly answer:
-
1. Why is there a workcover board member (Sandra De Poi) profiteering from the rehabilitation of injured workers to the tune of $6 million in contracts in the past 3 years?
-
2. Why is workcover's lawyers (Minter Ellison) the same law firm that represents De Poi Consultancy Servies - the same rehabilitation company which has Sandra De Poi as managing director.
-
3. Why despite the fact that unfunded liability has blown out further since given their contract has Employers Mutual Limited not been removed as sole claims agent?
-
4. Why has De Poi Consultancy Services been allowed to employ Employers Mutual Limited management (Elaine Soloman) surely this is a conflict of interest, one of many affecting the fairness of rehabilitation not to mention the livelihood of other rehabilitation providers?
-
5. Why has Employers Mutual Limited been allowed to implement a system where only 22 of workcovers contracted rehabilitation providers are sent referalls, and why wasnt this system developed by Employers Mutual Limited put out for tender to allow the decision of "key providers" to be fair and transparent?
-
6. Why is Employers Mutual Limited allowed to continue to deny injured workers the option of choice in who rehabilitates them, even though in the courts and tribunals decisions have been handed down specifically stating that injured workers can choose any workcover contracted rehabilitation provider they want?
-
Instead of meeting with film directors to make yourself a "good news" leader, if you could call a press conference and answer these simple questions it would be much appreciated.
-
Yours,
Former labor voter who has seen and experienced workcover/eml corruption first hand.
Posted by Sick of corrupt labor bullshit at 2:06 PM, 17/8/2008
Premier Mike Rann says he is standing by changes to WorkCover legislation, amid criticism from his own party.
The annual Labor Party convention yesterday voted unanimously to condemn the changes, in a motion led by the union movement.
The unions are calling for the laws to be amended, saying they impede workers rights.
But Mr Rann is standing firm.
"The fact of the matter is that I was elected by all of the people of this state to govern in the interest of all of the people of this state, and I'm not going to be bullied by business, unions, lawyers or anybody else," he said.
"We are a Government that's prepared to make the tough decisions, not just take the easy decisions."
The president of the Australian Workers Union, Wayne Hanson, says he hopes the vote will at least open up further debate on the legislation.
"It's a pity that we had to come to the point that we came to, but I think that there are opportunities now if the parliamentary collegues are inclined to accept what we said, there is an opportunity for us to address these issues, and indeed improve the current bill," he said.
Mike Rann was clearly bullied by Mr Vaughn and the Business reps from the WorkCover board. How else could the levy cap that Clayton recommended in his reforms be reduced?
Posted by you cant fool the people all of the time! at 8:15 AM, 18/8/2008
I overheard two lawyers speaking at the tribunal yesterday. They said working for Work-Cover was like a licence to print money.
Seems they must be on the gravy boat. Someone must have slipped them a junket.
Of course Peter Vaughn would be against anything that improves worker's lives. How's the WorkCover board going Mr. Vaughn? And given that you are so FOR small businesses, then why is WorkCover and it's Claims Agent now descriminating against small rehabilitation providers in giving them referrals? Tsk Tsk Mr. Vaughn.
Posted by: Business As Usual of Adelaide 1:52pm today
Comment 2 of 19
Posted by http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,2 at 7:51 PM, 20/8/2008
When you think about it, The WorkCover levy is funded by Business's of this state and Peter Vaughan is a rep on the WorkCover board. If I owned a business I would be blaming Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan for such high levies as he would have fully known where the money is going.
Businesses shouldnt be blaming injured workers for workcover's problems they should be blaming the corrupt workcover board, and it's sidekick employers mutual limited who likes to bully and bullshit workers. They cant even handle simple claims effectively. As for Vaughn, again we have have a business leader who is not only earning $50, 000 a year as a workcover board member, but also earns a fortune from his work in Business SA and god knows what else. Does this scumbag even know what its like to earn a minimum wage? Obviously not.
Posted by He works hard for his money uh huh at 9:33 PM, 20/8/2008
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Workcover considers itself a cashcow when its board members hand themselves $6 million in contracts, millions are wasted in frivolous legal cases and EML is wasting millions with case management negligence which causes barriers in rehabilitation. But meh, injured workeres are to blame for it all right? Right?
Posted by Wasting money the Workcover way at 6:47 AM, 21/8/2008
Business owners should be so angry they have been paying high levies because of the wasteful money being used on the lack of rehabilitation and frivilious legal fees from the last few years. I am sure the ombudsman (a well paid lawyer by this system himself) will be confronted time and time again by workers that the system has failed them and he would have to deal with new laws that stipulate injured workers have to be rehabilitated before they can be kicked off the system by. I feel now the business owners will now foot the bill of mass redemptions to hide the lack of rehab.
^
Peter Vaughan IS Business SA. He will just have a laugh with his WorkCover buddies and probably pass the info on to Queen Sandra.
Plus take a look at how much Business SA charges for some of it's business-help "courses".. they are pretty much rip-off merchants.. no wonder that have Vaughan in charge, they are fleecing businesses through WorkCover levies and their own business enterprises. The membership cost for Business SA is high, so it's laughable that Vaughan comes out in support of small business... maybe support for those who handover money to Business SA perhaps.
Business spent thousands of $$$$ on the workcover reforms issue in advertisements and now $$$$$ are spent on redemptions, now thats what I call getting things done!
Posted by Business SA delivers! at 12:44 PM, 21/8/2008
Section 35A Section 3 Interpretation
Suitable Employment:
�� employment in work for which the worker is
currently suited, whether or not the work is
available, having regard to the following;
(a) The nature of the worker’s incapacity and previous
employment;
(b) The workers age, education, skills and work experience;
(c) The worker’s place of residence;
(d) Medical information relating to the worker that is
reasonably available, including in any medical certificate
or report;
(e) If any rehabilitation programs are being provided to or
for the worker;
(f) The worker’s rehabilitation and return to work plan, if
any.
�� It will be the role of the medical panel to determine
whether the jobs listed are “suitable”
How can a medical panel determine whether a job is suitable? Would they be aware that I may have a criminal record and 90% of employers require a police check? How can this be a medical question?
Er.. payment from WorkCover isn't a benefit. You should probably give up your payments from EML and go on a centrelink benefit if you don't want to work, I don't think WorkCover cover maternity leave or babysitting.
Given all the redemptions being handed out to make Mike Rann look great, there is gonna be a hell of alot of injured workers going on a centrelink benefit in the near future anyway.
I agree with the above comment about staying at home looking after the kids should not be a workcover benefit. There are some genuine injured workers who have to deal with people such as Ruth Mitchell and heartless other workcover providers because of the very low percantage of "bludgers".
Taking a redemption and going onto benefits would not be the easy way out. Centerlink will also make it difficult to stay at home.
Our Company is a highly successful Return to Work Service Provider in the worker's compensation arena. Our speciality is in the delivery of appropriate rehabilitation programs for injured workers under the WorkCover Scheme.
We are seeking applications from suitably qualified Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists who can demonstrate skills in the following areas:
Job Analysis
Work Place Assessments
Activities of Daily Living Assessments
Development of graduated return to work schedules
Preparation of associated reports
Clinical Assessments
Being well organised, enthusiastic and customer focused with a results orientated approach and a sense of urgency will be important keys to your success.
We offer an attractive salary, appropriate training/supervision where required, a pleasant working environment and participation in a highly proactive, close knit team in a fast paced and competitive industry.
Successful applicants will be required to obtain a police clearance.
Enquiries and applications should be directed to:
Jenny Cremin
Operations Manager
De Poi Consultancy Services Pty Ltd
Suite D, 83 Fullarton Road
KENT TOWN SA 5067
jcremin@depoiconsult.com
Job Analysis
Work Place Assessments
Activities of Daily Living Assessments
Development of graduated return to work schedules
Preparation of associated reports
Clinical Assessments
No mention of rehabilitating injured workers, just job matching...
I have to agree with the above comment that all they are is employment consultants. Why would anyone who has a degree in Physio wanna become a job matcher?
It seems to me that the employer’s obligation pursuant to s 58B must take precedence over s 35. For it to be otherwise would defeat one of the main objects of the Act; the effective rehabilitation of disabled workers and their early return to work.
In my view Mr ********* is entitled to income maintenance payments at eighty percent of his notional weekly earnings less his actual earning from self-employment for the period from 12 July 2007 and ongoing until *********** returns suitable duties to him.
"the effective rehabilitation of disabled workers and their early return to work".
Prosecution - Guilty pleas - Sentencing - Failure to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that employee was safe from injury and risks to health – Confined space - Employee required to use extension ladder to access bottom of 4.8m deep manhole - Manhole was not treated as a confined space in that: no hazard identification and risk assessment was performed; no confined space training was provided; no entry permit system was in place; no rescue equipment or retrieval system was in place; no PPE was provided; and no first aid facilities were provided - Extension ladder was in poor condition with a missing rubber boot, a missing bottom rung and a twisted leg - Top section of ladder gave way while employee was descending, causing him to fall and suffer injuries to his legs, spine and torso - Employee had to pull himself up the ladder, without use of his legs, to a point where another employee could reach down to him - Failure to report incident as soon as reasonably practicable - Reduction of penalties by 5% on account of very late guilty pleas and contrition - Held: Convictions on both charges, and fines of $30,400 and $1,425 - S 19(1) Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act - Reg 6.6.2 Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995.
On Monday 18 August a delegation of union officials and members from the ANF, AMWU, ASU, CFMEU, ETU, NTEU and Trades Hall went to meet the CEO, Directors, board members and staff of WorkCover and WorkSafe. The meeting was initiated by WorkCover and was a round table discussion about issues affecting workers in the regional areas.
We received a good hearing and got some positive responses, although we are not happy with some of the answers, it was agreed that the forum was useful and that future feedback and discussion was a good idea.
Issues raised included;
* Union officials not being able to access workplaces even after all the correct procedures were followed.
* Not being able to represent workers even after being invited to the workplace by the Health and Safety Representative.
* The nature of Stress claims and the role of the "Hanks Review".
* Failure to prosecute breaches of the Act including not complying with "notifiable incidences".
* The limitation of the 12 months limit rule on investigations and prosecutions.
* The drop in staffing levels at the Geelong WorkSafe office.
* Protection of HSRs.
* Unsatisfactory review processes for the DWG Review.
WorkCover gave us a commitment to get back to us on a number of issues raised. It was good to see the top brass of WorkCover in Geelong and being prepared to be in the hot seat. We look forward to the next meeting to see how things are moving along. As Alexander the Great once wrote "in the end it only matters what you have done".
Posted by Geelong TradesHall Council at 10:06 PM, 22/8/2008
Evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry alleging conflict of interest and favouritism in contracts being awarded by WorkCover had to be investigated thoroughly, Liberal Member of the Legislative Council Rob Lucas said today.
“A number of very serious claims had been made by witnesses at recent hearings of the Legislative Council Statutory Authorities Review Committee,” Mr Lucas said.
Mr L Birch: “…for many years it has been well known that De Poi Consultancy Services, which provides rehabilitation services, has not been the best organisation; in actual fact, I would not touch that company with a barge pole, to be quite frank. The reality is that she [Sandra De Poi] sits on the board and, as I said before, I believe she has a conflict of interest. She has a very good relationship with Ruth Mitchell from Employers Mutual (EML), and she has relationships with people in the Labor Party. I suggest to you that that is probably one of the main reasons she gets such a huge amount of work… …
Hon RI Lucas: “…Is it your evidence to this Committee that case managers of EML have said to you directly that they have been directed by Ruth Mitchell to use Sandra De Poi for certain –
Mr L Birch: “That’s right.”
(Hansard, 7 July 2008, Les Birch, Workers Compensation Advocate, CFMEU (SA Division)
Ms R Mckenzie-Ferguson: “Yes, certain providers are favoured by WorkCover and EML. They seem to be very well represented on the WorkCover Board.
Hon RI Lucas: “Are you referring to Sandy De Poi’s company?
Ms R Mckenzie-Ferguson: “Yes.”
(Hansard, 14 July 2008, Rosemary Mckenzie-Ferguson, Founder, Work Injured Resource Connection)
Ms A Costa: “…we have an industry that, despite a number of reviews of rehabilitation, still functions on favouritism and there is no independence in selection of providers, despite what we hear.”
(Hansard, 7 July 2008, Andrea Costa, Rehabilitation Provider, Costa Pericles Consultancy)
“It should be noted that the last three Annual Reports of WorkCover report that Ms De Poi’s company received a total $6,237,809 in contracts through WorkCover,” he said.
“In his evidence to the meeting of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, Mr Les Birch indicated he had copies of correspondence with WorkCover and Ms De Poi outlining his concerns about these issues.
“Mr Birch has agreed to provide copies of all such correspondence to the Committee.
“Whilst reserving a final view on the accuracy of these serious claims, it is my view that they must be investigated by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and WorkCover management and the Rann Government must also respond to these claims.
“In particular, have these concerns ever been raised with Premier Rann or Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright and, if so, what action did they take?”
The make up of the Board is open to
criticism. It can be fairly asked whether a
Board which comprises of stakeholders can
ever be properly functional and capable of
making decisions for the benefit of the
organisation when the views of many of the
stakeholders are so diametrically opposed.
Another problem associated with
stakeholder representation is the
perception of self interest and conflict of
interest which was recently raised by
Mr Les Birch when commenting upon the
role of Sandra De Poi as a Board member
and owner of one of the single largest
service providers to WorkCover
Corporation.
A truly worthwhile reform would be an
amendment to the WorkCover Corporation
Act to remove the requirement that at least
four members must directly represent the
interests of employers and employees. We
should, quite simply, have a board made up
of the most qualified people to lead the
Corporation.
By the time the next election comes along, all the current injured workers on workcover would have gor their payouts (redemptions) costing business's millions (funded liability) but the real success story would be that Rann's workcover reforms would have been successfull because the unfunded liability would have diminished. Dont be fooled!
Posted by: andrew pascoe of burnside 4:58pm August 22, 2008
Comment 50
^^
not before corrupt rehabilitation providers like De Poi Consultancy Services make some more millions by bullshitting around injured workers on behalf of Employers Mutual Liars, isn't that right Sandra? ;)
Posted by Sandy's ever-expanding bank account at 8:50 PM, 24/8/2008
Yes well Sandra De Poi is very influencial within the business community (and legal community - her legal team are also the same who represent WorkCover). Her father was a very prominent anti-worker/pro-business leader, and she is not only the board member of several companies, but she also donates a large amount of money to both the Labor and Liberal parties. The only reason she been allowed to stay a board member of WorkCover is because of her connections within the Labor party and business.
I'm actually more disappointed in in injured workers not standing up for their rights. So many seem to just sit back and do whatever WorkCover/EML tells them. If injured workers actually stood up in unity against these acts of repression by WorkCover, made it known through the media (one must wonder why Today Tonight hasnt done a major expose of the WorkCover system in a system of stories, naming names etc - I think there were one or two stories but not enough to warrant much attention), I think things may change more. I'm not blaming injured workers entirely at all, but I think their compliance and lack of knowledge about their rights have added to WorkCover and EML's freedom to treat WorkCover claimants as "bludgers".
Right now we have WorkCover & EML having total control of an injured workers claim, including who rehabilitates them.. and we have a WorkCover board that is EXTREMELY pro-employer and anti-worker.
Working in the workers compensation industry and dealing with WorkCover on a day to day basis I can tell you of many claims where an employer is NOT fulfilling their obligations, and EML just lets them get away with it, meanwhile when a worker doesn't do what EML wants they are threatened with a breach and loss of entitlements. There are clear cases of bias in support of employers - and this is due to several facts, those being the make-up of the WorkCover board (i.e. Sandra De Poi - who owns her own rehabilitation company - and suspiciously recieves a large amount of rehabilitation referrals from EML & Peter Vaughan - a man who has shown he is very anti-worker, and just believes in making money for Business SA - an organisation that PROFITS from businesses). Then you have EML itself, whose management openly brag about injured workers being "bludgers" and who's entire systems of operations are in "secret" and certainly not as transparent as they claim.
It comes as no surprise to people like myself that EML are now offering injured workers redemptions at a rapid rate. They have been instructed by WorkCover to do so, who in turn have been instructed by Mike Rann to do so. As stated above, in 6-12 months time Mike Rann will look like a "hero" who saved WorkCover through Labor's reforms (which actually would have had nothing to do with it). Unfortunately what we will also see in a year or so is the state unemployment rate increasing, not to mention those on a disability benefit increasing, and a lot of injured workers who will be long-term unemployed due to a lack of rehabilitation, and having a WorkCover "stigma" on their backs, leading potential employers to look the other way.
Job advert of a Claims Agent that cares for rehabilitation of injured workers...
Claims Assistant - Administration
CBD Location...
Career Development Opportunities...
Bonus Scheme...
Employers Mutual is a Workers Compensation Case Management Specialist who operates as the sole agent for Work Cover SA. We are an outcome focused company who has a successful and dynamic team of Case Managers.
We are currently seeking a Claims Assistant to join our busy and successful Claims team. This role will be reporting to the Team Leader and the successful applicant will be responsible for:
Claims Administration – Data Entry, Organising appointments, investigations;
Developing and maintaining relationships with Work Cover SA, employers and injured workers;
Customer service – taking general phone enquiries and
General administration – filing, mail, faxes and photocopying.
This is an exciting opportunity to be exposed to Case Management and to join an outcome focused business. The successful applicant will ideally possess the following attributes:
Sound PC skills – MS Word and Excel;
Typing Speed – 40 WPM
Excellent Communication skills – Verbal and Written;
Previous experience in an Administration role and
The ability to work pro-actively supporting a motivated team.
This is a full time permanent position working core business hours 8:30am – 5:00pm. We offer continuous learning and career development opportunities to our employees, a genuine work / life balance and the chance to work as part of a team!
If you would like to apply for this position, please click on the link below. To find out further information, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa on 08 8127 1436 or visit our website www.employersmutual.com.au.
-
"WE ARE AN OUTCOME FOCUSED COMPANY"
- What about rehabilitation?
- What about successfully getting people back into work, rather than giving them quick redemptions to make your "outcomes" look good?
