Our Results
Our client, a nurse manager, was returning home from her night shift when, all of a sudden, she noticed the insured vehicle travelling towards her on the wrong side of the road. She flashed her lights and honked her horn to grab the insured vehicle’s attention. Unfortunately, she was unsuccessful. Despite her efforts to avoid the collision, the insured vehicle collided with our client’s front passenger door, causing her vehicle to spin and collide with another vehicle travelling on the same road.
Following the accident, she was rushed to Liverpool Hospital, where she was diagnosed with serious physical injuries and later severe psychological injuries. Due to the injuries sustained, she was unable to resume her role and was eventually medically retired by her employer.
The CTP insurer of the insured vehicle conceded that our client’s injuries amounted to greater than 10% whole person impairment, qualifying her to claim damages for pain and suffering. The insurer also determined that the insured driver was at fault.
The parties subsequently agreed to attempt to resolve the claim by participating in an informal settlement conference. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached that day. The parties continued to engage in settlement discussions and ultimately reached an agreement for our client to receive $1,550,000.00, inclusive of costs and expenses. This settlement included compensation for her pain and suffering, as well as past and future wage loss.
Date of accident: 6 March 2021
Date of settlement: 9 October 2024
Total settlement: $1,550,000.00
In January 2020, our client was walking through a ‘service only’ passageway at a local mall, when he slipped on water left behind by a floor cleaning machine, causing him to sustain serious injuries. At the time of the incident, our client was 57 years old and was already in receipt of the disability support pension. Our client has a history of physical and psychological injuries, and had undergone several surgical procedures to remedy those injuries prior to the subject incident.
Our client sought compensatory relief from: the owner of the shopping mall; the mall’s property manager; and the cleaning company which was contracted to clean the mall.
There were allegations that our client was inebriated at the time of the incident, and allegations that his current medical presentation was largely due to his pre-existing injuries. Despite this, we commenced court proceedings on behalf of our client, against all three Defendants. The parties then participated in an informal settlement conference, resolving the matter, without proceeding to a final hearing. We were able to achieve a settlement in the sum of $240,000.00, inclusive of costs.
Date of Accident: January 2020.
Date of Settlement: August 2024.
Total Settlement: $240,000.00.
In January 2021, our client, a cyclist in his 70s, sustained significant injuries whilst riding on a popular Sydney bike track.
The incident occurred when our client was cycling along the track with a group of other cyclists. At the same time, an organised fun run was taking place, in which hundreds of runners were travelling towards the cyclists. In a bendy section of the track, one of the runners moved onto the wrong side of the path and impacted the Plaintiff, causing him to fall off his bike and lose consciousness.
Prior to the accident, our client had recently undergone spinal fusion surgery but was recovering well and back to exercising. The impact from the collision severely aggravated his pre-existing back injury, resulting in debilitating pain and requiring multiple additional surgeries.
The track where the incident occurred is very popular with runners, walkers and cyclists alike. As such, the area was quite busy with foot and bicycle traffic, which was only increased during the fun run. Evidence suggested that the organisers of the fun run were already aware that the location of the incident was "high risk", due to the curvature of the track, which led to poor visibility. Despite this, and a previous incident in the same spot, the organisers did not attempt to enforce "keep left", stagger the runners, or place any marshals in the area.
Our client subsequently sued the organiser, on the basis that it was aware of the hazard and did not act appropriately, and also the runner individually, for failing to keep left and keep a proper lookout.
Our client commenced Court proceedings, and the parties then participated in an informal settlement conference. Fortunately, the parties were able to resolve the matter, without proceeding to a final hearing, achieving a settlement in the sum of $250,000, inclusive of costs.
Date of accident: January 2021
Date of settlement: June 2024
Total settlement: $250,000.00
The Plaintiff was seriously injured in February 2022, whilst she was on a walk in a popular Sydney suburb. At the time of the injury, she was 63 years of age and worked as an Office Manager for a healthcare company.
