Rehabilitation Report

I do not agree with the reasons given why injured workers sue My injured workers are are shown compassion and support but still sue I believe a lot of the injured workers have an agenda and have been through the process before, evidence points to this theory as a big percentage of those have only been working a short period of time for our company and have a pre-existing condition that they are aware of. There is also a roll on effect - injured workers friend or family sued and got x amount of dollars so they see an easy way to get money. There are the FEW genuine cases

I agree with Wendy that the level of compassion and support is not the deciding factor in progressing to common law. The most loyal employee who is happy with the service they have received will sue the employer if they believe they have a chance of winning and receiving further compensation, particularly if they have seen a co-worker travel successfully down this path.

This is a very outdated arguement. The fact is that workers can sue with impunity knowing that claims they make re 100% negligence on the part of the employer will never be tested in a court of law but rather the claim will be settled out of court. The employees know this, the unions know this and the union supported solicitors know this. All encourage employees to sue and why wouldn't an injured employee accept this windfall no matter how well treated by their employer. The workers compensation club comprising solicitors from both parties has replaced the IR club of the 80's as the scourge of employers.

our company is based in NSW and we are just expanding into QLD we have been servicing in QLD for 1 year now and we havent been sued yet, but i agree Wendy, we treat our workers so well when an Injury occurs usually they have spoken to someone who has had an injury and knows how the system works and what they can get out of it and have already made there mind up about what they are going to do, i have seen it many times before.

I agree. Even when workers are treated well and even still employed by the company and on a higher income they still sue as they see it as easy money. They think they'll get something and the law firms representing them know that they will get money (even if the injured worker gets minimal). There's a legal industry thriving on this and encouraging workers to sue their employers.

Qcomp seems to be relying on the belief that all that is wrong is employers are bad, stupid and need to be better people. That delusion has got to be a fundamental part of the problem. Out here in the real world employers attempt to treat injured workers well and most have been doing so to unusual lengths … and then get sued. There was no indication in the article that more base motives are at play. I wonder how much money the legal industry made from Workers’ Comp common law claims last year. And what the trend is? Does Qcomp track that? I’d like to see it published.

Our recent experience suggests there is NO link between being sued and the care and support shown to employees. Most employers accept their safety obligations, and recognise the mutual benefits of return to work programmes and providing support for injured employees. Some of the frustration is a result of having workplace changes and support systems to cater for injured employees used in court or at settlement to demonstrate that the workplace must have been “broken” in the first place, and therefore the employer failed in some way. Maybe it has more to do with the rise of “No win – no fee” type of advertising by law firms touting for business.

The key issue here is the motivation of the parties: the employer and the employee. The employer's motivation to treat the injured employee well is strengthened by the potential (however slight) that the employee's decision to sue, will be swayed in the employer's favour. The employee's motivation to recover will be swayed by the requirement to prove to all and sundry, how badly they are injured in order to increase the likely outcome - just in case they do sue. If they do decide to sue, this motivation (to prove they are ill or injured) reaches it's culminating point. Perhaps an employer could offer a substantial cash reward - ex gratia, of course - for an employee who returns to full duties in line with the rehabilitation plan. Motivation is a critical factor in employee recovery. I agree with the author that the sooner the employee returns to work the less likely they are to sue and, if they do sue, the lower the claim is likely to be. This would be a result of a motivated employee returning to full duties sooner and proving they are healthy, rather than the employee being motivated to prove they are ill or injured. Evidence of this is abundant in the number of 'miraculous recoveries' made after common law cases have been settled.

The key issue here is the motivation of the parties: the employer and the employee. The employer's motivation to treat the injured employee well is strengthened by the potential (however slight) that the employee's decision to sue, will be swayed in the employer's favour. The employee's motivation to recover will be swayed by the requirement to prove to all and sundry, how badly they are injured in order to increase the likely outcome - just in case they do sue. If they do decide to sue, this motivation (to prove they are ill or injured) reaches it's culminating point. Perhaps an employer could offer a substantial cash reward - ex gratia, of course - for an employee who returns to full duties in line with the rehabilitation plan. Motivation is a critical factor in employee recovery. I agree with the author that the sooner the employee returns to work the less likely they are to sue and, if they do sue, the lower the claim is likely to be. This would be a result of a motivated employee returning to full duties sooner and proving they are healthy, rather than the employee being motivated to prove they are ill or injured. Evidence of this is abundant in the number of 'miraculous recoveries' made after common law cases have been settled.

Apart from Frank's comments, the other writers all show opinions based on experience in the real world. It is an unfortunate fact of life that far too many people see an injury as an opportunity to get some easy money. Our legal system has encouraged much of that mindset with the often seen catch phrase of 'no win, no fee'. For those of us that have had to run the gauntlet of this legal minefield it is sad to say that the first casualty is truth. Secondly it is commonly considered cheaper to offer settlement than to fight. With due respect to the article and to Frank, the way the injured person was treated has little to do with their decision to sue.

I couldn't not reply. I am a believer that all people are generally good. Often, through real world experience, I am disappointed. Sometimes, in support of the author, my stance is verified. If Paul is suggesting that an employee may decide to sue at any time - regardless of ANY effort we apply, I generally agree. My point is that it is better to motivate an employee to prove they are fit and healthy, rather than to motivate them to prove they are not. How an employer achieves this effect, is up to them. Buying flowers might be seen as cheesy, but treating them well can never hurt.

I couldn't not reply. I am a believer that all people are generally good. Often, through real world experience, I am disappointed. Sometimes, in support of the author, my stance is verified. If Paul is suggesting that an employee may decide to sue at any time - regardless of ANY effort we apply, I generally agree. My point is that it is better to motivate an employee to prove they are fit and healthy, rather than to motivate them to prove they are not. How an employer achieves this effect, is up to them. Buying flowers might be seen as cheesy, but treating them well can never hurt.