"SUCCESSFUL AND DYNAMIC TEAM OF CASE MANAGERS"
- I'm sure there are MANY injured workers and people who deal with WorkCover issues who would dispute this. It's often the anti-worker attitude of alot of case managers that stand in the way of a successful rehabilitation.
"SUCCESSFUL CLAIMS TEAM"
- Yes the unfunded liabity shows that. How much has it increased again since EML was given the contract?
"REPORTING TO THE TEAM LEADER"
- Let's hope it isn't Ruth(less) Mitchell, or you will be quitting within the month.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY SEE WHICH BUSINESSES ARE MAKING ALOT OF MONEY OFF OF THE SA WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM. WE HAVE REHABILITATION COMPANIES SUCH AS DE POI AND INSITE WITH FREQUENT JOB ADVERTS ON SEEK AND EML ADVERTISING EVERY MONTH (probably because there is a high turnover of staff).
I WONDER HOW MUCH MONEY IS ACTUALLY GETTING TO WORKERS AND THEIR SUCCESSFUL REHABILITATION INSTEAD OF GOING TO CORRUPT CLAIMS AGENTS AND REHABILITATION COMPANIES THAT ARE OWNED BY BOARD MEMBERS OR TO PAYING OFF INJURED WORKERS WITH REDEMPTIONS TO MAKE MEDIA-MIKE LOOK GREAT IN A FEW MONTHS, MEANWHILE THEY WILL END UP UN-EMPLOYED, UN-SKILLED AND UN-REHABILITATED. GREAT SYSTEM WORKCOVER HAS GOING.
Posted by just a claims number to workcover at 3:14 PM, 25/8/2008
Poor Harry, he was promised he would be rehabilitated, his family was brought into the nightmare, thousands of $$$$$ was spent on his file (advertising) and the system failed. Now he is on the scrap heap.
Just like every other worker who has had a workplace accident!
Posted by Better together (Ruth and Sandra) at 8:39 AM, 26/8/2008
Will South Australia follow Victorias footsteps? after all the new reforms are based on the their current model.
"The Victorian government will consider ripping up WorkCover laws and rewriting the legislation under a proposal that could cost employers up to $146 million a year.
A leaked review of the Accident Compensation Act, obtained by the state opposition, recommends replacing the legislation with a new act".
Posted by Peter Hanks vs Allan Clayton at 8:50 AM, 26/8/2008
Ah, Labor & WorkCover. They sure know how to waste money, don't they? I guess businesses only have themselves to blame for the high costs and for supporting stooges like Peter Vaughan & Mike Rann. But then if they are happy to let corrupt board members such as Sandra De Poi run the costs into the ground so be it. It will eventually come back and hit them where it hurts... politically.
This time done in "secrecy" through an employment agency...
Rehabilitation Consultant
Leading Occupational, Injury Management Consultancy Service
Diverse, Innovative, Modern Environment
Our client is South Australia's largest and leading provider of occupational risk management, injury management and health consultancy services. They offer clients a totally integrated approach to injury prevention, injury management and health promotion in the workplace. As part of a structured expansion, they are looking to appoint a new staff member to assist in meeting the requirements of their clients.
The successful applicant will enjoy being part of an already well established team of friendly and professional rehabilitation consultants, you will be highly self motivated, professional and flexible with a strong work ethic.
Your competencies, skills and background will be:
Tertiary qualification in, social work, rehabilitation counselling, psychology, health sciences, occupational therapy, physiotherapy or speech pathology
Previous experience as a successful Rehabilitation Consultant
Excellent verbal and written communication skills
Good team player
Show enthusiasm, initiative and dedication in your work
Professional membership will be looked upon favourably
Proficient in WorkCover and Comcare vocational rehabilitation standards
This is a fantastic opportunity to be part of an extremely successful organisation that reward and recognise their staff and really believe in the individual.
Like to know more?
To submit your application, in strict confidence, please apply online using the appropriate link below. Alternatively, for a confidential discussion, please contact Kay Backhouse in our Adelaide office on 08 8223 8800, quoting Ref No. BZ/27580
Your interest will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
Surely the industry knows how De Poi operate and the knowledge they are under investigation with the SARC would deter any potential employees and would stay well clear of this company? Having said that, any "genuine" rehabilitation consultants would only work for the more reputable companies!
Would you employer anyone who has worked for De Poi?
Rumour has it when Sandra De Poi's corruption was reported in the media injured workers sent to De Poi Consultancy Services went to EML to ask to be transferred to other rehabilitation providers, but EML told them they had no right to request another provider and forced them to stay with De Poi.
Considering Peter Vaughan is on the WorkCover board and good friends with Sandra, and EML have been given full reign over rehabilitation provider choices (ie. their key provider choices), it can be said that many employers have been duped into following whatever EML wants - especially since EML has the support of Peter Vaughan and the WorkCover Board members.
You will also find that union advocates and certain lawyers SPECIFICALLY tell WorkCover and EML not to refer their clients to companies like De Poi because they know that are pro-employer and corrupted companies.
Les Birch from the CFMEU himself stated in Hansard that he wouldnt touch De Poi with a barge pole and would not allow any of his workers to be sent there!
Cant blame him really, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that WorkCover is corrupted if it's handing over to it's board members over $6 million in WorkCover contracts through the now obviously blatant anti-worker claims agent EML.
Posted by yapping chihauhau at 12:26 PM, 26/8/2008
Mr ********** doggedly sought to show that the compensating authority had directed the preparation of the Plan in August 2003 with an illegitimate agenda, viz with the intention not of rehabilitating the worker but merely of providing a means of discontinuing his weekly payments. He also sought to show that Dr ******* had been influenced by the compensating authority to say that the worker was capable of driving to and from Cooke Plains to perform the clerical work on offer there.
No persuasive evidence to support these allegations was forthcoming, although the hasty and inept manner in which the compensating authority went about implementing its processes gives some cause for wonder about what it was thinking at the time.
Why doesnt WorkCover ever had Legal action against them for not complying?
Legal action has been launched against an Adelaide roofing company over allegations its director repeatedly refused requests to provide employment records to the Workplace Ombudsman.
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has instigated the criminal proceedings against Nicholas Terizakis, director of Atlas Roofing Ltd in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.
Mr Terizakis had allegedly failed to provide documents requested by an inspector to allow the ombudsman to investigate allegations made against the company by a former employee.
The legal action followed claims by a former staff member that he was owed more than $28,000 for unpaid overtime worked over a three year period between 2004 and 2007.
In a statement today the office of the Workplace Ombudsman said it tried unsuccessfully between October 2007 and January 2008 to obtain employment records to investigate the claim.
this blog should be more accessible to injured workers. up until a few weeks ago I was with de poi services and knew nothing about all of this. i was offered a redemption and took it. i couldnt afford a lawyer. my rehab consultant said i would no longer be a berden on the system and could get on with my life etc and she was very convincing. my physio gave me the web address to this blog he said he got it from a govt minster he knows so it must be getting around i wish i knew about it when i was going through my rehab thats all. i hope mike rann rots in hell for what his done.
NEW laws designed to reduce on-site accidents and deaths will increase the cost of building a house by more than $10,000, the housing industry estimates.
Builders say they will have to pass on to homebuyers the extra costs created by the proposed uniform occupational health and safety laws, eroding affordability.
They say the laws will create excessive red tape and require costly scaffolding to be erected for all work carried out at heights of more than 2m.
Other concerns are that in the midst of a severe skill shortage, older tradesmen would be driven out of the industry because of a reluctance to undergo training and compliance measures.
The industry met the State Government last week in a bid to water down the laws, but the construction industry union – the CFMEU – is branding the claims "scare tactics".
However, Housing Industry Association acting executive director David Gaffney said: "Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt . . . but the overall effect on the industry would be devastating.
"It is a lot of red tape and unduly burdensome on small businesses and SA's safety record is reasonably good in residential construction."
The HIA states it has undertaken extensive modelling of the cost through a range of builders.
They include AV Jennings and Rossdale Homes.
"The moment it went through we would need to lift our prices for a $150,000 home by somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000," said Rossdale Homes managing director Giles French.
"If you knew WorkSafe was going to start policing it the moment it was proclaimed, we would have to make sure that we were covered."
Under the proposed laws builders will be required to:
ERECT scaffolding for work over 2m, including houses, verandas and pergolas, and install edge protection on the roof or harness workers.
USE qualified scaffolders.
REDUCE the standard truss space in a roof from 1200mm to 900mm – doubling the amount of timber needed – to stop workers slipping through gaps, or provide significant safety protection.
UNDERTAKE training for their workers.
FENCE the entire worksite to stop the public climbing on the scaffolding.
ENSURE all-weather access, including gravelling truck access to make it non-slip and prevent mud leaving the site.
HAVE an OH&S management plan for each residential site, including a site audit.
HAVE a site-specific SafeWork method statement detailing how work will progress.
"This will add significant cost to building a new home or undertaking improvements and I don't see the logic of having to apply practices that have been in place in NSW and have seriously impacted on affordability in that state," said AV Jennings general manager Peter Jackson.
But the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union has challenged the building industry's claims. "It's just not so, there's just no evidence to show that in any form," said CFMEU secretary Martin O'Malley.
The union believes prices may drop because of changed work practices. "Instead of working off rusty old 44-gallon drums and orange crates . . . you find yourself in a stable work environment, then you can actually do your job," Mr O'Malley said. "It's our view that besides making it safer, it will actually make it more productive.
"But at the same time, if one person is saved because of $10,000, is that too much to ask?"
Housing industry representatives met Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica last week. He said in an email he was seeking advice on the industry's claims.
WorkSafe states it is difficult to determine the number of deaths and injuries at residential building sites because they are included with commercial sites.
Regent Homes was fined $12,000 after an apprentice electrician was injured when he fell from the first floor of a two-storey house into an open stairwell in 2004.
Builder Darren Shields was fined $16,000 after an apprentice fell from the timber deck of a house under construction at Clayton in 2005.
AND FOR THE RECORD I JUST POSTED THE FOLLOWING COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE. LET'S SEE IF IT ACTUALLY GETS PUBLISHED BY ADELAIDENOW FOR ONCE:
"At least you know where big business stands in relation to worker & public safety. Peter Vaughan (business sa & workcover board member would be so proud). Oh well at least anyone injured wont need to be rehabilitated with all the redemptions workcover is handing out lately to make their pal mike rann look good."
In reply to;Why workcover will never be investigated...
Because Mike Rann protects his mates.
The employee ombudsman used "commonwealth" law to launch Legal action against the Adelaide roofing company, one wonders if this could also be used against workcover?????
No doubt the HIA was under the umbrella of Business SA when they were pushing the reforms thru. One wonders why HIA would prefer workplace accidents to cheaper housing, after all they are not footing the bill as it will be bourne by the purchaser. Good one Mr Vaughan, profit before safety and you are on the workcover board!
"The employee ombudsman used "commonwealth" law to launch Legal action against the Adelaide roofing company, one wonders if this could also be used against workcover?????"
- And who would foot the legal bill? Labor dont want it investigate because they know it will reveal their own corruption. Most others cant be bothered because they have seen just how much the Workcover board members are willing to spend to protect themselves. That recent case where it was revealed they spent over $1 million of Workcover's money to investigate one worker is a perfect example of that!
It's no coincidence that current Workcover board members are on several different boards and companies.. they have entwined themselves into positions of power where they can be protected by their mates instead of facing the flack about their incompetence and corruption.
Just look at all the facts coming out about Sandra De Poi and her corrupt rehabilitation company. Why is she STILL a board member? Why is her rehabilitation company STILL in operation under Workcover? Why has this woman and why is still profiteering from the Workcover system? The simple answer is because she's protected by gutless, spineless politicians who she has bought out with large hefty donations and backdoor deals with the business community, and given her contacts in political and business circles, imagine how much power she yields over the legal community.
Just a short note about redemptions and why you should consider it carefully as there is no rush on the workers behalf.
"The legislative provisions become effective 1 July 2009. From this date, the new redemptions restrictions will apply to all claims with an injury date on or after 1 July 2006.
From 1 July 2010, the new restrictions on redemptions will apply to all claims".
workcover and employers mutual are useless. both need to discharged immediately. ive never dealt with people more useless and negligent than the case managers at employers mutual, all they do is hire complete morons who have no idea how to deal with injured workers, and have no concept of what an "injury" is. get rid of the lot of them. no wonder people in my profession would rather not deal with people on workcover. its a nightmare delaing with uneducated employees who call themselves managers who are just following power-hungry management.
Its kinda unbelievable that the only way people have left the workcover board has been through resignations. Not one of them has been stood down. Especially since conflicts of interests have been proven to be there. It shows something is seriously wrong with Mike Rann's Labor.
I write in response to an earlier discussion regarding a request by an injured person to change rehabilitation provider. A case manager can choose to change the rehabilitation provider on the claim if they believe they have reason to do so. However, many case managers have restrictions on which companies they can refer to and exisisting 'preferred provider' relationships with the employer which further restrict referrals. Usually the only reason a case manager would change providers is if they were particularly unsatisfied with the service provided.
Allow me to remind everybody the Clayton Walsh findings of the Review of the South Australian Workers’ Compensation System that implemented the reforms.
"There is one issue concerning the current South Australian workers’ compensation system upon which there is widespread agreement. That is the judgment that the scheme is failing to fulfil a number of the objects of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (WRCA) as enumerated in section 2 of that Act. In particular, and most relevant to this Review, there is the failure of the scheme created by the WRCA to provide “for the effective rehabilitation of disabled workers and their early return to work”
Firstly, great to see people who work for in the industry reading this blog. I say that because clearly it is a pro-claims agent's response. A claims agent which has already shown it's lack of respect for injured workers with it's negligence and lies.
Secondly I notice no mention of an injured worker's choice of who rehabilitates them - especially if they are injured workers not returning to the pre-injury employer. But then once again according to EML worker's have no choice - obviously it's management and employees are not aware of or choose to ignore the several legal and tribunal decisions granting worker's the right to have a say in who rehabilitates them.
Thirdly, yes employers do have "preferred providers", but these choices are also affected by EML negatively influencing employers away from providers not in its "key group" and showing their lack of respect for Workcover accredited rehabilitation providers that are not part of this "key provider" group - a group that was picked in a secretive and non-open manner.
Lastly, EML and it's case managers generally only follow it's guidelines and "rules" when it suites them, that would explain it's harrassment of injured workers and it's influence over it's "key providers" to get their clients to agree to such quick redemptions (hence making outcomes look great for all parties), and tricking injured workers into getting their income cut.
Funny how WorkCover say "too bad" "fairness doesn't come into this that
or the other"……..
It would be funnier if WorkCover were made accountable for their actions
along with those responsible for the legislation.
Meanwhile hundreds of people are sent to the wall, families are broken,
people lose heart, nobody wins but some trumped up department that in
all likelihood won't be around in another 5 years.
Cheers
Bruce
Id love to know the percentages of how many people on wrkcover started with an physical injury and ended up with psychological issues caused by case managers and dealing with wrkcover. I ended up with depression and insomnia due to all the stress and it nearly broke up my marriage.
Request for change in rehabilitation provider
I write in response to an earlier discussion regarding a request by an injured person to change rehabilitation provider. A case manager can choose to change the rehabilitation provider on the claim if they believe they have reason to do so. However, many case managers have restrictions on which companies they can refer to and exisisting 'preferred provider' relationships with the employer which further restrict referrals. Usually the only reason a case manager would change providers is if they were particularly unsatisfied with the service provided.
Posted by Anonymous at 7:54 PM, 27/8/2008
WHAT UTTER BULLSHIT!
I am an injured worker. I am fit for fulltime duties and currently have no restrictions yet my employer is not providing any work for me and refuses to provide any work for me even tho its there. I WANT 2 WORK! My current rehab consultant doest have any idea what the hell she is doing which is pretty much nothing and now I have been off work for nearly over a year with nothing being done. I went to another rehab consultant and my case manager has told me i am not allowed 2 do this as the consultant is not a preferred consultant of employers limited. I HAVE WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM MY EMPLOYER SAYING THAY HAVE NO SAY IN WHO REHABILTATES ME AND THAT MY CASE MANAGER IS THE 1 WHO DECIDES WHO MY REHAB CONSULTANT IS. I also letters from my case manager stating that i have 2 go to a rehab consultant prefered by employers limited.
IU have now been off work for over a year! my current rehab consultant has done nothing! my emaployer is not providing me with any work and employers mutual has done nothing about this so dont u come on here and write bullshit abouyt what case managers r allowed 2 do and what they are not because they do nothfing!!!!!
PEOPLE with connections to the Labor Party are being appointed to lucrative State Government board and committee positions, while hundreds of South Australians donate their time for free.
The South Australian Association of School Parents' Clubs yesterday said high-profile people appointed to boards by the Government "should volunteer their time, service and expertise".
A list of board and committee appointments which pay more than $75,000 a year, compiled by Liberal Upper House MP Rob Lucas, includes a former Labor minister's wife, former Labor MPs, former senior Labor ministerial staffers and a federal Labor senator.
Acting Premier Patrick Conlon last night said the Opposition's list was a "very small sample" and insisted the Government was "not interested in, nor do we inquire about, whether anyone has any political association or affiliations before they're appointed to any committee or board".
But those who serve on grassroots boards and committees yesterday also questioned why so many people with connections to the Labor Party were apparently accepting board positions "for the love of the dollar".
Gepps Cross Primary School's governing council chairwoman, Julie Coulter, said members worked up to 20 hours a week for free to help the local community and believed those on government boards should donate their time as well.
Diana Manolas, chairwoman of Salisbury Primary School's governing council, agreed, saying some lucky people could make a living out of highly paid government board and committee positions.
Mr Lucas said it was clear that if you were a "Labor mate" or had a close association with the party, your chances of appointment were much greater.
"There is a need for transparency when, for example, (former senator) Nick Bolkus (who, together with his wife Mary Patetsos, appears to have up to eight appointments) acts as a lobbyist for a number of groups dealing with the Rann Government," Mr Lucas said.
"He is also the chair of the Labor Party's fundraising arm, SA Progressive Business Inc."
But Mr Conlon said: "Many people, who happen to have served as Liberal MPs, have also been appointed by the Rann Government to serve on committees and boards, because they were the best people for the job at the time."