The incident occurred when the Plaintiff was walking in a popular laneway with her adult son. They had just purchased some pastries and intended to walk to the local beach to eat them. Shortly after the Plaintiff exited the bakery, into the laneway, she tripped on uneven pavers, causing her to fall and fracture her left shoulder and upper arm.
The area where the Plaintiff fell had recently been redeveloped, into a mixed pedestrian and traffic lane. As such, the area was quite busy with foot traffic in and out of the local businesses, and also motor vehicles, including heavy trucks. Evidence suggested that the road surface (pavers) was inappropriate, because the motor vehicles caused the pavers to buckle, becoming uneven, and therefore causing a trip hazard. There was also evidence that the Council which managed the laneway was aware of this, and was also aware of the specific trip hazard, but had taken no action to rectify the problem.
Due to the incident, the Plaintiff suffered physical injuries. She was unable to drive or work for some time, and whilst she was eventually able to return to work, she was forced to retire due to the difficulties associated with her ongoing physical pain, restrictions and weakness.
The Plaintiff sued the Council, on the basis that the laneway surface was inappropriate, and the Council was aware of this and of the trip hazard.
The Plaintiff commenced Court proceedings and the parties then participated in an informal settlement conference. The parties were able to resolve the matter, without proceeding to a Final Hearing, resulting in a settlement in the sum of $125,000.00, inclusive of costs.
Date of accident: February 2022
Date of settlement: March 2024
Total settlement: $125,000
The Claimant was returning home after dropping off her grandchildren, who she had been looking after that day. She was driving through a green light and was T-boned by another vehicle, which was attempting to turn on a red light. She was struck on the driver’s side door with considerable impact.
She was distressed and immediately felt pain in her neck. An ambulance was called, and she was transported to Campbelltown Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a neck fracture and an injury to her left shoulder.
As time went on, the Claimant’s psychological condition worsened. She became afraid to drive (eventually stopping altogether), ceased working (and was subsequently medically discharged), felt anxious around others, and needed assistance when going to the shops. Her relationships with family and friends deteriorated. She experienced regular flashbacks of the accident and required several inpatient hospitalisations due to her deteriorating psychological condition.
The Claimant made a claim for damages against the CTP Insurer of the other vehicle. Following its investigation, the Insurer determined that its insured was at fault.
The Claimant was assessed by a psychiatrist, who determined that her injuries from the accident exceeded the 10% whole person impairment threshold, qualifying her to claim compensation for pain and suffering. The Insurer conceded that the Claimant exceeded the threshold and was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering.
As there was no dispute regarding fault or the Claimant’s entitlement to claim compensation for pain and suffering, the parties proceeded to informal settlement discussions, resulting in a settlement of $630,000.00, inclusive of costs and expenses.
Date of accident: 21 June 2022
Date of settlement: 4 June 2024
Total settlement: $630,000
The worker was injured in the course of his employment, on or around 10 December 2021. At the time of the injury, the worker was employed as a Police Officer by NSW Police. The worker was therefore an ‘exempt worker’ for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act NSW 1987.
Prior to his employment with NSW Police, in or around 2018/2019, the worker had developed back pain which had resolved after approximately 2 weeks. The worker reported that the pain was not very severe. Whilst in the course of his employment with NSW Police, in or around December 2021, the worker felt pain in his back and noted that it was a different pain than what he had previously experienced. Subsequently, the worker reported his injury to his employer in or around February 2022.
The worker lodged a Workers Compensation Claim and the insurer had accepted liability for the worker’s lower back injury on 31 May 2022. The worker took some time off from work to recover from his injuries but returned soon after. Following his return to work, in August 2022, the worker closed his compensation claim with the insurer as he was feeling ‘all better’. The worker hoped to return to regular duties with the NSW Police Force. Unfortunately, he continued to suffer pain and restriction in completing the day-to-day tasks required of a Police Officer.
The worker eventually lodged a ‘recurrence of injury’ claim with the insurer and ultimately ceased working for NSW Police. The insurer denied liability for the alleged recurrence of injury. This meant that the worker was denied access to the workers’ compensation benefits, including: weekly benefits, medical treatment expenses and a future entitlement to lump sum compensation.
