Take Control Legal

Over the years we have seen many injured workers denied compensation for purely psychological injuries because of poor performance management or disciplinary processes (and consequently need our help to make submissions before the Regulator when they seek a Review of the rejection). Despite management actions falling short of community expectations, insurers and employers continue to cite outdated precedents, arguing that process flaws are "mere blemishes" and still "reasonable." This archaic view is increasingly seen as out of touch. Recent developments, like the QLD Managing the Risk of Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice 2022 and High Court guidance on pure psychological workplace injuries, place a stronger onus on employers to protect workers' psychological safety. These developments demonstrate the priority that modern society places on thoughtful, considered and well planned processes or protocols . Last week's decision of Rosengren DCJ in the Queensland District Court is a further example of the requirement for employers to adopt reasonable processes when having difficult conversations with staff. An employer was found negligent and ordered to pay $395,767 in damages after demoting a worker in an open-plan office without prior warning of performance issues. Employers must move beyond "mere blemish" arguments and adopt reasonable, careful approaches to performance management and disciplinary processes. Decision-makers should heed court and community expectations to reduce the burden on injured workers seeking compensation. Let's hope that decision-makers in the statutory claim phase continue to take note of the courts (and community) expectations of what "unreasonable" management action can look like. If they do, less injured workers will need to endure the slow and arduous journey through regulator reviews or appeals to obtain support and compensation through the workers compensation regime. The review process often makes the injured worker's condition worse due to the lack of income and rehabilitation support during the extraordinarily long time for the decision to be review. This often just ends up costing the scheme more in the long run (which is not in anyone's best interests). To read more about the decision of Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 118, please see my article below.   #WorkplaceSafety #MentalHealthAtWork #EmployeeRights #PsychologicalSafety #EmployerResponsibility #WorkCompensation #LegalUpdate #EmploymentLaw #WorkersRights #HRBestPractices #InjuryCompensation #MentalHealthAwareness #EmployeeWellbeing #LegalNews #WorkplaceCulture #personalinjury https://lnkd.in/gCtYk76d

There are two phases of QLD workers' compensation claims. There are different entry criteria, different benefits and they serve different purposes. The first phase is for "statutory benefits". It is a no fault scheme which means you do not need to prove there was negligence. If an injured worker is accepted into the scheme, they will be entitled to weekly benefits (if they are unable to work their usual hours) and medical and rehabilitation expenses. At the close of the statutory claim, WorkCover should assess for permanent impairment and issue a Notice of Assessment with a lump sum offer. The second phase is for "common law damages" for negligence. This stage wont be available if the injured worker accepted the previous lump sum and their impairment was less than 20%. But if the lump sum was not taken, the injured worker can receive damages for their medical and earning capacity losses (both past and future) together with an amount for pain and suffering. In order to succeed, the injured worker must establish that there was a breach or duty of care which caused the work injury. #workerscomp #workerscompensation #PersonalInjury #compensation #damages