You can download the list here: http://www.news.com.au//adelaidenow/files/liberal.pdf
There are THREE WORKCOVER BOARD MEMBERS on the list:
I have to agree with WHAT UTTER BULLSHIT and rehabilitation. I noticed on a previous comment that the review found rehabilitation the main problem of the scheme. I gave a submission with Alan Clayton about my experiences with "four" rehabilitation companies. I would have liked him to have included some of the "illegal" elements i had to put up with that I supplied to him. Unfortunately the rehab stooge is just that "A STOOGE" for case managers. Do not trust them at any cost, you have rights and I am sure they would try and breach you at the first available opportunity no matter how nice they come across. The faster they get you off the system in any way they can the better it looks for them and the more referals. take control
Providers’ include Medical, Rehabilitation,
Legal and Investigation Providers. Examples
include: kick-backs, self-referrals, up-coding (eg:
coding a ‘standard’ 15 minute consultation as a
‘long’ 30 minute consultation), unbundling, product
switching, under-utilization (eg: not providing
comprehensive treatment which means the patient
has to return frequently), over-utilisation (eg:
providing more services than really necessary for
recovery, colloquially known as sending the worker
through the ‘Seven Doors of Rehab’); or worse,
simply not providing ANY of the services billed
for!
I would of thought that if you were a true insider, Insider, then you would know of the SAWCT decision of The State of SA v Shipley and Workcover Corp (Intervener) [2002] SAWCT 78 (22 August 2002), which overturned the original decision, Which was won by the newly appointed WorkCover Ombudsman
Just a question, The State of SA v Shipley and Workcover case was overurned, but i believe the finding was that workcover didnt have to pay the costs of the rehabilitation. I am still uncertain if that changes the fact that an injured worker can still choose their rehabilitation provider. I would also like to ask if it has ever been challenged at the tribunal to reject certain providers?
Its quite clear that workers have no rights under the current workcover system because it's corrupt board members are too busy making money from it before it all comes crashing down.
Posted by Blatant corruption at 7:21 PM, 28/8/2008
I don't think the main issue is whether a worker can choose their rehabilitation provider or not - clearly if this were the case it could be abused by a minority of injured workers provider-hopping whenever a provider did something they didn't like to stay on system.
More so I think the issue is that injured workers are entitled to independent and fair rehabilitation that impacts positively on a successful return to work.
What I would like to know is how can an injured worker have an independent and fair rehabilitation experience when:
1. The claims agent has handpicked half of the workcover accredited rehabilitation providers without an open and transparent tender process, and "frozen out" the other half of the accredited rehabilitation providers and informed employers that these unchosen providers are not to be used.
and
2. One of the chosen rehabilitation providers has a workcover board member as it's managing director and also employs ex-claims agent staff. And this provider also recieves a large amount of referrals from the claims agent.
Surely those two points alone show that not only can the claims agent openly intrude on the independence of a rehabilitation provider to carry out it's own service without instruction or coersion because of fear or loss of business due to lack of cooperation with the claims agent, thus corrupting the independent rehabilitation of an injured worker.
But also in the 2nd point we see not only the conflict of interest of a workcover board member financially benefiting from the workers compensation system. We also have the board member's rehabilitation company employing ex-claims agent employees who were involved in the internal referral and management process, now working in it's own management thus leading to questions on how this board member is allowed to operate a rehabilitation company contracted by the organisation she is a board member of.
Safe to say Eml nor WorkCover dont believe in this. After all they pay rehab providers and want them to follow their orders.
Interesting though that a meeting earlier this year regarding the new contracts WorkCover informed rehab providers that they could seek referrals from doctors, specialists and lawyers. Yet after the new contract set in Eml informed half of the accredited rehab providers that they were not favoured by Eml and that no relationship would be developed with them.
I wonder how many of these non-favoured rehab providers have promoted their services to specialists and recieved referrals, only to have them rejected by Eml becaused they are not a favoured provider by Eml.
I also wonder how many of these non-favoured rehab providers have sought legal advice in light of Eml severely restricting their business.
The whole thing can be read here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAWCT/2002/78.html
To me it makes no sense why the appeal was won. The worker had lost confidence in his current rehab provider and due to lack of action he chose to source his own rehab provider - who was workcover approved. Why are these rehab providers approved by Workcover if they are not permitted to do their job? Questions should aso be asked as to why the employer chose to fight a worker's choice of who gets them back to work when a rehab provider favoured by the employer obviously wasn't doing their job. This should have been elaborated further with explanations of what the employer's chosen rehab provider was doing to get the worker back to work and why the worker had lost confidence in them.
And when you take into account all this talk of preferred providers by employers mutual who are obviously pro-employer/anti-worker and the conflicts of interest within workcover, it shows that there has been an elaborate web set up to deny workers any rights to fair rehabilitation if they are injured.
Choice of rehabilitation Provider
I would of thought that if you were a true insider, Insider, then you would know of the SAWCT decision of The State of SA v Shipley and Workcover Corp (Intervener) [2002] SAWCT 78 (22 August 2002), which overturned the original decision, Which was won by the newly appointed WorkCover Ombudsman
Posted by Angry Dad at 4:33 PM, 28/8/2008
In response to your post Angry Dad, We suggest you go back and read that decision because you are the one who is incorrect in that it has ALWAYS been this decision that clarified the issue of "choice" because what it clearly established is that if you are on the WorkCover Registar as an Approved Provider , ANYONE seeking rehabilitation assistance (except employees of self-insured employers - which Shipley was) CAN choose you as their provider.
So let's put nasty rumour of injured workers on WorkCover not having a choice where it belongs.. which is in the trash.
The State of SA v Shipley and Workcover Corp
The whole thing can be read here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAWCT/2002/78.html
To me it makes no sense why the appeal was won....
Posted by Anonymous at 10:14 AM, 29/8/2008
Because the employer is a self-insured employer, self-insured employers have the right to choose from their own list of rehabilitation providers. The Shipley case demonstrated that injured workers on Workcover whose employers are not self-insured are entitled to choice when it comes to choosing a rehab provider, but because Shipley had a self-insured employer he was not entitled to a choice.
The above post sums it up nicely.
Posted by the talented mr. shipley at 4:49 PM, 29/8/2008
For a bunch of public servants, that crew at WorkCover really know how to drink, I mean party. Thanks again for having us and we'd love to party with you again. Once again, photo's of your Chrissy party should be up sometime soon.
Has anyone ever considered the real extent of WorkCover and the purpose it really serves?
Well it takes heaps of money from employers. The money ends up in the control of the board.
Effectively its another tax on employers. Injured workers do not get full benefits form WorkCover for the money it distributes.
Memebers of political parties can get mates jobs on the WorkCover board. ( according to a statement by a witness in the Ralph Clarke hearings).
It employes heaps of people that are simply pseudo public employees.
Lots of contracts can be given out with no scrutiny by the public or parliament.
Workers who are injured effectively get ripped off and never get fair entitlements for their injuries( as compared to common law).
Hmmm reading between the lines its simply a corporate giant effectively dribbling employers money on mismanaging funds paid by them.
When will the rort really be exposed for what it is?
Obviously Jobs for the boys, and cushy deals for those in the know is the underlying theme for WorkCover.
All you have to do is ask Peter Vaughn who represents business's that maintain the scheme and has full knowledge of how the money is spent. he surley has some accountability.
Before you choose to criticise someone Angry Dad, check that you know exactly what you are talking about. The outcome of the Shipley case is irrelevant as his employer was self-insured (or "exempt" as we say in the industry), but it's made very clear in the judgement that if the employer was not self-insured then rehabilitation would have been approved because the rehabilitation provider was WorkCover accredited.
Posted by Real insider, insider at 6:19 AM, 1/9/2008
Well it's no surprise the amount of money that is wasted by WorkCover.. especially since Labor has appointed it's own kronies to the Board. Labor is well known for wasting money.
I just wonder how much Peter Vaughan is being paid on the side by businesses to further their own agenda.. and then you have Sandra De Poi who seems to be the main WorkCover Board Member profiteering from WorkCover claims and grants.
I also wouldn't mind a public explanation why when WorkCover has an unfunded liability is it still wasting money on changing it's logo, bias advertising and promotions and Employers Mutual Limited absolutely pathetic RETURN TO WORK awards.
In fact why is Employers Mutual Limited still around? It is a complete waste of money, especially when you are paying untrained and inexperienced case manager's who know next to nothing about work injuries and claims. Claims should be dealt with internally by experienced people.. and I'm not talking about your Ruth Mitchells and Richard Hiltons - both of whom should have their arses tossed out and blacklisted from working in South Australia's workers compensation ever again. Employers Mutual Limited is is entirely corrupted, which is evident in it's referral process and it's lack of empathy for injured workers... the amount of times I have spoken to a case manager about a worker (or case managers as they tend to change every month or so) and the term BLUDGER was used is astronomical. It's obvious they are taught that dirty little word from Ms. Mitchell herself.
Getting back to money, why are the Board members even paid? It should be made a voluntary position and ensured that people with no conflicts of interest are able to take up the role. I mean really, is it so hard to find an expert in rehabilitation who no longer works in the industry? Is it so hard to find a representative of business who isn't in charge of Business SA? Is it so hard to find a union representative who isn't a Labor arse-licker?
Of course, these are the questions that our good news premier Mike Rann doesn't want people thinking about, let alone asking about.
Posted by Sandy De Poi's Persian Rug at 7:41 AM, 1/9/2008
Isnt it great when your mates with Labor? You get to waste money and blame it on injured workers, and you end up getting away it with it too. The likes of Vaughan & De Poi have great business sense when it comes to profits the greedy grubs.
The Board members dont really care what happens with the system, because in the end they are protected by the Labor party, and they have a scapegoat for when it all goes to shit.. Employers Mutual Limited.
EML have pretty much already dug their heels into it by demanding independence and that WorkCover not get involved in any of their decisions regarding claims (ie. referrals). Therefore when an enormous amount of legal action starts - I personally know of several rehabilitation providers who are looking at legal action againt EML for restriction of business, not to mention the amount of injured workers with lawyers and advocates who will be fighting decisions. When all this starts, WorkCover will just turn around and lay the blame at EML's feet - and the Board members will once again get away with all their little corruptions, and just corrupt the next claim agent(s) that comes along.
I hope mike rann's prepared to suffer because of his "mates", this is 1 of many issues that will be getting labor voted out. I was on workcover for close to a year and eml made me and my family's life hell. I will neva forgive labor.
i was told today that i have a new case manager and that she has been my case manager for 2 months this is the first ive heard about it. she also told me she cant find any of my travel reimbursements that i have sent to eml for the past 6 months and that they have been 'misplaced'. this happened previously so luckily i kept copies. i am sick of them never being able to do their jobs!
Ex claims manager here. Im now working for a self insured employer. Working for employers mutual was PURE HELL. The term manager was in name only I was forced to take orders from higher up and like a child had to ask for approval for everything. And yes the term "bludger" was thrown around alot by management. I couldnt take the stress anymore and got out. I will never do Workcover work again.
BTW got this website through email, apparantly its doing its rounds through employers and other interested parties.
I emailed this web site some months ago to most employers, lawyers and rehab consultants. When one cannot sleep at night dealing with my back pain gave me something to do. I have actually seen this web address snuck into Adelaide Now comments so I would gather by the numbers on the stat counter that its a very popular site.
This site is also doing its round amongst politicians and doctors, I've heard alot of comments in support of the site saying the truth is finally making itself be known after years of workcover trying to coverup its corruption.
Unfortunatly I dont see much being done in way of fixing the system and getting corrupt bitchface moles such as Sandra De Poi off the board due to their influence over Labor politicians.
Also was talking to a specialist yesterday, seems rehab consultants have been told by eml to positively promote workcover and the new changes and promise specialists that injured workers will be dealt with with fairness and respect under the new changes - that was before trying to instruct him what to write on a worker's next medial certificate. HAHA what a joke.
We both had a big laugh about that. All workcover is these days is a circus, with eml the sideshow and rehab consultants the clowns.
I had a chat a workcover specialist as well on tuesday and he gave me some insight that the new medical panel would be made up of the usual suspects in Cotton, Goldney and Co. He also mentioned it would be difficult in getting truly independant Doctors. What would it take to fight the fact that these Doctors are not that independant? pretty easy by reading all the case findings and seeing how many medical examinations are done for "WorkCover" and the fact their opinions were overturned.
Re: Workcover's medical panel... I think you will see alot of legal cases involving workcover next year and most of them will be lost by Workcover. It's too arrogant for it's own good and not only doesn't it understand that its claims agent EML is entirely negligent in alot of cases which will result in legal cases being lost by Workcover, but it also doesn't understand that there are quite a few lawyers, advocates and injured workers fed up with the corruption that are willing to take them on. And Labor wont be in power forever to protect the corrupt Board either.
In regards to redemptions, unfortunately alot of injured workers dont have advocates or lawyers and are also fooled by rehab consultants who have been corrupted by Workcover and EML.. there were alot of backdoor deals done by Sandra De Poi with rehab providers that resulted in them being chosen as EML's key providers... thus alot of rehab providers are now corrupted by the system and tell workers whatever EML wants them to hear. So they accept redemptions not realising within a year or so they will be on the centrelink system claiming a benefit and having no support or rehabilitation that will help them get back into the workforce. Once they accept that redemption workcover wont pay for anything - medical, rehab etc.. so alot of the redemption they are given will be spent on medical expenses and wont last very long... this is what Mike Rann calls "fixing the state workers comp system". All it's doing is moving the problem to a different system.
everyone knows the upcoming independent medical panel is full of pro-workcover medical specialists. doesnt surprise me considerng how corrupt workcover is. then u have the ombudsman who just in name only.
SEVEN-YEAR high of industrial disputes has made South Australia the second-worst state for workforce unrest, figures show.
Business and union representatives are demanding the State Government re-examine how it deals with industrial disputes, as it faces further strife negotiating new agreements covering tens of thousands of public-sector workers over the next year.
The Government says the teachers' dispute has distorted the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures and insists that the number is still low.
However, BusinessSA chief executive Peter Vaughan has criticised the "conga line" of public-sector workers lining up for pay rises.
And SA Unions secretary Janet Giles says the Government is a captive of the Treasury's bean counters.
A picture of a nation plagued by industrial unrest also emerged from the ABS figures, which show a consistent rise in disputes since the Rudd Labor Government came to power in November.
The ABS revealed 86,500 working days had been lost in the June quarter, a huge jump from 42,800 days lost in the March quarter and 24,400 in the December quarter. In this state, 9800 working days were lost in the three months to June from five separate industrial disputes.
This was the worst three-month performance in SA since 11,900 days were lost in the September quarter of 2001.
The ABS figures show South Australia lost 14.5 days per 1000 employees, the second-worst performance of any state, trailing only New South Wales.
State Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica, who recently replaced the long-serving Michael Wright in the portfolio, argued the teachers' dispute had distorted the figures. "If you take that out, industrial disputes are still at a very low level," Mr Caica said.
But with enterprise agreements still to be struck covering tens of thousands of public-sector workers over the next 12 months, Mr Caica could not rule out further industrial action.
"Certainly, part and parcel of the robust nature of enterprise bargaining means that from time to time there will be disputes."
Mr Caica admitted the Government and teachers were still "miles apart" although he was encouraged by the move to send the dispute for mediation through the Industrial Relations Commission.
Teachers and the Government have been at loggerheads for more than seven months in an increasingly bitter dispute that has sparked general strikes as well as protests at the electorate offices of Premier Mike Rann, Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith and Treasurer Kevin Foley.
Teachers want a 21 per cent pay rise over three years, but the Government is offering only 9.75 per cent over the same period.
There is also disagreement over issues such as education funding, class sizes, workload and attraction and retention of staff.
But even if he solved the teachers' dispute, Mr Caica's next challenge would be to satisfy firefighters, tram drivers, ambulance workers and 30,000 public-sector workers who are already preparing new claims that will be played out before the next state election, in 2010.
Sources claimed Mr Caica's hands may be tied by the Government's expensive settlement of the doctors' dispute, which cost taxpayers far more than originally budgeted for. The cost of any further blow-out in public-sector wages is shown in the latest Budget papers.
In the risk segment of the Budget, it says if public-sector wage outcomes for new enterprise agreements vary by 1 per cent a year from allowances in the forward estimates, it will cost about $200 million extra by 2011-12.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles said the Government's approach to public-sector pay claims was being directed by Treasury and it was not working.
"What it says to me about the approach of the State Government in public-sector negotiating is that it is ineffective and damaging to our industrial relations record," Ms Giles said. "Their method of settling public-sector wage disputes does not work, it creates disputes."
University of Adelaide industrial relations expert Professor Andrew Stewart said while the recent unrest may be just a blip it was likely future disputes would become increasingly prolonged and bitter as governments of all stripes dug in against large pay rises.
BusinessSA's Mr Vaughan said it was time the public sector was forced to adopt some of the labour laws common in the private sector that allowed for greater workforce flexibility and made greater demands for productivity improvement.
MY COMMENT WHICH PROBABLY WONT BE PUBLISHED BY ADELAIDENOW (OR THE ARTICLE WILL DISAPPEAR FROM THE SITE BY LUNCHTIME):
"Why do both Peter Vaughan and Janet Giles get a say on anything? Janet Giles is a former WorkCover Board member who sat on the board for several years, allowed injured workers to be trampled over and lived the high life while the state's worker compensation unfunded liability dramatically increased by millions. Her opinion is that from a faction of the unions that have betrayed the workers of South Australia. And Peter Vaughan, yet another WorkCover Board member who has already proven by his public comments on many occassions that he is extremely anti-worker. If Peter Vaughan is so concerned about public sector pay rises, why doesn't he give the state a little relief and forfeit the salary he gets for sitting on the WorkCover Board? Put your money where your mouth is Mr. Vaughan."
Just a note for any workers who have been offered a redemption. Be very wise in accepting as they are trying to off load as many workers as possible. If you are able to hang off to until just before the half yearly results get published. Continue your talks but DO NOT BE RUSHED. If they thought they can really kick you off they wouldnt be offering redemptions. They are not nice people and they wouldnt be doing you any favors no matter how much they come across and promise or threat.