After representing the worker in respect to the above dispute, the insurer accepted liability for the recurrence of the worker’s injury, before the parties were required to proceed to the Personal Injury Commission. This resulted in a quick outcome for the worker, and his entitlement to compensation re-commenced. The worker can now look at pursuing a claim for lump sum compensation, in addition to receiving his weekly benefits and medical treatment expenses.
Date of accident: 10 December 2021
Date of settlement: 16 April 2024
The Claimant was seriously injured in the workplace in December 2019. At the time of the injury, she was 23 years of age and worked as a cashier / kitchen hand in a takeaway shop. The worker had only recently migrated to Australia, and this was her first job.
The incident occurred when the takeaway shop was closed, and the Claimant was sexually assaulted by her manager in the onsite office. The Claimant immediately reported the incident to NSW Police, and the offender was charged, arrested and convicted, and is now incarcerated.
Before the assault, the Claimant's manager had exhibited inappropriate and sexually harassing behaviour towards her. She reported this to the shop's owner, however, he unfortunately did not take any action, and instead, after the assault he attempted to delete CCTV footage before it was seized by Police.
Due to the incident, the Claimant suffered extreme psychological injuries, and has been unable to work since this time. The Workers Compensation insurer accepted liability and paid the worker her weekly benefits, treatment expenses and lump sum compensation. As the Claimant was paid under the legal minimum wage, her weekly benefits were paid at the statutory minimum, which is well below the average Australian income.
The Claimant then pursued a Work Injury Damages Claim, suing her employer in negligence. This was on the basis that she had reported the inappropriate behaviour of her manager, and nothing was done, and that the employer was vicariously liable for the manager's actions.
The parties attended Mediation and were able to resolve the matter, without proceeding to Court. This resulted in a settlement in the sum of $500,000.00, inclusive of costs and clear of past Workers Compensation payments.
Date of accident: December 2019
Date of settlement: April 2024
Total settlement: $500,000.00
The Claimant was seriously injured in a workplace incident in July 2017. At the time of the injury, he was 45 years of age and worked as a lift technician. The worker had been in this industry for over 25 years, and was in a senior role.
The incident occurred when the Claimant was working in a skyscraper in the Sydney CBD, which was undergoing significant renovations and modernisation. On the day in question, a high priority lift was reported by security to be running up and down the lift shaft with exposed wires, posing a serious risk of electrocution. As such, the Claimant was charged with repairing the lift as quickly as possible.
In the course of repairing the lift, the Claimant was required to manually adjust the car doors of the lift, which were located closely to an electrically charged section of the door switch. The Claimant was unable to isolate the switch. This is because the lift was quite old, and was thus not built in accordance with modern safety standards. The Claimant should have been assisted by another technician with a walkie talkie, who would have had to have been located three floors above the worker, so the door switch could be isolated.
The Claimant came into contact with the electrically charged switch, causing him to be electrocuted, and sustaining injury to his left hand, left shoulder, chest, various burns, and a significant psychological injury.
The Claimant lodged a Workers Compensation Claim. He has been unable to return to his pre-injury role, despite undergoing surgical and psychiatric treatment, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation. He is now employed by a different employer, in a lower paid training role, which is less physically exerting.
The Workers Compensation insurer accepted liability and paid the worker his weekly benefits, treatment expenses and lump sum compensation. The Claimant then pursued a Work Injury Damages Claim, suing his employer in negligence. This was on the basis that he was tasked with repairing the lift in a manner which was not safe, noting the need for another technician with a walkie talkie.
The parties attended Mediation and were able to resolve the matter, without proceeding to Court. This resulted in a settlement in the sum of $382,500.00, inclusive of costs and clear of past Workers Compensation payments.
Date of accident: July 2017
Date of settlement: 20 April 2023
Total settlement: $382,500.00
Our client, an elderly resident of a nursing home, was involved in an accident whilst walking from her doctor’s rooms into her retirement village. She was severely injured when a garbage truck backed over her, after her walker got stuck in the roadway. She was dragged some two metres and sustained severe injuries including extensive skin damage that required numerous skin graft procedures.
