Wolgast was injured in a car accident on 19 February 2005; his vehicle collided head on with a vehicle being driven by an employee of Connolly’s News. The Defendants admitted liability but disputed the extent of the injuries and the loss and damage which Wolgast claimed as a result of the accident. At the time of the event he was working as a labourer.
 

Morrison v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 93

Facts

The Plaintiff Steven Morrison was employed with the Defendant Thomas Borthwick & Sons, a meatworks, and on 10 August 2006 Morrison slipped on a mat at work and fell heavily onto his back.

Morrison suffered an aggravation to a degenerative condition as a result of the fall.

Thomas Borthwick & Sons admitted liability and the only damages which were contested related to future economic loss, future medical expenses and general damages.

Facts
 
The Claimant was an 82 year old gentleman who had retired from work as a waterside worker on the 16 August 1986 aged 60. The Claimant lodged an Application for Compensation on 11 May 2006 (aged 80) for the treatment of skin cancers. He had a number of skin treatments and on 19 June 2006 his left eye was removed as a result of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The Claimant had described his injury as occurring over a period of time where he first experienced symptoms in 1960s. 

In a number of compensation cases, it appears as though some Plaintiff solicitors are reluctant to provide authorities from their clients in the form required by Commonwealth bodies such as Medicare Australia. A recent decision by Justice Daubney in the Supreme Court of Queensland, affirmed the requirements of parties to comply with the requirements of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2007 was introduced into parliament on 16 October 2007 by Hon. RJ Mickel, Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations. This bill has bipartisan support and the main provisions will likely come into force on 1 January 2008.  

Bernard Patrick O’Brien v Q-Comp (WC/2006/21) was handed down by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 13 August 2007 and addresses the exculpatory provision in Section 32 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. 

Fahy was a Police officer with the New South Wales Police Service who alleged that she suffered a psychiatric injury in the course of her employment.  Fahy and her Police partner Evans had attended a hold up at a shopping centre and after following a trail of blood found the victim in the medical centre being attended to by a doctor.  Fahy went to the assistance of the doctor and the victim who was suffering multiple stab wounds.  As the doctor was attending to the victim’s chest wound Fahy found that the victim had a separate severe knife wound that extended from the armpit to the waist.  She tried to assist by stemming the bleeding and juggled her police radio giving details of the attacker to the Police, throughout this she was unaccompanied by her police partner or “buddy”.

Facts

The Claimant was an 81 year old gentleman who had retired from work as a waterside worker on 16 August 1986 aged 60, some 21 years ago.  The Claimant lodged an application for compensation on 11 May 2006 (aged 80) for the treatment of skin cancers, he had a number of skin cancer treatments and on 19 June 2006 his left eye was removed as the result of basal cell carcinoma (BCC).  The Claimant had described his injury as occurring over a period of time, whereby he had first experienced symptoms in the 1960’s.

Every company aspires to an impeccable safety standard, but the unfortunate reality is that there will be accidents which result in serious injury or death. There is an enormous impact on any workplace when this happens, not only from the personal point of view of the victims, but also their families and colleagues. There is the adverse publicity the accident generates as well as the close attention from those who enforce safety standards. Close scrutiny often crystallises breakdowns in procedure, in particular training practices, which accordingly amount to prosecutions.

A worker, who turns out to be an illegal migrant without a work permit, is injured and claims compensation—and demonstrates why the law is so complicated.

The WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 and the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 place preliminary requirements that must be met before an employee can progress a claim.

Increasingly complex criteria must be established from as early as the time an application is lodged.