Er did you mean they should or shouldnt accept redemptions?
Because given EML and WorkCover's reputation with negligence, I would hold out, get a lawyer, wait till WorkCover's corrupted medical panel sets in, then sue the crap out of them.
I would hold out unless of course it is substantial, in which it wont. I heard in one case a worker was threatened they would have their wage decreased if they didnt except a redemption. I am unsure if medical panels would be protected or not from common law but I am sure it will be tested. If a worker does re injure oneself I am sure the Doctors sitting on the Medical panels would be well documented and have their reputation at risk.
Members of Medical Panels are not subject to direct accountability to other persons, apart from extreme cases where there may be grounds for removal of the member from the list of members approved by the Governor in Council*. This degree of immunity is necessary to maintain the independence of members so that they can, and can be seen to, fulfil their statutory function independently and impartially.
Members of Medical Panels are nonetheless accountable by reason of the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasons for their decisions and the right given to parties to seek judicial review in the Supreme Court relating to procedural fairness or jurisdictional error.
Members of Medical Panels are also accountable by reason of their general responsibilities as medical practitioners, and a requirement to meet appropriate legal and ethical professional standards. However, they do not have any responsibility to treat or provide advice concerning any aspect of a worker’s or claimant’s medical condition or treatment.
Where a party is concerned about the conduct of a member of a Medical Panel as distinct from the actual Opinion of a Medical Panel, such concerns can be raised in writing with the Convenor of Medical Panels and he will determine how the concerns should be addressed, consistent with the need to preserve the independence of the member. The Convenor will communicate with the person who has lodged the complaint, to confirm receipt of the complaint, and once it has been investigated, indicate how the complaint has been dealt with. The consideration of such a complaint cannot, in itself, lead to a change in the Opinion of the Panel.
It must be emphasised that the Convenor of Medical Panels will not take any action if the complaint is about the substance of the Opinion of a particular Medical Panel. The Convenor of Medical Panels has no legal power to review an Opinion issued by a Medical Panel in response to a complaint.
Members of Medical Panels are expected to communicate with workers/claimants with courtesy and politeness, but they also must manage examinations efficiently and effectively. At times it may be necessary for a member of a Medical Panel to be persistent in seeking what is seen by that member to be necessary information. It also may be necessary occasionally, in order to keep to time, to press a worker/claimant to be direct in their answers to questions. Members of Medical Panels are aware that they are dealing with workers/claimants at a time when some workers/claimants are tense or upset or nervous.
Workers/claimants may be entitled in certain circumstances to lodge a complaint with the Medical Practitioners Board and for the Board to accept it for investigation.
Complaints against Medical Panels’ office staff
Complaints about staff of the Convenor of Medical Panels should be addressed to the Convenor of Medical Panels. The Convenor will consider, deal with, and respond to the complaint.
The Governor in Council may remove or suspend a member from the list of members if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the member-
(a) becomes incapable of performing official duties; or
(b) neglects to perform those duties
Medical Panel to examine man's case for damages again
A 67-year-old man who has asbestos-related lung cancer will again appear before the Medical Panel in Western Australia after its former decision was successfully appealed against in the Supreme Court.
Eric Joseph Symons loaded and trucked asbestos for 20 years, but was not allowed to claim damages because the panel ruled he had a 15 per cent impairment.
Under compensation laws a 16 per cent impairment is required to proceed, leaving Mr Symons 1 per cent short of being able to lodge a claim.
His lawyer, Tim Hammond, says the Supreme Court judge, Justice Charles Heenan, has decided the Medical Panel has to look at Mr Symons' case more closely.
Mr Hammond says it has also been told to provide reasons for any decision.
"It means unfortunately for Mr Symons that he has to go back to the Medical Panel and be examined again for another percentage disability, which hopefully will give him an adequate level of disability to make sure he can bring a common law claim for compensation," Mr Hammond said.
Time limits for an appeal of a Medical Panel decision
Appeals against the decision of a Medical Panel are only possible on extremely limited grounds. An appeal against the decision of a Medical Panel must be made to a judge of the Supreme Court.
The time limits are extremely technical as an appeal can be launched either under the provisions of the Administrative Law Act or, alternatively, under the specific orders of the Supreme Court. Under the Administrative Law Act, the period can be as short as 28 days. (This period can be marginally extended more detailed reasons requested from the Panel and those reasons in fact supplied).
Under the orders of the Supreme Court the normal period for appeal is 60 days from the date of the decision. The Supreme Court, however, has a general discretion to extend this period where it is in the interests of justice.
Whilst the cases generally have been decided on their own facts the following important principles have emerged:
1. Medical Appeal Panels are under an obligation to provide reasons for their decisions, particularly when more than one conclusion is open to them. Failure to do so may provide grounds for a successful judicial review (see Court of Appeal decision of Campbelltown City Council v Vegan).
2. The phrase 'incorrect criteria' referred to in section 327(3)(b) relates to the 'table of disabilities' for pre-1 January 2002 injuries and the 'AMA guidelines' for post 1 January 2002 assessments (see Campbelltown City Council v Vegan and Merzer v Registrar of Workers Compensation Commission).
3. 'Demonstrable error' as referred to in section 327(3)(d) is an error which is readily apparent from an examination of the medical assessment certificate and the document referring the matter to the AMS for assessment (see Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission).
4. When seeking a judicial review from a Medical Appeal Panel's decision the error upon which the application is based will be found on the referral to the AMS, the Medical Assessment Certificate or the decision of the registrar or medical appeal panel (see Aircons Pty Ltd v Registrar of Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales and Ors).
5. 'Additional relevant information' referred to in section 327(3)(b) is not subject to any 'reasonable' test if the additional evidence was not in existence at the time of the AMS examination. For instance, a radiological report that came into existence after an AMS examination can provide the basis for an appeal against an AMS decision if the report is 'relevant'. The party relying on this report does not need to show why the additional fresh evidence could not reasonably have been obtained before the AMS decision (see Summerfield v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission).
6. If either party is unhappy with the registrar's decision to refer the matter to a Medical Appeal Panel then it is essential that they file a review application immediately. If either party waits to see if the decision of the Panel is less favourable then the opportunity to appeal the registrar's referral may be lost (see Massie v Southern New South Wales Timber and Hardware Pty Limited).
I am an injured worker who took a pay out some 4 years ago. It seems the less genuine injuries are taking any redemption possible eg: $100-200K. That would only equate to 4 years wages, so how genuine are these injured workers? Dont get me wrong they probaly deserve a payout for their experience on the system but in todays value that wouldnt even pay off a mortgage. My bet is that they would after receiving a payout go back to work. The real genuine injuries could not possibly except anything under 5-10 years worth of wages to relieve them off the system. The question I would have to ask is why didnt these less injured workers get rehabilitated and returned to some work capacity? The system has failed them and this should be noted on any parliamentary inquiery!
I work for a rehab provider and I can tell you workcover seem to pick and choose which fraudsters to go after. While most do have genuine injuries I can think of at least 10 clients I dealt with who were not genuine and simply were waiting to be offered redemptions. I got several back to work graduated but after a day or so working they went to their doctor and got medical certificates for anything from sore feet to back aches - and their original injuries werent even physical. I tried to work with them find out what they wanted to do, what they needed but when i found them a job or a course in exactly what they wanted every excuse was made for them not to go through with it. Anyway i ended up closing the files citing noncooperation by the client and explained to workcover that i thought they were not genuine - i found out afterwards workcover did nothing about them and they were just sent to other providers and now most of them have been given redemptions - exactly what they wanted really. Some of my genuine clients have been offered redemptions but have refused them mainly because they have lawyers and advocates who plan on taking on workcover.
I currently work for CRS but worked for a rehabilitation company last year for a few weeks during some leave as a trial. I can now safely say the owner of this company made me ring an injured workers Doctor without the knowledge of the worker and try and have the sick certificate changed to "fit for duties". The worker complained and it just so happened to be is that I was the one who got into trouble. I was used to do somebodies dirty work and paid the price. One thing for sure is that I was glad it happened in my "trial" period because there was no way I could continue to work in that environment.
I found this on the The Office of the WorkCover Ombudsman site. It seems mal-practise is quite well known and have been accepted in the past.
COMPLAINTS
Administrative acts under the Act.
Failures to comply with Sections 58B or 58C.
Other matters relating to providing for rehabilitation
Administrative acts under the Act.
¡ñ
Examples:
¨C
Frequent changes of case manager
¨C
Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information
¨C
Refusal to pay interim benefits
¨C
Delay in complying with S107B request.and return to work.
Breaches of the Code of Claimants¡¯ Rights.
Im sure Ms. De Poi has already taken the ombudsman out to a nice expensive dinner and organised reimbursment for protection of herself and her corrupt rehab company like she has with several labor politicians.
He isnt known as a toothless tiger for nothing peoples. ;)
Unfunded liability will be down not because of Ruth's scare tactics redemtion policy
The rate of income maintenance claims per million dollars remuneration (IMCR) declined by 16.0% to the March quarter 2007 compared to the target of 19%, demonstrating a substantial narrowing of the performance gap when compared to recent quarters. The most recent result for registered employers is also highly favourable, with a 7.5% reduction in new income maintenance claims per million dollars remuneration in the twelve-months to December 2007 compared to the twelve-months to December 2006.
These results are highly encouraging and should be further improved as the Industry Improvement Programme, media campaign and other initiatives by SafeWork SA impact further on the statistics. The Industry Improvement Programme targets employer locations responsible for more than half of all income maintenance claims and is expected to contribute to a 2.8% annual reduction in the IMCR across all employer locations. While the full impact of the Programme will not be observed until data is available in mid-2008, early indications are positive.
Green light for Commonwealth workers compensation scheme
Earlier this year, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions in the Commonwealth workers’ compensation legislation. This enabled Optus to operate under the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme instead of the Victorian scheme.
The Victorian Government challenged the validity of certain provisions in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cwth) (Commonwealth Act) in the context of a licence which had been granted to Optus to operate under the Commonwealth scheme. The provisions under challenge concerned the granting of licences to Commonwealth authorities or to ‘eligible corporations’ (Licensing Provisions).
To be an ‘eligible corporation’ under the Commonwealth Act, the corporation must have been a Commonwealth authority or it must be:
about to cease being a Commonwealth authority; or
carrying on business in competition with aCommonwealth authority or with another corporation that was previously a Commonwealth authority.
The Licensing Provisions specify that, after a licence comes into force, no State workers’ compensation law will apply to injury, loss, damage or death suffered by an employee of the licensee.
In a five - two majority, the court held that the Federal Licensing Provisions are laws about workers compensation, not ‘State insurance’ and that they are supported by the corporations power in the Constitution. In rejecting the State’s argument that the Licensing Provisions touched on or concerned ‘State insurance’, the majority noted that a licensee such as Optus is at liberty to decide whether to take out insurance or to remain a ‘self-insurer’.
The High Court’s decision may open the door for the Federal Government to introduce a compulsory national workers’ compensation scheme for all constitutional corporations. Whether it does so remains to be seen.
Labor to review workers’ compensation, occupational health and safety
The Labor Government has announced that it will review Commonwealth workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety laws.
A major issue for the review of the workers’ compensations scheme (Comcare) will be the moves by large private sector companies like the Commonwealth Bank and TNT to transfer from state compensation schemes to Comcare.
These moves were supported by the Howard Government and have threatened to weaken state workers’ compensation schemes which have often had better entitlements and stronger enforcement regimes than Comcare.
There have also been concerns that Comcare, which was set up to cover Commonwealth public servants, is not properly equipped to deal with the wider range of occupational injuries that may occur in the new companies joining the scheme.
The occupational health and safety review will examine how to better coordinate and harmonise the different state and Commonwealth laws.
The CEPU will be contributing to both reviews. It believes that while there may be a case for creating nationally consistent laws, it should not be at the expense of standards or current entitlements.
While there is plenty of room for argument that teh corporations power may over ride state Workcover legislation it is surprising that nobody has chellenged the Workcover levy under the Taxation law.
Workcover comp levies could be classed as a tax- the reason why?
A tax is usually a payment taken for which there is no benefit received.
Many injured workers could argue they did not receive nay benefit from being on WorkCover. Employers certainly do not get any benefits?
So whyis it not classed as a tax and can the States tax employers and corporations?
In regards to the above comment and many others on here. Most Injured Workers are harrassed and intimidated by Employers Mutual Limited & WorkCover staff, not to mention EML's puppets Rehabilitation Providers so much that they really dont have the mental energy to fight decisions made by WorkCover.
When you have a Case Manager who is constantly uncontactable or who changes reguarly, and a Rehabilitation Provider who borderline stalks you trying to get you to agree to do a pointless Work Hardening in an industry you have no idea about it, or have a Rehabilitation Provider who is NOT independant and just follows Employers Mutual Limited's orders, calling up your treating specialists trying to get medical certificate's changed, trying to get you to take a cut in your income, threatening you etc.. then you try having the psychological stamina to fight them on every decision you make - not to mention if you want a lawyer you will have legal fees to pay for etc.
The system has been designed to make it as hard as possible for injured workers to challenge ANYTHING. It's been designed to make an injured worker's life hell unless they cooperate in everyway with WorkCover.
I know of dozens (and there are more like thousands out there) of injured workers I have worked with who have suffered psychological damage in their dealings with WorkCover who lead a nazi-style workers compensation regime where if you don't cooperate with them you are the enemy and they will show no mercy stowards you - even going as far as wasting hundreds of thousands to make sure you suffer hell.
This is such a popular site that everytime a "google" a workcover querie this blog site appears constantly. Keep up your comments because the whole world now knows how corrupt WorkCover and its providers are.
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:15): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question in relation to WorkCover rehabilitation providers.
Leave granted.
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: On 16 July 2000, the Advertiser published an article regarding Ms Sandra De Poi, and allegations of a conflict of interest. Ms De Poi, a member of the WorkCover Board, is also the managing director of De Poi Consultancy Services, which is an Adelaide-based workplace injury management and occupational rehabilitation provider.
The article states that De Poi Consultancy Services has received over $6.2 million in contracts from WorkCover referrals since the 2004-05 financial year. Last financial year, all rehabilitation providers were allocated work on a rotational basis. I am advised that case managers were able to override this process at their discretion and allocate work to any rehabilitation provider. I am further advised that De Poi Consultancy Services was exempt from this rotational referral process.
This financial year, work has been allocated to rehabilitation providers, based on their performance which is determined by the CAPO system. This system uses certain variables such as cost and return-to-work statistics to establish the performance of each registered rehabilitation provider against other registered rehabilitation providers. I am advised that the only rehabilitation providers who are excluded from this referral process are those smaller rehabilitation providers who did not receive enough referrals in the past to have a large enough sample size. My questions are:
1.Can the minister confirm whether De Poi Consultancy Services was exempt from the rotational referral system used in previous years?
2.If so, can the minister provide an explanation as to why this was the case?
3.Are De Poi Consultancy Services current referrals from WorkCover based on the CAPO system?
4.Does De Poi Consultancy Services meet or exceed industry benchmarks standards in its return-to-work outcomes?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:17): I will refer that question to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply.
... STILL WAITING ...
Posted by yapping chihauhau at 11:20 AM, 10/9/2008
HAHAHA the specialists on the medical panels were picked long ago in backdoor deals.. there has been no "consultation".. that's a term in the WorkCover world that means "wasting time".
How do you think EML's favoured providers were picked? The same way... backdoor deals. Same with the Board, same with anything to do with WorkCover.. all done behind closed doors... $ching-ching$
Posted by sandy de poi's persian rug at 3:45 PM, 10/9/2008
I can confirm that several of EML's favoured rehabilitation providers - which are the larger companies are actually employing management from employers and from insurers (we already know that Sandra De Poi has employed several ex-Employers Mutual Limited staff) in order to secure injured worker cases and provide bias-pro-employer rehabilitation, leaving workers with corrupted rehabilitation. Lots of backdoor deals have been done with the WorkCover board - specifically Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi to limit the rights of injured workers under the changes to the scheme by corrupting rehabilitation in south australia against the injured worker.
Workcover and eml have alot to answer for, unfortunatly they just shift the blame to injured workers and mike rann wont do anything about it because he's protecting the mates he put on the Workcover Board.
There is no such thing as accountability. The only accounts bing paid is the current huge amount of redemptions to injured workers who was failed by the system in not being rehabilitated. I would suggest if could go back to work ask for a redemption, you might get $150-$200K. If you are seriously injured, stay on the system so the actuaries can have a field day just in time for the next election.
Posted by Struth bound to die from breast cancer at 7:57 PM, 10/9/2008
Come 1st January 2009 and there will be no "gap" in legal fees with workers compensation. That means injured workers would not face any financial pressure into fighting their entitlements. More work for lawyers!
Everybody seems to be getting a share of the money thrown around. Maybe the Labor Party are emptying the investment fund before they lose the next election.
Workers, stick to your guns and dont get sucked in!
I have to agree with the above comment. The scheme is free falling without any direction. All one has to do is sit at Riverside for a day and watch the happenings. Bruce Carter left at the right time!
Oh yeah, you should call yourself be "Boardroom Blitz"
Posted by Stick yo uor guns workers! at 12:13 PM, 11/9/2008
Regarding a comment above, yes rehabilitation providers are employing rehabilitation managers from larger companies in order to secure business. Thus workers get no choice as to who rehabilitates them. It's all part of Sandra De Poi's backdoor rehabilitation deals in which her & Peter Vaughan have done deals with businesses which ensures they have complete control over a injured worker's rehabilitation, taking away the independance of rehabilitation and any rights a worker has. Of course what you will see next year is alot of cases of injured workers who have lawyers and advocates disputing these internal decisions which leaves a worker with no rights and leaves them at the mercy of an employer and the corrupt rehab consultant.
The above comment, I wouldn't blame Bruce Carter for most of it he was just a puppet - same as Julia Davidson who just the the media face of WorkCover, your comments should be more aimed at people like Sandra De Poi & Peter Vaughan who are the true figureheads in all this and who sit back and hide behind their puppetsbecause they are too gutless to do all their secret deals in public - When you donate alot of money to the Labor party you can get away with just about anything.