The accident unfortunately led to a significant decline in our client’s health and mobility. She was no longer able to care for herself independently. She was also unable to partake in the hobbies she had previously enjoyed, such as knitting and sewing. As a result of the accident, she was relocated to a higher needs nursing home, to receive the care and support necessary for her recovery.
Following the insurer’s admission of liability, the parties agreed to participate in settlement discussions, and the claim was resolved for the sum of $250,000.00, which was the amount agreed for our client’s pain and suffering. While this settlement provided some financial relief, it could not fully compensate for the impact the accident had on our client’s quality of life.
Date of injury: 28 November 2022.
Date of settlement: 8 December 2023.
Settlement amount: $250,000.00
In October 2020, our client was involved in an accident while riding his motorcycle along Wilson Drive, Balmoral at approximately 9.00pm. While traveling, he rode over a deep pothole that was not visible prior to the incident. The impact caused his motorcycle to bottom out, throwing him off his bike and causing him to skid across the road.
The accident resulted in our client sustaining significant injuries that prevented him from returning to his pre-injury duties as a truck driver. He had been employed as a truck driver his entire working life and did not have any training, experience or qualification in any other occupation.
He underwent extensive medical treatment and consultations with specialists, who determined that his injuries were severe enough to render him incapable of returning to any form of employment in which he was trained, qualified and experiences in.
Subsequently, an application was submitted on behalf of our client to access his total and permanent disablement benefits through his superannuation. Despite multiple requests for additional information from the insurer handling the claim, the application was ultimately approved.
The insurer approved the claim and granted him a total and permanent disablement benefit of $604,000 before tax.
This financial assistance was crucial for our client to cope with the substantial impact on his life and livelihood due to the accident. The successful approval of the claim brought some financial relief, although our client continues to grapple with the long-term consequences of the injuries sustained in the motorcycle accident, which have significantly altered the course of his life.
The Claimant was seriously injured in a workplace incident in September 2016. At the time of the injury, he was 34 years of age and worked as a sheet metal worker. This was the only type of employment that he had ever performed.
The incident occurred when the Claimant was working with a colleague, to move an extremely large ventilation fan. There was some argument as to the exact weight of this fan, however, it was within the range of 500kg to 1 tonne. The Claimant had requested assistive equipment to move the fan, specifically, a block and tackle, however, he was advised that no such equipment was available, and he and his colleague would need to simply “make do”. As such, the Claimant was forced to shuffle the fan along the floor.
In the course of moving the fan, the Claimant began to feel pain in his right shoulder, which continued to worsen. He was subsequently diagnosed with a significant rotator cuff tear, requiring surgery. The Claimant underwent surgery, however, he was left with a relatively poor result and was unable to return to his employment. He also attempted to retrain and find alternative employment, however, he was unsuccessful in all attempts.
The Claimant lodged a Workers Compensation Claim. He has been unable to return to his pre-injury role, despite undergoing surgical treatment, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation. Light duties were not available. Unfortunately, treatment has not improved the Claimant’s condition and it is likely that he will not be able to work again, in consideration of his limited transferable skills and experience, and despite his relatively young age.
The Workers Compensation insurer accepted liability and paid the worker his weekly benefits, treatment expenses and lump sum compensation. The Claimant then pursued a Work Injury Damages Claim, suing his employer in negligence. This was on the basis that he was not provided with the proper assistive equipment to move the ventilation fan, which he had requested, and was forced to move the fan without such equipment.
The parties attended Mediation, which was not successful. However, they were able to resolve the matter shortly after the Mediation, without proceeding to Court. This resulted in a settlement in the sum of $540,000.00, inclusive of costs and clear of past Workers Compensation payments.
Date of accident: 16 September 2016
Date of settlement: 29 May 2023
Total settlement: $540,000.00
Our client made a work injury damages claim, which is a common law claim for economic loss, in the context of workers compensation. At the time of the work injury, our client was 59 years old and she was employed at a pathology collection service as a phlebotomist.