Memo, Peter Vaughn: worker killed. Have you received your notification from SafeWork SA yet?
OZ Minerals has temporarily shut down its Prominent Hill site in South Australia after an employee of a contracting firm engaged by the company was killed.
The worker died in a single light vehicle accident about 35 kilometres from the Prominent Hill gold and copper mine site.
The person was a construction supervisor working on the development of the borefield supplying water for the processing facilities some 45 kilometres from the mine.
OZ Minerals, which was recently formed from the merger of Zinifex and Oxiana, said police arrived at the site yesterday to investigations the accident.
"Worksafe SA has been notified and will be on site today to carry out their investigations," OZ Minerals said.
"Management will, of course, be cooperating fully with authorities in these investigations."
Oz Minerals said all activities on site have been shut down for half a day as a mark of respect.
"OZ Minerals senior management are on site to brief staff and conduct further accident investigations," it added
Dont for one minute think companies like DePoi will continue to bully workers. I took a redemption some 12 months ago and my rehabilitation, if thats you can call it was handled by DePois company. They preyed on workers not knowing the act but as the recent reforms have caused workers now to have full knowledge will make it extremly difficult to a point of self frustration on behalf of DePoi and PPC etc. The risk of losing entitlements has increased and so would be the effort of injured workers to protect themselves. The new act requires rehabilitation, hense the $15 million and if a worker has not been satisfied then they cannot be kicked off. No wonder there has been a huge amount of redemptions beeing offered.
The simple fact is there are many injured workers out there who simple DO NOT know their rights, both under the previous scheme and the new one. Without advocates or lawyers many of these injured workers will continue to be abused by corrupted rehabilitation consultants and bullied by EML. Not every injured worker has a lawyer or an advocate, and certainly not every injured worker knows about blogs such as this which contain very informed warnings about the system. And this is exactly what WorkCover and it's Claims Agent are counting on - injured workers with a lack of knowledge of their rights. There are many injured workers who are told complete dribbles of shit by case managers and their rehab consultants in order to force them into making decisions that improve the scheme, but DONT improve the quality of life of the injured worker.
De Poi Consultancy Services is very well known within the rehabilitation and workers compensation industries for being anti-worker and pro-employer, it is also very well know for recieving a large amount of business from WorkCover, and Sandra De Poi is known to have a large amount of influence within the business sector - hence why her rehabilitation company and the rehabilitation companies she has done deals with through EML are being sent business.
Corrupted rehabilitation is one of the, if not the core problem of south australia's workers compensation system - and it is continuing to be corrupted and will continue to be corrupted unless conflicts of interest in this industry are severed - and this dramactically effects an injured worker and they way they are rehabilitated.
Is it just me or is there something strange about a Government placing all its faith in the retrieval of the funding position in medical panels that will be determining work capacity at a time when:
• Specialists in public hospitals are resigning;
• GPs and specialists are refusing to see people on WorkCover;
• The wait for an independent medical examination is out to 2½ months in most cases and sometimes more;
• Medical panels are unlikely to be introduced until 1 April 2009;
Work capacity reviews will not be conducted until the panels commence to operate. There is talk of flying in doctors from Victoria to make up the numbers required for the panels.
Is it just me or is someone else asking why it is going to take so long to set medical panels up?
The Government has known since November 2006 that medical panels were going to be introduced and will be a vital component, perhaps the most vital component in the amendment package, to bring the scheme back into shape.
The next 12 months will be interesting indeed.
IS IT JUST ME?
Is it just me or are you a bit confused about the politics of Workers Compensation in South Australia?
We have seen the passage of the most wide ranging amendments since the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act was introduced in 1987.
The changes impact upon injured workers whose benefits will be markedly cut.
The changes also represent a significant cost shifting exercise from the scheme to the Commonwealth (Centrelink) and Registered Employers (S58B) for workers post 130 weeks.
It is ironic that these changes have been brought in by a Labor Government.
The information in this article is for information only and the reader should seek expert advice prior to making any decision
It is even more ironic that the Minister responsible, Michael Wright, is the son of Jack Wright who was the architect of the scheme.
These changes must be seen against a background of dreadful scheme performance over the last few years.
That shocking performance is in stark contrast to a well performing self insured sector over the same period.
The scheme is a disaster but self insured employers have consistently performed well.
It is not long ago that the scheme was fully funded (June 2000).
In contrast at that time interstate schemes with far less generous benefits reached crisis point.
Only the Queensland and Commonwealth schemes (apart from our own) had maintained a steady premium benefit mix.
New South Wales was a disaster.
Victoria too was performing poorly.
Our scheme was nationally recognised as the best managed with the most generous benefits.
Now that Donaldson Walsh are not WorkCover providers I find it quite funny Mr Walsh only now declares he is confused about the politics of Workers Compensation in South Australia?
My assessment of the proposed changes is
that there is significant potential for the
scheme to be worse off and the final
sentence of the Clayton Walsh report may
prove to be prophetic. The authors say
that:
“Should the initiatives be more successful
than we projected, the unfunded liability
will be extinguished sooner, and/or the levy
rates can be reduced more quickly. Of
course the opposite situation could also
emerge ”.
The changes proposed are so wide ranging
that great potential exists for “unintended
consequences” to emerge.
The “cherry picking ” of initiatives taken in
other states and seen to be effective in
those states will not necessarily translate
into our environment with equal success.
The practical difficulties, for instance, in
setting up the medical panels will ensure
that their effect will be limited for
18 months or more. That will mean that
work capacity reviews will not be
undertaken effectively during that time and
the tail will continue to grow.
Those of us in the industry may have cause
to reflect on the old Chinese curse – “May
you live in interesting times ”.
If doctors didnt hand out medical certificates like tic-tacs there wouldnt be a need for an independent medical panel. The amount of times ive seen an injured worker get an unfit for work certificate just because they dont want to work or fake a bit of back or neck pain - neither of which have anything to do with their injuries, is astronomical.
I have written a number of comments on here and totally agree with the above comment. The malingerers have to be accountabe to some extent but that does not give the right for case managers to ridicule the higher percantage of genuine workers who have a stake for a genune claim.
I completely agree with you. I personally think the Claims Agent is a complete waste of time and money and case managers are not equipped with the knowledge or experience to handle the cliams of injured workers effectively.. oh and then there's the whole attitude inside employers mutual limited that ALL injured workers are bludgers and should be treated accordingly.
I was just commenting on doctors because from working in the industry I can tell you that there are alot of doctors who write unfit for work medical certificates whenever an injured worker wants them (and I am talking about the malingerers - not genuine workers with genuine work injuries) - and the independent medial panel has been set up to deal with these people. Unfortunately though, as commented here it should be questioned whether the panel will be truly independent, because I can also say that alot of case managers from employers mutual limited treat workers as if they dont have injuries at all (ie.. the bludgers tag as promoted by eml management Ruth Mitchell & co.) and these genuine people with genuine injuries will also be targeted.
I personally think there should be more regulation in how and why doctors hand out medical certificates and doctors handing out unfit for work medical certificates to people rorting the system should be named and shamed. And yes, alot of these doctors know full well these people are not genuine injured workers - yet they still do it.
Yes. Totally corrupted. Questions should also be asked about these "rehabilitation cooperatives" in which rehabilitation providers have entered into agreements with other providers and the claims agent to garner more business.
Also why hasn't claims agent EML released publicly a full list of it's chosen 24 key providers????? Why can't injured workers know what providers are doing backdoor deals with WorkCover in order to keep their businesses going at the expense of fair rehabilitation for injured workers?
The system has its own corrupted policies. Its not about injured workers on the system malingering, its about providers making lots of $$$$$$$. I learnt a small lesson some time ago and i would suggest to flow with the punches. There is no right thing to do in this industry. If the government can accept these corrupted policies well why cant the workers do the same. You are all fools if you think there is fairness and even more so if you think you can beat it. Grab anything you can because thats what the providers are doing!
It will more than likely come back to bite them on their arses though, especially when legal action starts and certain "information" starts getting released to the media... Minter Ellison will be very busy next year. WorkCover and EML seem to think people will just cowardly walk away from it all. They have another thing coming. ;)
How can they use Victorian Doctors when legally qualified medical practitioners applying to be accredited by WorkCover to undertake permanent impairment assessments must provide evidence they can meet the following eligibility criteria:
4.4.1 Current registration with the Medical Board of South Australia? Would they have to be registered in both states?
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the estimated annual cost to WorkCover in lost levies as a result of a successful appeal to the Levy Review Panel by a major employer? WorkCover's definition of secondary disabilities cases was challenged in the Levy Review Panel by Skycity Pty Ltd. The panel upheld the appeal and reduced the levies by $100,000 per year. Industry sources advise us that the decision is likely to cost WorkCover $30 million a year, or $600 million in lost revenue over the period of unfunded liability calculations. The panel also criticised the performance of WorkCover in dealing with secondary disability issues.
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. This matter was first raised by the opposition a month or so ago, as I recall, in a press release that was issued by the shadow spokesperson at that stage and, of course, my response at that stage was that the figures being plucked out of the air by the opposition were wildly inaccurate and ridiculous and, certainly, I stand by that comment today. This ruling has not impacted upon the WorkCover levy income and to suggest otherwise demonstrates really, I think, without being disrespectful, a misunderstanding—
Mr Williams: You'll be so, anyway!
The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I'm not that way, and you know that, Mitch—a misunderstanding of the WorkCover scheme. The opposition spokesperson detailed a little bit of the potted history and I will not go there but, certainly, in response to the points raised by the opposition in posing this question, it is critical to note that the panel actually did not uphold Skycity's appeal.
Of the 15 cases complained about by Skycity, the panel actually only decided two, and in both those cases confirmed WorkCover's decisions. In two other cases, the panel directed that a further investigation take place, and it was on one of these that the panel respectfully suggested that WorkCover should do some detective work in this matter. The 11 other cases were adjourned for further submissions from the parties. This could lead to any number of outcomes and it is utterly wrong to conclude that WorkCover lost its argument in these cases.
The point that I would make is that resolving disputes between WorkCover and employers is exactly what the panel's role is all about, and it is proper and expected that employers will win some matters and WorkCover will win others. The suggestion that the panel had criticisms of the standard of investigation in some of the matters was not a generalised finding. More importantly, I think, the context of the case was whether the 15 claims should be treated as secondary disabilities from the point of view of the employers' levies, and there was no suggestion by the panel that they had not been investigated adequately for the purpose of deciding whether workers were entitled to compensation. Again, I would reinforce the point that the ruling has not impacted upon WorkCover's levy income, and to suggest otherwise is not appropriate.
The State’s embattled workers compensation body, WorkCover, has been dealt a financial blow just weeks after new laws on workers entitlements have come into effect.
An independent Levy Review Panel has slammed its lack of investigation of “secondary disability” cases” and upheld an employers appeal against levies charged.
Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd successfully appealed WorkCover’s assessment of claims made by employees and will now pay a lower rate of levies to WorkCover, saving them an estimated $100,000 a year.
The Review Panel decision also criticised WorkCover for not properly investigating secondary disability claims – cases where a worker has aggravated a pre-existing injury or condition.
Shadow WorkCover Minister Duncan McFetridge said the case exposed WorkCover for its poor performance and dealt a body blow to government claims that levies will be reduced.
“We told the Government that it needed to address the poor performance within WorkCover before it started slashing injured workers entitlements,” Dr McFetridge said.
“Now we find that the organisation hasn’t properly investigated claims that actually arise from pre-existing conditions – and these cases account for around 10% of claims,” he said.
“We estimate that the bungled approach of overcharging employers on the basis of an incorrect claims history will cost it $30 million a year, so either levies will go up to compensate, or the future long term debt of the organisation will blow out by another several hundred million dollars.”
The Review Panel’s findings, dated 21 July this year and published this week include;
Ø “We do have some criticisms of the standard of investigation in some of the matters complained of”
Ø “We think WorkCover should do some detective work”
Ø “We do think that the employer is justified in suggesting that further investigations are needed…and we direct WorkCover to carry them out”
Dr McFetridge said the Panel’s summary of WorkCover’s approach to fifteen individual cases exposed a culture of missing reports*, lack of investigative action** and failure to follow up examining doctors recommendations***.
“Like most of the Rann Government’s problems, this is about mismanagement.”
In South Australia, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 allows workers to claim compensation for "Secondary disabilities". A Secondary Disability is defined as a disability that is, or results from, the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, deterioration or recurrence of a prior disability. It does not matter whether the prior disability is work related or not.
To offset this liberal approach to compensating workers, registered employers are able to have the claim coded as a secondary disability. When a claim is coded as such, the claim costs for that claim are removed from the overall claims costs used in calculating the performance index and in determining whether any supplementary levy is applied.
The case opens up the way for registered employers to have their claims properly reviewed by the claims agent to ensure all claims are correctly coded as a primary or secondary disability. Employers should insist that the claims agent investigates whether there is evidence of a prior disability at the time any claim is made, especially if the employer suspects that a prior disability may exist. If the claims agent refuses to apply a secondary disability code to a claim on the basis that the prior disability was not symptomatic, employers should consider whether to challenge that decision. Employers should also properly scrutinise their levy notices to ensure their claims have been coded correctly and seek appropriate advice if they suspect that they have not.
This is good news for injured workers who return to work as the employer now has the safe guard if the worker re-injures the existing injury the employer would not be penalised. Lets see how serious this government is about returning workers back to work!
It also brings up a sitation where a worker goes back on entitlements without a levy being paid.
No wonder why redemptions are being offered at the moment to rid the workers off the system for good. I hope workers are not taking token offers?
The only way to clean up this mess would be to payout all current workers, and that would cost $600million. the same amount of money in the investment fund!
Perhaps the worst anomaly is when Workcover sends injured workers to their General Medical Tribunal to be assessed as to whether there is an injury or not and if so did the work cause it. Here I refer to an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia called "A Lawyers Nightmare" written by Barrister Paul Gerber. He stated that "Medical Tribunals are like a Kaffa-like nightmare, where injured workers have to try to prove them selves innocent of a crime they have not committed without either a prosecutor or court." Therefore it can be argued that Workers Compensation Medical Tribunals are similar to false hearings and mistreatment of people falsely arrested, and denied a proper court and denied an opportunity to clear their name.
Doctors make twenty four thousand or more mistakes a year by misdiagnosis and surgeries, a recent report says. Doctors in Workcover medical tribunals would also be misdiagnosing work injuries.
With the new WorkCover medical panels, EML have to supply the panels any relevant information. One wonders if this includes non-relevant material to influence a medical panel, or even so, lack of evidance supplied? A Freedom of Information application should always be performed every time such an examination has been ordered.
The Tribunal shall give reasons in writing for its decision and those reasons shall include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based."
Seems to me that it wont take too long before the lawyers sought out this Medical Panel issue. By January 1st lawyers are not allowed to charge the "gap" so it would be more enticing for injured workers to dispute.
Come 2009 lawyers will be having a field day fighting Workcover on issues such as medical panels, rehabilitation providers, EML negligence etc. I also hear on the grapevine board members such as Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi will be targeted for confilct of interests and corruption. Cant wait to see how Labor tries to cover up these messes.
Posted by Looking forward to going to court at 1:53 PM, 14/9/2008
Mismanagement of claims with conflicting medical reports
Doctors make twenty four thousand or more mistakes a year by misdiagnosis and surgeries, a recent report says.
So how many mistakes do the case managers for Workcover make in mismanagement of claims with multiple conflicting medical reports.
No wonder some injured workers get the rough end of the stick..
Posted by Midiagnosed and mistreated by WC at 11:57 PM, 14/9/2008
EML's reputation in losing and misplacing documents and medical reports is well known as their reputation for threatening injured workers and rehab providers into doing what they want. Of course they don't have to worry about threatening the rehab providers anymore, sandy de poi has bought most of them off with her secrective deals. ;)
One of my patients is an injured worker who has been threatened by his case manager because he doesn't want to return to his preinjury employer because the employer is not offering employment within my restrictions. he also has a physical birth disability which makes finding him new employment difficult especially since the case manager is not helping with any retraining or providing aids which would help him find new employment. fortunately my patient has an understanding rehab provider who I believe is not one of the claims agent's preferred. the case manager has also threatened to transfer my patient's rehabilitation to one of their preferred rehab providers. i notice though that the preinjury employer of my patient has not been breached for not providing suitable employment him and the case manager at the claim's agent is very sympathetic towards the employer, but has treated my patient with contempt and as a criminal even though he is disabled. since being on workcover he is also suffering from depression and anxiety.
I want to make it clear that this is not an isolated incident. I have quite a few patients suffering similar problems and treatment by case managers. they seem to be very focused on blaming the worker and letting the employer off scott-free even though they are not fulfilling their obligations.
I am hoping that the opposition and independent politicians that read this blog - and I know some do as a colleage who referred me to this blog was referred to by a member of parliament - start taking note of what is really going within workcover and it's claims agent. There is no fairness to injured workers at all and the claims agent employers mutual limited is acting out a fascist-style regime against injured workers with threats and intimidation which are only increasing psychological injury.
It also seems like workcover is sitting back and allowing the claims agent to do whatever it wants, which leads me to believe alot of the comments on this blog about corruption within the workcover board are very true, which doesnt surprise me as it's known within the medical community that the workcover board are protected by the state labor government.
Posted by concerned specialist at 8:32 AM, 15/9/2008
If the surveillance is referred to a medical practitioner for review or to a third party that is not a legal provider, then it is likely that legal privilege is waived. In those circumstances the material would be available to a worker who makes a proper section 107B or Freedom of information request.
I was threatened by Case Manager too. And my Rehab Consultant from Beckmann was USELESS and said I better do what my Case Manager says or I'd be put through the "wringer". I looked for work on my own time and found another job and just went off WorkCover. It wasn't worth the stress. I'd rather pay for own medical bills than deal with the kind of shit my Case Manager at EML put me through! Bastards!
Oh, no, no, no, no... there are no conflicts of interest on the WorkCcver Board.. of course not. How dare you say that. Workcover is perfect you know. It's all the injured worker's fault I tell you.
No, no conflict of interest at all.. we only have the head of Business SA on the Board, with all the changes suspiciously being pro-employer and most of Employers Mutual Limited & Workcover's decisions being pro-employer, oh and we only have the Managing Director of a rehabilitation company on the Board, and suspiciously that company gets a large amount of business from Employers Mutual Limited, and that Managing Director/Board Member & the Business SA head/Board member also give large financial donations to the Labor Party.
But no, no, no, there's no conflicts of interest at all I tell you! Sssshhh! All lies I tell you, lies!
Posted by not-so-secret conflicts of interest at 11:20 AM, 15/9/2008
Come on Mr Rann you could do better than that. There has been a recent finding that Business's in SA have been paying too much WorkCover levy and there is soon going to be a huge refund. You have a Business SA leader on the workcover board and you acll it working with honest people.
Posted by: Andrew Pascoe of Burnside 10:42am today
if i was an injured worker, i would hang in there get a lawyer and come jan 2009 sue workcover for all it's worth. its claims agent is so useless and makes so many mistakes your guarenteed a win. if corrupt rehab providers like de poi, beckman and capsecur can make a shitload of money from the system, then injured workers should b able to too. who isn't corrupt in all this anyway? you have workcover board members like peter vaughan and sandra lining their pockets with money, rehab companies doing deals with workcover to milk the system and what are injured workers getting? nothing.. time for honest people to give in and make some $$$ from all this too and let mike rann pick up the pieces and count the bills come next state election
I have noticed the last three "WorkCover Levy Review Panel Decisions" were based on the Skycity decision. Maybe the floodgates have already been opened?
http://www.employersmutual.com.au/south-australia/about/testimonials.htm
- Interesting how none of the testimonials have a name, date, employer to back any of it up:
"...thank you for your help and understanding during a difficult time. I am currently on restricted hours...and I am looking forward to returning to work full time. My recovery physically and mentally has been made easier by everyone's cooperation and encouragement. Again thank you.”
"...one of your Case Managers...has made my misfortune of an accident at work so much easier both physically and mentally to recover. With her quick and precise advice on different matters through these very concerning times, you need to know that you have someone you can rely on. She has done this to the letter, so again I would like to thank her and Employers Mutual for getting me a very good result with my surgery and recovery."
"Thank you for arranging a meeting with the concerning parties....these situations are difficult at the best of times and to be able to sit down and discuss rationally with all concerned about all issues and try to find a resolution was a genuine effort on your behalf to attain this....I found the meeting with the concerned parties a very good and worthwhile resolution plan. Thanks...for being committed to sorting out this problem immediately rather than let it fester....for your prompt response in handling the matters...for being there and listening and discussing the complaint...Everyone had input and were all able to put their cases across. This is truly a step in the right direction."
Uh huh.. interesting... case managers are NEVER THERE whenever I try and contact them. I usually dont get a call back or response for days, sometimes weeks.
And the funny thing is isnt case managers who arrange meetings with all parties - ITS REHAB CONSULTANTS!
Posted by how about putting some real ones up at 4:25 PM, 15/9/2008
And if you read further down the page employers mutual got someone a full time job after they couldnt return to a pre injury employer.
Perhaps someone should explain to the claims agent that it would have been the VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION CONSULTANT who did that. Employers mutual does not find people work, it simply manages claims... Badly.
The testimonials are only intended to give you a warm fuzzy feeling. If these were indeed real testimonials they were obviously people sucking up the arse of their case manager for a payout.
I for one would not be sucking to my case manager. He is the most arrogant pig I have ever come across and as for helping me. He has done nothing but hinder me in any return to study, work or any sort of pre injury activity.
If they were serious about helping others they woudl be more aware of the fact that all of their actions only point to one thing- keeping themselves employed. Otherwise they would engage in meaningful rehab so injured workers could get off the system and on with their lives.
I have to agree with the comment from "hand in there and milk it". The whole system is freefall at the moment and nobody seems to care. The lawyers are making $$$$$$$ so why cant the people who support the system as in the workers?
I havent heard from my case manager in months and i just send in my PMC and I get paid. I have everything planned when they start putting back the pressure because their inaction now is going to bite back at them.
Yes, case managers tend to have no idea how to do their jobs. They rarely respond to emails and phone calls, when they do its weeks or months later and then they have no idea what they are talking about or they end up being an entirely different case manager.
And of course there are the threats, which would seem threatening to me if I didn't know how negligent they are.
Posted by shaking in my booties at 8:02 AM, 16/9/2008
So much for EML when they took over the contract and changing things. The case manager I had at Allianz was the same at EML and the harrasment and bullying continued. Nothing changed whatsoever, in fact I think the case management got worse. Things like independant Doctors appointments were not properly organised, my RTW was never approved on time. At one time I had to remind them it was 5 weeks out of date! Shocking stuff...
Yeah, basically all the Case Managers at CGU, ALLIANZ, QBE etc. just moved over to Employers Mutual Limited so you will find most of the senior Case Managers there are the same incompetent people you dealt wth earlier - plus Employers Mutual Limited tend to employ trainee Case Managers and Claims Assistants who have had only basic training and have no idea what they are doing. The Employers Mutual Limited in SA is not the same one in NSW etc.. they have just wrapped the same shit up here in a different package.
Ive also waiting several months to recieve approved Plans etc not to mention phone calls from messages ive left. Incompetent negligent fools.
Legislation setting up a national body to oversee occupational health and safety and workers compensation has been introduced to federal Parliament.
Safework Australia will develop legislation to be adopted uniformly in all states and territories.
The body will have an independent chairman and representatives from the Commonwealth, the states, employers and unions.
Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard says it is an important step.
"This bill ushers in a new era of cooperation and collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in this important area of work," she said.
"A collaboration which will improve the health and safety of workers across Australia and reduce the complexity of regulation for businesses."
I have to agree that an ICAC is required straight away. Issues such as this from a government department needs to be handles by a commission. WorkCover, Water Bills etc could also be looked at.
Posted by: Bill Watson of Sydney 1:22pm today
You are living in a dreamworld if you think Rann will ever allow a ICAC in South Australia. He knows full well all his dirty little secrets and corrupt deals will be revealed to the SA public and that's the last think Good News Mike wants.
Posted by mike rann's blank cheque to sandy de poi at 7:07 AM, 17/9/2008
I am not fooling myself but the more it is brought to the attention that an ICAC is needed brings more suspision to the WorkCover board. Tis why Bruce left...
All the facts about corruption within the workcover board are there, and both major state political parties as well as independents know FULL WELL about them.
The reason why nothing is being done and why nothing WILL be done is because board members Sandra De Poi & Peter Vaughan - the key architects behind all the problems with Workcover, its claims agent EML and the system have influencial networks in business and politics and financially give a hell of alot of money to the Labor party.
Everyone who works in the workers compensation system, as well as lawyers, advocates and many medical specialists know full well how corrupted Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi are, and how both have their greedy hands in the scheme making millions from it - but all just sit back and accept it, because most are benefiting from it also, and as someone else stated here both Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi are a "protected species" in this state due to their links to the Labor Party.
I mean even look at The Advertiser yesterday, it had Peter Vaughan writing for one of their columns.. it truly shows how corrupted this state really is. And you can rest assured that as soon as that article revealing Sandra De Poi's corruption was printed a few months back that Sandra and her political mates were on the phone to The Advertiser to ensure it never happens again.
Our only hope is that the SA Labor Party goes the say of Morris Lemma, but even then Sandra & Peter will just buy off the SA Liberal party or whoever replaces Media Mike.
There will NEVER be an independent commission, until it's too late and even then Queen Bee Sandra & Chancellor Peter will be protected by their business and politician mates.
As for Bruce.. he was nothing but a show pony. He didn't make any decisions, like Julia Davison he was just placed there to smile and make a bit of money and sign a few documents. The true people who have stuffed up Workcover and our workers compensation system are the ones financially benefiting from it who have made changes that financially benefit them and who they represent - and that is Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi.
Posted by noses in the honey pot at 9:34 AM, 17/9/2008
Prosecutions - Guilty pleas - Sentencing - Failure to ensure so far as reasonably practicable the safety of an employee, and of other person who could be adversely affected by defendant’s work - Stacks of palletised cardboard were not tied down or restrained when loaded and had potential to become unstable in the truck - Employee struck and injured by falling pallet load as he opened the side curtain of tautliner truck at its destination - Other person assisting to unload the truck was also at risk - Failure to carry out hazard identification and risk assessment of the task of transporting goods by truck including the appropriate restraint of loads - Failure to develop and implement safe working practices - Failure to provide adequate information, instruction training and supervision to employee - Employee suffered broken femur - Risk of more serious injury - No reduction of penalty due to guilty pleas not made on second day of trial - Held: Single monetary penalty of $24,000 and conviction on s 19 charge - Ss 19(1), 22(2) Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986, ss 16, 18A Criminal Law ( Sentencing ) Act 1988.
Immigration Minister, Chris Evans... certainly there may be some obligations on the department in relation to these matters.
More than 60 former staff at Australian immigration detention centres have reported long-term mental health problems associated with the stress of the job.
There were 62 cases of mental illness among former guards at the Woomera and Baxter detention centres in South Australia.
One former guard is suing for damages, and the former managers of the centres could face a series of other claims.
A doctor employed at Woomera, Simon Lockwood, says years on he is still counselling many former staff.
"I saw severe depression. I saw post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders," he said.
"I saw a lot of alcohol abuse - people would drink to try and cope with what they saw.
"I saw a lot of relationship difficulties and marriage break-ups and it was a very toxic environment for a lot of the officers."
Several former employees, including Clive Skinn, say the ongoing riots and violence damaged their own lives as much as it did the detainees.
"I was on WorkCover for 18 months and then I tried to do myself in four times over it actually," Mr Skinn said.
"The only thing that kept me going was me kids and ... it's something I never ever want to see or do again. I don't recommend it to anyone."
The former guards say they were given inadequate training to deal with the violence and challenges the job involved.
One former manager at Woomera, Allan Clifton, says most guards were not equipped to deal with the conditions.
"The majority of officers, given that they were poorly trained, were very, very good people who were trying to do the best they could under difficult circumstances," he said.
"We had a group of officers that had come from prisons, in particular Arthur Gorrie in Brisbane, who belonged to the so-called boys club. They were all about crash and bash, crash and bash, that's the only way to do it."
The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, says he is aware some staff are already seeking compensation.
"I think first of all, as I understand legally the duty of care is with the employer," he said.
"Certainly there may be some obligations on the department in relation to these matters, but as I understand it those are about to be tested in a court case and obviously that'll be a legal decision."
One must wonder what the exposure is of WorkCover to the recent stock falls. THey could not be immune to the drop in share prices.
That unfunded liability must be rising everyday depsite the record number of redemptions being paid out at the moment.
Redemptions would only scratch the surface. The fall in stocks and now the Skycity decision concerning levies will increase the liability. Workcover is in such a mess that no reforms could ever fix and EML are still practising its corrupted way.
A union says work can resume at a building site at Outer Harbor in Adelaide where landfill is contaminated with asbestos.
Construction work stopped at the ABB Grain silo site last week when traces of asbestos were found in more than 17,000 tonnes of soil that had been brought in as landfill.
Tests by SafeWork SA showed the contamination was within levels considered safe but a union refused to let work continue until the soil was dealt with.
Colin Fenney from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union says a clean-up should be finished by Monday and the process also includes contacting everyone who has been involved with the site.
"We're making sure through the process here that everybody thats worked on this site, been in contact with this site, will be recommended to fill the forms out and make sure they get put on this asbestos register," he said.
"So if there's something later on down the track they know exactly where they got [it].
"Hopefully people won't have to use it, but it's a record of the people that have been on site and possibly could have been exposed to it (asbestos)."
"Tests by SafeWork SA showed the contamination was within levels considered safe"
"but a union refused to let work continue until the soil was dealt with"
I didnt think there was a safety level with asbestos?
Jane Yuile is the new Board Member replacing Bruce Carter as of today. She is a wealthy director of a financial consulting firm and is also the chair of many companies including the Adelaide Jam Factory, the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council of SA, the South Australia Film Corporation, the Department of Health’s Risk Management & Audit Committee and chairs the Southern Adelaide Health Service’s Finance Committee.
SERIOUSLY. HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THIS WOMAN NEED AND HOW MUCH TIME IS SHE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SPEND ON WORKCOVER WHEN SHE IS A DIRETCOR OF HER OWN COMPANY AND ON SO MANY BOARDS??
MORE SO WHY DO THEY NEED ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER ON WORKCOVER? ISNT THERE ALREADY ENOUGH TROUTS IN THE TROUGH?
ALSO GOOD TO SEE GOOD NEWS MIKE RANN IS STILL APPOINTING HIS MATES TO THE BOARD.
Posted by it's good news week at 7:30 AM, 19/9/2008
Interesting that it's not on the Adelaide Now website yet - The Advertiser would have been informed of this yesterday. But then most Workcover news tends to get swept under the carpet with The Advertiser, especially when one of the board member's is the CEO of Business SA, which buys alot of advertising.
I would like to make one comment on here and that the workcover scheme is not fair and never will be. Do not be fooled to think they are helping and the best advise i can give is do not fight against it thinking you can win, they want you to spend dollars on lawyers. The only way you can get fairness is playing it by there game and milking it as much as you can.
It's these types of that WorkCover are hoping for and having a good smile about.
Plenty of workers who stick in there, do the right thing, comply with the legislation and have good lawyers and advocates have beaten the system, you just dont hear about them because they move on with their lives.
My advice to any injured workers is to get legal counsel, because EML and WorkCover make PLENTY of mistakes and mismanage claims all too often and those of us who deal with EML & WorkCover know this very well.
Memo: Peter Vaughn here is the people you represent
Prosecution - Guilty plea - Failure to provide so far as was reasonably practicable safe systems of work - Failure to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as was reasonably necessary to ensure that the employee was safe from injury and risks to health - The defendant operated a labour hire recruitment business which involved placing employees at businesses pursuant to labour hire contracts - Mark Anthony Wilson was employed by the defendant pursuant to a contract of employment - The defendant entered into a contract with MCK Pacific Pty Limited (t/as Plexicor Australia) for the provision of labourers to perform general factory duties including the duties of a press operator - Wilson was performing the duties of a press operator at Plexicor Australia’s factory at Edinburgh and was exposed to a risk of injury at work and was injured when operating the Konal 11471 Cell Foaming Station - Wilson climbed into the machine to clean off excess foam - Whilst Wilson was inside the machine cleaning off the excess foam another employee pushed the start button causing the foaming press to commence operation - The base of the machine slid and trapped Wilson’s right foot between the transfer table and the base frame - Wilson sustained injuries to his foot - Parity of sentencing - Defendant being a labour hire company not in effective control of the site - Application made for no conviction to be recorded - Discussion concerning the recording of no conviction - Held: Conviction and penalty of $9000 (after 25% discount applied) plus levy and costs - S 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, Ss 10, 16 Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988.
By 1st January 2009, there is no charge for the workers. The lawyers have to charge what is recoverable from WorkCover, so no doubt workers would be able to use legal help. If there is a question about suitability to work it can be challenged for free.
The federal government's proposed new body to oversee work safety has too many bureaucrats and two few workers, the opposition says.
Deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop told parliament that she broadly supported the government's push for nationally consistent workplace safety and workers' compensation systems.
But it was hard to imagine a worse body to achieve it than Safe Work Australia.
Ms Bishop was speaking on a bill to set up Safe Work Australia as the body to end complex and costly inconsistencies in occupational health and safety and workers' compensation laws around Australia.
It replaces the Australian Safety and Compensation Council which was set up by the previous Howard government.
The new body would have only four representatives of employers and employees, compared with six on the council, Ms Bishop said.
Safe Work Australia would be dominated by state governments and their bureaucrats who already had poor records on cooperation.
Bureaucrats would outnumber people who actually did the work.
The body's makeup would make it easier states to undermine harmonisation for their own political gain.
Safe Work Australia was "botched policy" which could cause more problems than it solved, Ms Bishop said.
However the coalition would not oppose it in the house.
Posted by The Sydney Morning Herald at 1:32 PM, 19/9/2008
I have to agree with Smiley. But i was always told a mistake is only done once and more than once is incompetant or stupid. I think case managers are both.
I see Ashford Hospital refused in treat a patient because it was a WorkCover claim!
I am sure this worker had a good introduction of having a workplace accident and the types of discrimination one might get.
Maybe John Walsh is also correct that it would be difficult to get a Medical Panel up and running!
Posted by De Palms los Thumbo at 10:26 AM, 20/9/2008
A colleague attended a rehab provider "education" seminar last week held by Workcover in which Employers Mutual discreetly threatened rehab providers not to speak negatively of them or Workcover to injured workers. Also rehab providers are no longer to provide rehabilitation, the main goal is to get people off the system and into a job ASAP. Most of the rehab providers know the rehabilitation industry has been completely corrupted by Workcover, but need to survive so are doing anything Workcover wants. So if your rehab provider is being extra rosey about your case manager now you know why.
Thanks for the tip. I believe the new reforms stipulate that an injured worker would have had some rehabilitation to be matched to suitable employment and it is the onus of the worker to prove otherwise. This is why the 2000+ current workers on the system with no rehabilitation and continual "square peg in the round hole" tecnique all have a legitimate reason why they are still on the system without successfull rehabilitation. Hense the magnitude of redemptions being offered. After the ombudsman has heard the first 20 appeals he would soon get a grip on how the system has failed under EML.
How can there be a positive spin when Hospitals and Doctors are refusing to treat WorkCover claims. 5AA today had callers ring in with their experiences.
The dust may heve settled after the reform saga but the same old problems exists and are starting to air again. Any rehab/job matcher who follows the corrupt ways of EML will get found out.
If you ask most doctors and specialists why they dont like working with Workcover patients, it has nothing to do with the patients, it's WorkCover itself and its claims agent that's the problem. Dealing with WorkCover and incompetent Case Managers is an absolute nightmare and most find it very hard to recieve prompt payment for services, especially when the Case Managers often dispute payments. I went to get some dental surgery a few months again and notice a sign saying something like NO WORKCOVER PATIENTS. I asked my surgeon why he didn't deal with WorkCover and he said because they already owe him thousands of dollars and trying to settle anything with them is a nightmare. My normal dentist also said dealing with Case Managers is a headache and now with anything to do with WorkCover he asks patients to get a signed letter from Case Managers stating they will pay for services and gets a copy of it before he will do any work. It's not only specialists too, people who provide equipment and work aids as well as training also have major delays in payment from Case Managers.