For a period of months, she had been subjected to inappropriate behaviour and sexual harassment by another employee. As a result of her complaint, the other employee was transferred to a different area of the organisation, however, a short period of time later, our client was advised by her employer that the employee in question would be transferred back to the area in which she worked. This situation caused significant anxiety for our client and she was unable to return to work at that time.
She was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, PTSD and severe anxiety disorder.
The workers compensation claim was accepted and our client received payments for wages and treatment. The insurer also agreed to a lump sum payment for permanent impairment, which had been assessed at 17% whole person impairment.
Having exceeded the threshold for a work injury damages claim, the claim was commenced on the basis that the employer had negligently exposed our client to a risk of injury and had failed to provide a safe workplace.
As is required in work injury damages claims, the matter proceeded to mediation and was successfully resolved at mediation for the sum of $200,000.00 inclusive of costs and expenses. At the time of the settlement, the client was 63 years of age and approaching retirement. The settlement included her past loss of income and future loss of income, on the basis that the medical evidence confirmed that she would be unable to return to the workforce.
Date of Injury: March 2019
Date of Settlement: July 2023
Total Settlement: $200,000.00
In this Medical Negligence Claim, the Plaintiff was left with extremely serious and life-long disabilities, as a result of the failure of paramedics and a NSW public hospital to diagnose a spinal abscess. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was only in their mid-20s, and they are now a lifelong paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair.
In September 2017, the Plaintiff began to experience generalised pain in their back. They reported this to their GP, and attended a chiropractor. Both were initially of the view that it was just muscle pain, as the Plaintiff was heavily involved in martial arts, but as the pain progressed, the Plaintiff’s GP decided to run further tests and encouraged them to attend the local hospital, if needed.
Over the next few days, the Plaintiff’s pain continued to worsen, so they decided to attend their local public hospital. The hospital performed an x-ray, which did not reveal any broken bones, and after four hours, told the Plaintiff to go home and take some Panadol. The pain then became more severe and was radiating up the Plaintiff’s chest. As such, he called an ambulance, but paramedics advised the Plaintiff to see a GP, instead of going to hospital.
The next day, the Plaintiff began experiencing leg pain and called the local hospital, who then arranged for paramedics to visit the Plaintiff’s home. The paramedics advised that there was no need to take the Plaintiff to the hospital, recommended some pain medication, and left. The Plaintiff called the ambulance again later that night, and advised that the pain medication was not helping. The Plaintiff was subsequently conveyed to hospital, however, an MRI would not be available for 15 hours. As such, the Plaintiff attempted to obtain an MRI at a large hospital nearby, travelling there via taxi, but was advised that a GP referral was needed.
The following day, the Plaintiff awoke and had lost all movement and sensation in the left leg. An ambulance was called, however, the Plaintiff was advised to see a GP the following day. Later that night, the Plaintiff awoke and had also lost all feeling and movement in the right leg. An ambulance was again called, and the Plaintiff was conveyed to the local hospital. A CT scan revealed that a mass was compressing the spinal cord, and the Plaintiff was transferred to the nearest tertiary hospital for an MRI. This diagnosed a spinal abscess, which was surgically removed.
Unfortunately, due to the weeklong delay in diagnosing and then removing the spinal abscess, the Plaintiff permanently lost the use of both legs and is confined to a wheelchair. The Plaintiff is unable to feel anything below the waist, is not able to independently toilet or naturally conceive children. Due to this, the Plaintiff is almost totally reliant on others for domestic and personal assistance. The Plaintiff has been unable to work since September 2017 and has received extensive medical treatment, including in-patient hospital care for 9 months, and ongoing physiotherapy.
The Plaintiff thus pursued a Medical Negligence Claim against the ambulance service and local public hospital, with Court proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW. The public hospital did not dispute that it had breached its duty of care, by not taking the Plaintiff’s concerns more seriously, which would have likely resulted in the earlier diagnosis and treatment of the spinal abscess.