Yes, these sell-out rehabilitation providers will soon find their reputations tarnished, in fact most are already - except with employers and the claims agent which is who they work for. There are very few good independent rehab providers out there, and most that are genuine rehab providers wont have anything to do with WorkCover now because they know that WorkCover will just use them and put all the blame on them when the shit hits the fan, so I hope these corrupt rehab providers who have done deals with WorkCover enjoy the money while it lasts.
Posted by yapping chihauhau at 11:32 AM, 22/9/2008
It is good to hear a lawyer rang in Leon Byners show and put the record straight that it isnt the Hospitals fault in refusing to deal with a work injury but case managers and rehab consultant who hinder and bully Doctors. Case managers etc have caused a culture which the new reforms will not fix.
I will be emailing the Hospital to offer support in that its the WorkCover culture to blame.
Dr Tamblyn does not see patients who are claiming workcover or third party payments.
Dr Peter Tamblyn is an orthopaedic surgeon who has operated at Ashford Hospital since 1981 and consulted in the vicinity of Ashford Hospital since 1985.
Dr Tamblyn now operates at Ashford Hospital once or twice weekly and each month at Flinders Private Hospital.
All consultations are at the Orthopaedics SA rooms at 57 Anzac Highway (telephone 8267 8277) and are booked in afternoon sessions.
Surgical procedures comprise hip and knee replacement surgery, arthroscopic knee surgery, shoulder, elbow and wrist surgery, foot and ankle surgery and fracture fixation.
Most mornings are spent at Flinders Medical Centre where he works in orthopaedic trauma services. Activities there involve trauma surgery and teaching trainee orthopaedic surgeons.
Dr Tamblyn does not see patients who are claiming workcover or third party payments.
Dr Tamblyn is very slow at doing medicolegal reports. He would discourage anyone seeking to attend specifically for the purpose of obtaining a medical report for their lawyer.
Elective surgery can usually be carried out within two or three weeks of booking.
Problem = BULLY CASE MANAGERS & REHABILITATION CORRUPTION
5AA
It is good to hear a lawyer rang in Leon Byners show and put the record straight that it isnt the Hospitals fault in refusing to deal with a work injury but case managers and rehab consultant who hinder and bully Doctors. Case managers etc have caused a culture which the new reforms will not fix.
I will be emailing the Hospital to offer support in that its the WorkCover culture to blame.
Posted by Anonymous at 11:31 AM, 22/9/2008
VERY TRUE. MOST PEOPLE WHO DEAL WITH WORKCOVER KNOW THAT THE CLAIMS AGENT IS A BULLY AND FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF CERTAIN WRKCOVER BOARD MEMBERS *COUGH* SANDRA DE POI AND PETER VAUGHAN *COUGH*.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE SYSTEM ISNT INJURED WORKERS - IT'S THE CLAIMS AGENT WITH CASE MANAGERS WHO HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DO THEIR JOB AND ARE FOCUSED ON NOTHING ELSE BUT GETTING PEOPLE OFF THE SYSTEM ASAP - NOT ACTUALLY REHABILITATING PEOPLE AND GETTING THEM BACK INTO SUSTAINABLE WORK. AND NOW WE HAVE REHABILITATION PROVIDERS WHO HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED BY EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIMITED AND ARE NOTHING BUT PUPPETS OF RECYCLED OR INEXPERIENCED CASE MANAGERS.
WorkCover only has a few rehabilitation providers it no longer wants to work with (smaller companies) who have a reputation for not following employers mutual limited's orders - these were the providers not picked as employers mutual's "key providers". The rest did deals with both larger companies and WorkCover board member Sandra De Poi and organised themselves into "cooperatives".
And yes, WorkCover is working through employers mutual in threatening rehabilitation providers to "tow the line" do do what they say, not working independently.
The system is a lot worse off for injured workers than it was a year ago and this has been a very calculated exercise by WorkCover board members to cement the system as being extremely pro-employer, taking away both the rights of an injured worker to have a fair rehabilitation experience, but also taking away the right for a rehabilitation provider to be independent.
I have heard through internal sources that at least one of rehabilitation providers not chosen by employers mutual as a "key provider" is planning legal action claiming to have documentated evidence that shows employers mutual has slandered them to both employers and injured workers. This provider is also very well known within the rehabilitation industry for challenging employers mutual on a number of decisions, so it's going to be interesting to say the least to see what happens.
Grace Portelesi was heard on radio today that its tax payers money paying supporting workcover and was corrected in that its actually employers funding the scheme. One wonders how much she actually knows when she voted for the reforms?
SA Unions wants an inquiry into the rehabilitation industry to see if it provides an effective service to injured workers.
The head of SA Unions, Janet Giles, has told a parliamentary committee she believes some rehabilitation providers simply tick boxes in order to get money out of WorkCover.
She made the remark to State Parliament's Statutory Authorities Review Committee, which is looking into WorkCover.
Ms Giles says rehabilitation services have never been properly reviewed in any report on WorkCover's performance.
"There's some good rehab providers out there and some people that just tick boxes to get cash out of WorkCover in our view," she said.
"Because they're paid on going through a process ... they get money for every process that they go through."
Posted by http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/22/2370 at 4:21 PM, 22/9/2008
I fully agree with this. Interesting though that WorkCover has it's own process of auditing rehabilitation providers, yet I know for a fact that several of EML's chosen key providers have FAILED their WorkCover audits. Not to mention each rehabilitation provider is supposed to be doing internal audits every 3 months and sending a report to WorkCover, so it begs the question how they fail the audits done by WorkCover? Yet for some reason they are still being given business by WorkCover. It goes to show it's who you know, and who you've done deals with, not the quality of work you do.
As for Janet Giles, well she sat on the Board for several years, did nothing, and knew about all of these legislative changes months before the rest of us, yet only resigned when she knew her credibility would be compromised, so she doesn't get much respect from me.
Janet Giles - Former WorkCover Board Member Who Just Sat There & Did Nothing
The comments made by Janet Giles are vague and brief, and I'm sure by "good providers" she means her good friend Sandra De Poi, you know, the woman she sat on the Workcover board with for several years and allowed to make millions from Workcover.
As said above Workcover already have auditing procedures, but these are a complete failure. Workcover itself needs to be audited and more transparent, and the claims function needs to be brought inhouse with current case managers retrenched, and a new group of claims managers retrained transparantly. There is too much secretiveness inside Workcover and Employers Mutual, which translates into obvious corruption. Both Workcover and it's claims agent Employers Mutual are secretive when it comes to it's own muddled statistics, and who they give their business to. Not to mention certain questions concerning Sandra De Poi's rehabilitation company which according to Workcover's own annual reports profitted over $6million in the last three years have yet to be answered in HANSARD even though it's been nearly 2 months since asked.
The whole rehab industry has turned into a joke since EML - which is obviously controlled by De Poi & Vaughan - became the sole claims agent. The majority of rehab providers have seriously lost any credibility they had since 2006 and now the corruption and antiworker attitude of EML is wide known. Just because employers pay the levy it doesnt give them a right to use the claims agent to take 100% control over the decisions of an injured worker's rehab.
Differnce is they have had no formal training in employment consulting, just try and shove workers into any industry and are threatened and bullied by a corrupted claims agent and in turn face pressures to get medical specialists to change medical certificates and recommendations and in the end when things go wrong the blame is put on the rehab... job match consultant, when generally its the case managers meddling and incompentence which screws things up.
Seems there is only a couple of weeks before injured workers get there first wage decrease. I hope the chap who lost his thumb recently goes back to work before he is fit so he doesnt lose his entitlements. His employer cannot refuse his right to go back to work as this worker has a right to his pay, so therefore he would have to be on modified duties.
An employee who cannot be productive for an employer should make Peter Vaughn all warm and fuzzy!
Does anybody know what the process is when an injured worker goes back to work after the 13 weeks and re injure themselves, would they be on the 90% or start again on 100%?
Legislative Council - Thursday, 28 February 2008, Page 1908
WORKCOVER CORPORATION
The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question about WorkCover.
Leave granted.
The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition has been reliably informed that yesterday's Labor caucus meeting was addressed by the Treasurer, in relation to the proposed changes to the WorkCover legislation and the very precarious position with respect to the unfunded liability. He stated to the meeting—which was a very heated meeting—that, unless the unfunded liability was reined in, the state's AAA credit rating would be at serious risk. My question to the minister is: just how secure is the state's AAA credit rating?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:24): As long as this government is in office—and, after all, it was this government that was in office when we restored the AAA credit rating, unlike the previous government. During eight years of Liberal government, from 1994 to 2002, $2 billion of own source debt was added to our state debt. The only reason why the previous Liberal government was able to reduce debt was through massive asset sales, but the accumulated debt on its budgets was something like $2 billion over the course of that eight years. Since this government has been in office it has returned a surplus every year. It was during the period of this government that the AAA credit rating was restored. This government will take action to ensure that that AAA credit rating remains.
Posted by ... and so they did at 1:49 PM, 23/9/2008
HOLLOWAY is an idiot, the State bank collapse was in 1991. Has he forgotten it was under a Labor government? The workcover reforms are simply to bring down a "FAKE" unfunded liability for business, simple as that!
I took a redemption some 18 months ago and saved WorkCover heaps. The redemption was based on my net wage. The unfunded liability is based on gross wage plus providers costs to the age of 65. Thats how I know its fake. The actuaries must be on the take as well.
I have noticed Anngela Morgan is taking WorkCover to court again. It is ashame however WorkCovers lawyers are fighting as much legal action against them than settling injured workers disputes.
The Australian Democrats will move to establish an independent corruption watchdog in South Australia.
Democrat MP Sandra Kanck said she would introduce a bill to state parliament today to form an independent commission against crime and corruption (ICACC).
It will be the party's fifth attempt to establish such a body to investigate allegations of corruption at all levels of government and business.
"Without an ICACC the billions of dollars of mining and development money coming into this state will create a culture of kickbacks and favours in our councils and government departments," Ms Kanck said.
"Without an ICACC there is nothing to stop organised crime from bribing or blackmailing our officials."
Ms Kanck said Liberal Party MPs recently came out in support of a corruption watchdog and if they were serious they should throw support behind her bill.
The Labor government remains opposed to such a move, arguing that there is sufficient anti-corruption capacity within existing law enforcement groups.
Ms Kanck said she expected her bill to be put to a vote by the end of this year.
"Liberal support will guarantee a successful vote in the upper house and that will leave Labor exposed as the last obstacle to fighting corruption in this state," Ms Kanck said.
Private hospitals should not refuse emergency treatment on financial grounds or because there may be a WorkCover claim, the health department says.
Chief Executive Dr Tony Sherbon yesterday said the department knew of private hospitals turning away patients on financial grounds and potential worker compensation claims. “It is of concern” he told The Advertiser.
“We would ask the hospitals to first stabilize the patient and then arrange for appropriate care”. This follows a report in The Advertiser on Saturday about Payneham man Daniel De Palma, who was refused treatment at Ashford Hospital after he injured his hand in a workplace accident.
The states largest private hospital has launched an investigation into that case and said yesterday it could not yet comment.
But it said patients “under potential and validated WorkCover claims presenting to Ashford will be assessed and treated as appropriate”.
Labor MP Grace Portolesi, who raised the case of Mr. De Palma, said other people had contacted her office with stories, including one man who injured himself with a nailgun at work and also was refused treatment at Ashford.
“At least in the United States, where there are horrific stories about payment for health care, some private hospitals are legally obliged to treat and then ask questions later,” she said.
Dr Sherbon said there was a worrying trend toward U.S.-style treatment and he urged private hospitals to “use commonsense”.
An earlier question about what happens if a worker returns to work after the 13 weeks and re-injures themselves would they still be on the 90% rate? If the re-injury was the same injury as before, that is, an aggravation or detoriation or what is called a 'continuing' claim then yes, they would be on the reduced amount. And if they had a further 13 week period of incapacity (full or partial) the entitlement would reduce to 80%. It would be different if the second injury was a different injury altogether, then it would be new claim, new date of injury and new entitlement period.
Hello injured workers, please if you could take the time to complete this new survey organised by the SA Unions on the impact of the south australian state government's legislation on injured workers:
I dont know why people are in such support of Grace. She's a Labor MP. It was her party that has totally screwed up the worker's compensation system here in SA. If she wants to do something she should openly and viciously publicly demand a rollback of the legislation changes and demand an independent enquiry into WorkCover and it's just as corrupt claims agent Employers Mutual.
I am in no support of Grace. She voted for the reforms, and listening to her on 5AA last week she really showed that she had no idea of the WorkCover system. her vote should have been rejected.
One wonders how many of these Labor MP's will start to act dumb so when the 2010 election comes near? They were forced to vote for Mike, Kevin and Co. and it will backfire.
Clarification Regards Post-spinal Surgery Spinal Impairment Assessment (September 2007)
In the initial instructions regarding spinal assessment for the Stream 1 Spine Impairment Assessment Course, the Spine Reference Group pointed out that there was an imminent Court of Appeal decision on how to assess spinal injuries which had been treated by surgery, and that we would release a clarification via the training authority (AMA Victoria) once this occurs.
The Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mountain Pine Furniture P/L v Taylor delivered on 6 July 2007 upheld the judgment of Mr Justice Bongiorno (Supreme Court decision) that when an impairment assessment for the spine is conducted in accordance with AMA4, Chapter Three, DRE method, the effects of surgery must be disregarded.
I have it on good authority that Rann and his pitbulls will be challenged before the next election. Alots of the backbenchers know full well that Rann has no chance of winning once the lead up to the state election begins. The work to get rid of good news mike has already begun.
Posted by it's good news week at 11:35 AM, 25/9/2008
Prosecution - Alleged failure to provide and maintain a safe system of work, and to provide and maintain plant in a safe manner - Employee struck down and run over by forklift inside defendant’s coldroom - Severe crush injury to foot - Alleged failure to undertake hazard identification and risk assessment regarding presence of drivers and forklifts within the coldroom, and to develop safe operating procedures - Alleged failure to provide a system which minimised the presence of drivers in the coldroom - Alleged failure to maintain a system of traffic control - Alleged failure to ensure all forklifts were fitted with a working audible warning device or flashing light - Alleged failure to provide physical barrier at coldroom entrances to protect against forklift collision - Ex parte hearing - Defendant found guilty - Sentencing - Aggravating feature of prior warnings - General deterrence - Contrition - Held: Conviction and fine of $32,000 - S 19(1) Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act - Regs 1.3.2 and 2.16.1 Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995 - Summary Procedure Act
Wonder how much the unfunded liability is now with the latest share market falls. According to the Advertiser today SA has lost $200 Million. I wonder if that would include WorkCover or whether the SA government choose to distance themselves form the mess Bruce got them into.
Kevin Foley said SA would barely feel any financial effects of the world financial crisis a few days ago to to the media, seems he told a porky. Meanwhile in the latest HANSARD he also states WorkCover's finances would NOT be effected. I wonder if that's another Kevin "Fred Flintstone" Foley fib.
Foley also stated he will never let the states AAA rating be effected. Well doesnt the injured workers of this state know that all too well.
He also stated he in Hansard he has made a personal loss in his real estate investment (apartment in Sydney). If he cant make the right decisions in his own investments, how can he be in charge of the states?
All the talk about AAA credit ratings is simply spin from mike mike and kev arrogant foley for the media.
It is now obvious that the blowout in the WorkCover unfunded liability was easily rectified. Simply discontinue injured workers benefits. The millions spent on lawyers in throwing them off the system is obviously an administration cost and not a liability.
The millions spent on claims management and useless rehab is also an administration cost and not a liability.
The Harry media campaign- well what a load of crap.
This government and the WorkCover board need a big shakeup and need to take a long hard look at themselves, their staff and their practices.
Injured workers have been given a raw deal from day one and now its obvious. For every person injured at work more money will be spent on lawyers and administration than what the injured will get in entitlements.
A sorry state of affairs.
Shame on this government and the board of WorkCover who allowed this mess to happen.
And for the unfunded liability- WorkCover was set up to manage injured workers compensation not to invest money.
A decision which has also cost the inured workers dearly.
Posted by AAA credit cruncher at 11:34 AM, 28/9/2008
SOUTH Australia's finances have taken a "massive" $200 million hit from the world economic crisis - described as "frightening" by Treasurer Kevin Foley.
Mr Foley, who is having meetings almost daily on the issue, revealed the financial meltdown has hit investments and Government tax revenue.
This is likely to lead to further cuts or deferments in Government spending over the next two years and possible job losses in the public sector.
Reduced earnings on investments, including superannuation, through the state's investment arm, Funds SA, could be as high as 10 per cent.
Protecting the AAA rating but at what cost? You saw what happened to injured workers on workcover.
Posted by: John Richards of Richmond 6:37pm September 27, 2008
I spoke to another rehab consultant on the weekend. She was very damning of the industry and openly admitted that case managers ORDER rehab consultants around now and there is no independance. Her company is one of eml's favoured companies and gets alot of business, but she agreed instead of counselling them now she's been ordered by case managers to just find a job asap. The company she works for has just introduced a review system too and rehab consultants not finding jobs asap and meeting a quota will be laid off. She said she's going to look for another job and hopefully find one before christmas that isn't involved with workcover and eml. I quote this from her: they are complete a**holes!
Posted by like we didn't already know this at 1:10 PM, 29/9/2008
Thanks for letting everybody know about the rehab consultant. Can I add that I spoke to a Doctor last friday and she wasnt too impressed on the "Medical Panel" method. It seems there has been a bad experience in the past in relation to medical panels as I have heard it from a few medics now.
you'll find alot of them arent happy with the system and are quite open with venting to friends and colleagues about how corrupt eml and workcover are but have no choice to go along with what eml and workcover wants or they will end up having no jobs or businesses. most rehab consultants know they have been corrupted but its a dog eat dog world and the state labor government have given their friends peter vaughan and sandra de poi free reign in corrupting the workcover system.
The body of a deckhand has been found and another is feared drowned after a shark fishing boat capsized off South Australia's coast.
The captain of the boat survived a five-and-a-half hour swim to shore in the shark-infested waters off Gulf St Vincent.
The captain, 33-year-old Andrew Pisani, was washed ashore at Stansbury on the Yorke Peninsula about 2am CST today.
A massive air and sea search was launched to find the two deckhands, both aged 28, and originally from the south-east city of Mt Gambier.
The body of one of the deckhands was discovered about 11am CST today near an oyster lease, and about 3km from where a net believed to be from the sunken vessel was located.
A search is continuing for the second deckhand but police are losing hope of finding him alive.
Posted by business SA delivers! at 8:14 PM, 29/9/2008
The new workcover laws are based on Victoria right?
Peter Hanks, QC, has made 150 recommendations regarding reforms to Victoria's workers' compensation scheme. These include providing superannuation benefits to injured workers who are on workers' compensation for long periods of time, and increasing the amounts that are paid for permanent impairment and death. Hanks' report will be released on 26 September 2008
Victoria is considering whether to scrap its workplace compensation laws and implement a scheme that could cost nearly $150 million more.
A leaked draft of a Government review of the laws governing WorkCover makes 133 recommendations that would comprehensively reshape Victoria's scheme.
The author of the report, Peter Hanks, QC, says the current system is "overly complex" and that the Accident Compensation Act and the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act should be "recast" into one comprehensive act. Mr Hanks recommends the new scheme be named "WorkSafe Victoria".
The report is the result of a review commissioned in December by WorkCover Minister Tim Holding.
It is believed to be now before a Stakeholder Reference Group made up of representatives of unions, employer groups, legal associations and the Australian Medical Association. A final version of the report is expected to be made public later this year.
Mr Hanks says in the report that some of the provisions in the current laws are "spent or obsolete" and cites "anomalies and inconsistencies" that he says frustrate the laws' application.
"It is fair to say that the legislation itself is a complex piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years," said Craig Sidebottom, a senior associate at plaintiff law firm Slater & Gordon.
"We would hope that the review would lead to some simplification and streamlining of the act."
Oh they will be scrapped, no doubt about that. Unfortunately they can do alot of damage in the meantime which workcover will be doing its best to cover. Also I doubt there will be any accountability of the board members as they will all be protected by Labor . I guess its a small concilation thought that unless Labor get rid of Rann and his piggies and distance themselves from workcover then it will due to workcover and other issues such as water, health, public transport and media mike's absense when bad news arises, suffer a humiliating defeat in the nexp state election.
Yes they are based on the Victorian model, and the Workcover board as well as this state Labor government knew full well that Victoria was going to change it's Workcover legislation when they changed our own legislation and based it on that model..it's been in the pipeline for well over a year.
The SA legislation changes were not needed at all. What was needed was Workcover SA to do it's job and quite dicking people around and allowing it's board members to profit from the scheme. Not to mention a complete review of the rehabilitation industry. Unfortunately the changes have only reinforced the greed of the board members and corrupted the rehabilitation industry even more through its secret deals with EML.
i sought another rehab provider and employers mut stood in my way trying to make me go to theirs went to tribunal and my case manager informed the ombusdman the rehab provider wasnt workcovr contracted when they were not happy i have put in a complaint with ombudsman
The Workcover board are nothing but white collar crooks with EML as their muscle. My case manager has told told lots of porkies to all of my specialists as has my rehab consultant, not since I got a lawyer tho, funny that.
I agree we should concentrate about workcover sa, but my point is the reforms recently passed by this labor government are based around victorias current scheme which could well be scrapped. why would they want to scrap theres when they didnt have the same unfunded liability? i am trying to make a point they simply got it wrong!
Injured workers on WorkCover benefits will have their income cut by 10 per cent from today.
They are the first to be affected by legislation passed by the State Government intended to reduce WorkCover's huge unfunded liabilities.
Those still on the scheme in 13 weeks time will get their payments cut by another 10 per cent.
Janet Giles from SA Unions says injured workers are paying the price for successive governments' poor decisions on WorkCover.
"They might not be back at work, not because they didn't want to go back to work, but because of a whole range of factors including their employer not providing them suitable duties or their rehabilitation taking longer than expected," she said.
Ms Giles says the cuts apply on the same day as WorkCover is having its annual conference.
"Bureaucrats of WorkCover and providers who get the money out of the WorkCover system and employers will be sitting down to a sumptuous breakfast at the Hilton Hotel, this is a very ironic timing," she said.
"Those inside will be having breakfast and will be listening to speeches while those out there will be tyring to manage on 10 per cent less money."
This wasnt about "fixing the system" it never was. It was about state Labor giving full control to WorkCover Board members who have vested interests in the business sector and who are large state Labor party donators. This is about two particular Board members who have alot of power in this state with business and who have bought out Labor politicians.
It is really as simple as that. Why else would Labor allow the CEO of Business SA Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi a very well known businesswoman who's father was a wealthy anti-unionist to sit on the WorkCover board and profit millions from the SA workers compensation system through their own businesses?
You will find that Business SA was thoroughly behind these changes, even writing their own report on the changes that should happen, and subsequently these changes did happen.
This is about state Labor repaying their mates for their support and their large donations. Nothing more.
The legislation was never needed to fix WorkCover. It was never required. If WorkCover had just done it's job and not corrupted the SA workers compensation system in order for certain of it's Board members to line their pockets with cash, the unfunded liability wouldn't be in the state it's in.
And as we have seen we have never seen any accountability for the wrongs of the WorkCover Board, instead because of Labor's corrupt ways and their backdoor deals Board members Vaughan and De Poi have been rewarded and it's the injured workers that have been made accountable.
This is about them making as much money for themselves as possible, at the cost of injured workers rights, and when the shit hits the fan they will be protected by state Labor and most likely the claims agent and rehabilitation providers will have to deal with the blame.
Don't think for one second that the state Labor party thought the legislation changes were fair or would "fix the system".
Posted by through the looking glass at 8:43 AM, 1/10/2008
Janet Giles needs to take some accountability for what happened when she was on the WorkCover Board, which was less than 6 months ago.
As for rehabilitation taking time. Believe it or not Janet, rehabilitation does take time and can't happen overnight.
And the fact is rehabilitation providers under Employers Mutual Limited are no longer rehabilitation providers, they are corrupted job matchers and Case Manager puppets.
Rehabilitation providers are told by Case Managers and EML's middle management to complete rehabilitation and get people back to work ASAP in order to get more business from them, regardless of whether TRUE rehabilitation is done or not - and of course if it's not - which is in alot of cases there is a severe risk of reaggravation.
The unfortunate thing is rehabilitation these days is done by providers who have struck deals with WorkCover - not by providers who have proven effectiveness when it comes to rehabilitation.
Also Janet, you shouldn't forget... less than 6 months ago you were on the WorkCover board enjoying those expensive luncheons and the perks of sitting on this corrupted Board. The only reason you resigned was because you knew you would come under intense scrutiny by Union factions if you stayed on.
Can anyone tell me why all my case managers have weird names.
Like Mario, Bruno, Maria, Giuseppie, and Isabella.
Are they all new Australians?
Are they part of the current governments catholic community?
Or am I just paranoid.
I can not wait until my claim is outsourced to India to save admin costs and my case manager has a name like Akbar, Alim, Razak or Barkha, Ghazala or Shabab.
My experience with EML - since 2006 when it became the sole agent is that it's one of the most lying, ruthless, secretive, scamming insurance agents we've ever had.
I'm sure though that Paul Cacia, former unionist who has betrayed South Australian workers with his deal with SA Labor is too busy counting his kickbacks to know ANYTHING about EML.
I would like to make a comment about the $70K average redemption. There must have been redemptions lower than this which begs a few questions.
a) If one was injured and unable to return to work, why would you take a couple of years worth of wages? Best to stay on the system unless you have been targeted by Struth.
b) If one was at work and redeemed on the top up, why werent they rehabilitated in a suitable employment?
c) If redemptions are being paid out, why did the new leglistation strenghten its 130 weeks rule, as in kick injured workers off and save $$$$$?
d) Could it be said a lot of partially incapacited workers got the money and ran?
e) would $62 million be enough to bring the unfunded liability down enough for Mike Rann to say "he told us so"?
How does the actuaries work, in my situation if I stayed on the system for the rest of life it would eqate to about 5 times more then what i got for my redemption a month ago. This includes medicals, case management etc.
( i was careful not to mention my redemption as I sign a confidential agreement)
a) If one was injured and unable to return to work, why would you take a couple of years worth of wages? Best to stay on the system unless you have been targeted by Struth.
- Several reasons, you will find alot of those being offered redemptions are long-term claims. After years of dealing with workcover, the threats, incompetence etc. $$ signs can look quite good, and if you cant go back to work and have the medical to support, you could go on a disability pension.
b) If one was at work and redeemed on the top up, why werent they rehabilitated in a suitable employment?
- Ask EML, they dictate what the rehabilitation providers are to do.
c) If redemptions are being paid out, why did the new leglistation strenghten its 130 weeks rule, as in kick injured workers off and save $$$$$?
- They are using this as one of the threats to intice people taking redemptions, that and the medical panels. I know of at least one Case Manager who has vaguely threatened an injured worker with the upcoming medical panel.
d) Could it be said a lot of partially incapacited workers got the money and ran?
- Wouldn't you run? Dealing with WorkCover and EML Case Managers can be extremely stressful - its no wonder alot of WorkCover claimants end up suffering depression and anxiety after dealing with WorkCover.
e) would $62 million be enough to bring the unfunded liability down enough for Mike Rann to say "he told us so"?
No. The WorkCover issue will always be a dark cloud over the Rann Government. You will see that as we get closer to the next state election.
If you go to facebook and search for "employers mutual limited" or "workcover sa" you will see quite a few you may know. I saw one Case Manager with 150+ photos of their drunken nights out. Good to see some people can party despite making people's lives hell through their job.
The head of WorkCover says critics of workers' compensation reform in South Australia should look at the efforts to get injured people back to work.
Those on WorkCover benefits have their income cut by 10 per cent from today, as part of efforts to improve the scheme's finances.
SA Unions says injured workers are paying the price for successive governments' failures to control WorkCover's unfunded liability.
WorkCover chief executive Julia Davison says not everyone is worse off because of recent changes.
"There are some people who will be better off, for example, in relation to the lump sum payment that they will receive for serious injuries," she said.
"There are changes in relation to stepdowns, there are also changes and impacts on employers.
"We're actually monitoring all of the legislative reforms to see if they're delivering improved return to work, which will ultimately turn our scheme's funding around."
Does Julia Davison know what the guidelines are going to be used for assessing serious injuries? I have been told the if they use the AMA guidelines with WorkCover appointed medical panels the impairment ratings will be very low. Add the fact there is now a higher threshold in rating an impairment. Eg. anything under 5% you get $0.00
Julie Davison should stick to what she does best... getting her photo taken for annual reports, news bulletins and attending return to work awards to get her photo taken a few dozen times.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: PRIVATE HOSPITALS TREATING WORKERS
22 September 2008
The following letter was sent to the Adelaide Advertiser on 22 September 2008.
I respond to the article “Worker’s treatment appalling – inquiry on man who lost part of thumb”, The Advertiser, 20 September 2008.
As a general rule, private hospitals, like general practitioners, have the choice whether or not to take on WorkCover claimants. In an emergency, it would be reasonable to expect any hospital to administer appropriate treatment for a work-related injury.
In any event, Ashford hospital, like all private hospitals, is covered under the private hospital fee schedule and is therefore entitled to claim the cost of treating a patient with a work-related injury from WorkCover.
This means if a private hospital like Ashford, chooses to treat a patient with a work-related injury, they can be reimbursed from WorkCover.
Regards
Julia Davison
CEO, WorkCoverSA
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: AGE NO LONGER A BARRIER WITH WORKCOVER
1 September 2008
The following letter was sent to the Adelaide Advertiser on Monday, 1 September 2008.
I respond to Chris Parker’s letter “Age still a barrier”, Advertiser, 1 September 2008.
Under the previous legislation, WorkCover was required to cease income maintenance payments six months past the retirement age of 65. Recognising that this was a considerable disincentive for older workers remaining in the workforce, the new legislation for the WorkCover Scheme – which came into effect 1 July 2008 - contains new provisions relating to retirement.
Under the new legislation, a worker who is injured after 1 July 2008 and who is within two years of retirement age or above retirement age is entitled to two years of income maintenance, subject to other provisions of the Act. It is also worth noting, that at the end of the two year entitlement, the worker may also be entitled to ongoing medical expenses and a lump sum payment for non-economic loss in accordance with the Act.
Her comment was
"This means if a private hospital like Ashford, chooses to treat a patient with a work-related injury, they can be reimbursed from WorkCover".
Julia, they didnt choose to treat a workplace accident!
I totally agree WorkCover should improve returning to work processes. I was offered a "token" redemption for my total wages and refused it, simply because rehabilitation did not find me a suitable job and my injury is unstable. I would prefer working for 20 hours a week and get redeemed the rest. There is no way anyone should accept a full redemption. Selling their soul I say!
Posted by ball back in workcovers court at 6:24 PM, 1/10/2008
WorkCover has been claiming its striving to improve return to work for years now. In 2006 they said putting all claims into 1 sole agent - Employers Mutual Limited would dramatically improve return to work rates. Didnt happen. Now media darling Julia Davison and sell-outs like Paul Cacia are claiming things will improve and the legislation is great and all that jazz. Really must one wonder if they employ the same spin doctors as Media Mike, because its all sounding like the same rehashed crap. And for the record offering $60million + in redemptions IS NOT improving return to work for injured South Australians.
In the context of an independent medical examination, the Act permits an injured worker to tape record an examination without the express or implied consent of the IME or IA because the worker is a party to the conversation. The Act permits any party to a private conversation to tape the conversation without the express or implied consent of each party to the conversation. However, it restricts a person from communicating or publishing a record of a private conversation or the substance or meaning of a conversation to a third party, unless it falls within a specified exception. The exceptions are:
a communication or publication that is made with the express or implied consent of each party to the private conversation; or
to a communication or publication that is no more than is reasonably necessary:
in the public interest; or
for the protection of the lawful interests of the person making it.
Notwithstanding this, the approach that injured workers and IME/IAs should be transparent and should not tape record an independent medical examination without prior notification.
attorney general aids and abets with accomplices to change all information on you. CMC and QLD Police dont do anything and allow this organised crime to persist! They even change all Workcover documents, your hospital and medical records, pay off doctors
to alter their medical reports, to cover up negligence and liability of them. Solicitors and Barristers for appellants are also paid off, to assist government here in Queensland. They are all criminals!
Workcover have instructed EML that they can negotiate with injured workers on redemptions as long as the worker has been on the system prior to 1 July 2006. Those injured after said date they intend to pursue them under the 130 week review legislation that comes into effect on 1 April 2009. Injured workers who may be interested in redeeming out should discuss this with their Union reps or Lawyers or go direct to EML but my advice would be to have a representative approch them otherwise they will be ripped off without a experianced person to negotiate on their behalf.
After an injury at work and even after good medical care I could not return to my normal work. Fortunately the manager of a well known rehab co. recognised I had a lot to offer and I scored some part time work. Even though the pay was not great it felt fantastic being appreciated and doing something positive with my life.
Unfortunately this manager left the high profile co. & the new one has been on a path of destruction ever since resulting in the either dismissal or forceful resignation of several workers.
I unfortunately re-injured my self (on the way to a work function) - since then this co. ( or should I say the manager) that is meant to be there helping people get back to work etc (LOL) has treated me like S#*T and no longer wants me back. What sort of bull S*#T philosophy must this well known co. have where it doesn't even look after its own people? It would seem that there is no place for the person who tries hard to get back to work even in a rehab co. Or maybe the owner just has chosen its manager poorly????
There are some good people that work there but they are powerless to change situations such as mine.
I could blow this situation right out of the water but that would be lowering my standards to that of the current manager. Someone must have screwed with the Feng Shui in the office!
Some Labor Party members HAVE in fact resigned from the party in protest to the changes to WorkCover.
Here's a perfect example:
http://www.birchpolitics.info/resignationalp.html
http://www.birchpolitics.info/politicalcommentary.html
never listen to ruthless mitchel or any of her litter any case managers at eml the are full of sh'''''''''''t take it from me . they will also follow you around just to give kings wood investigaters OUR redemption money but really the are no better than maxwell smart thay are USELESS WAN;;;;;;;RS AT 40DOLLARS AN HOUR BLOWN THE DEFACATE DONT WORRY EML WILLFIX IT JUST LIKE RANN SAID HI WOULD FIX IT
beware of claim managers at eml specialy mellet cairns polnok snieder leanne all WOLVES IN SHEEP CLOTHING see you lawyer if you can trust him thay dont care about injured workers at all ESPECIALLY DANIELS THE FRANKENSTIEN LOOK A LIKE THESE PEOPLE WILL BE EXPOSED TO THE MEDIA IN THE FUTURE FOR THERE CURRUPT PRACTICES IF YOU HAVE HAD ANY DEALING WITH THEM AND ARE NOT SATISFIED REPORT THEM TO GOVERMENT DEPARTMENTS
new changes to work cover section 43 after april 09
I have recently had a 2nd assesment for a section 43 determined at 9% as the 1st was prior to april 09 and determined at 20% work cover had not reached a decision in time (how convenient)
The new changes mean that the DR pulles out a 45 degree angle plastic ruler and measures your pain and suffering
is this a joke?
hi every one
well since 2007 the 1st docter i seen told me not to have the operation on my shoulder. Because i was only 30 and it would stuff the rest of my working life. So i told my case manager and they said well thats not good enough and then sent me to another docter even made the appointment for me.
Since then ive have 3 operations and just went back today he wants to remove more bone from shoulder because the pain is getting worse evry day. so i rang the case manager he said they will not pay for another operation is there anythink i can do mabye see a lawyer?
I have a case manager who has replaced the wording in a independant medical exameners report to say I would be eligible for pi in 2 months instead of the report states i should be. I cant believe the fraudelant behaviour and wonder if it is common place.