The parties were able to resolve the matter at Mediation, without proceeding to a final hearing. This resulted in a settlement in the sum of $4,500,000.00, inclusive of legal costs.
Date of injury: September 2017
Date of settlement: June 2023
Total settlement: $4,500,000.00
The Claimant was seriously injured in a workplace incident in June 2020. At the time of the injury, she was 46 years of age and worked as a Team Member at a home hardware store.
The incident occurred when the Claimant was working in the fertiliser section of the store. When she arrived at work, she noticed that the night team had left fertiliser in the aisle, which needed to be put away. When she picked up the fertiliser, she noticed that the bags had been ripped and that there was product spilling out of it. The product was also quite wet and clumpy, indicating that it had come into contact with water.
Soon thereafter, the Claimant breathed in the fumes from the fertiliser and suffered an extremely serious anaphylactic shock. She was conveyed to hospital via ambulance and later diagnosed with Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome. She was initially diagnosed with Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome. Both of these conditions are poorly understood, and the Claimant had significant issues receiving appropriate medical treatment.
As a result of the accident, the Claimant lodged a Workers Compensation Claim. She had tried to continue working at her employer, and with another employer, however, due to her condition, she developed severe allergic reactions to over 100 items. These include common household items such as aftershave, candles, conditioner, moisturiser and vinegar.
The Claimant has been unable to work since June 2010 and has undergone significant treatment with a number of different medical practitioners. Unfortunately, treatment has not improved the Claimant’s condition and it is likely that she will never be able to work again.
The Workers Compensation insurer accepted liability for the Workers Compensation Claim, and paid the worker her weekly benefits, treatment expenses and lump sum compensation. The Claimant then decided to pursue a Work Injury Damages Claim, suing her employer in negligence. This was on the basis that she was not provided with protective equipment to work with this particular fertiliser product and that it was not properly stored. Importantly, the packaging of the product advised that it needed to be handled with gloves and a mask, and further, the ripped packets were left in the aisle, which was against company policy.
Thankfully, the parties were able to resolve the matter at Mediation without proceeding to Court. This resulted in a settlement in the sum of $350,000.00, inclusive of costs and clear of past Workers Compensation payments.
Date of accident: 2 June 2010
Date of settlement: 28 February 2023
Total settlement: $350,000.00
The Applicant was injured in or around August 2021, in the course of his employment with a government corporation. The Applicant had been employed with that same corporation for approximately 20 years. It was only when the Applicant was required to work from home, during the COVID-19 lockdown, that he sustained a significant aggravation to his neck and right shoulder.
After a couple of weeks of working from home, the Applicant began to experience increased pain and restriction in his neck, with radiating pain into his right shoulder. The Applicant confirmed that his ‘work from home’ office arrangements were different from his ‘in office’ arrangements. The employer did not ensure that the Applicant had the following ergonomic set-up:
An adjustable and supportive office chair.
A work desk of an appropriate height.
Monitor/laptop raisers to ensure that the Applicant’s computer screens were of an appropriate height.
Accordingly, the Applicant lodged a workers compensation claim form with the insurer, Comcare, under the Commonwealth Workers Compensation scheme. The Applicant had previously experienced instances of a ‘sore neck’ during his career with the employer, but did not require treatment for his neck until he began to work from home.
Comcare declined liability for the Applicant’s condition, and hence, did not agree that the Applicant was entitled to weekly benefits and medical treatment expenses. Comcare was of the view that the Applicant’s condition and current presentation were due to arthritic changes in his neck, and hence, were not compensable as a work injury.
Despite his injuries, the Applicant continued to work his regular hours for the employer, and also paid for his own medical treatment expenses.
As a result of the injuries, the Applicant required massage therapy, cortisone injections and was also required to undergo a denervation procedure.
Even though the Applicant had been able to continue working, our team wanted to ensure that the employer was liable for his injuries, and any future issues that may arise in respect of those injuries. Accordingly, we progressed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”). The matter was heard at the AAT Tribunal in Canberra, over three (3) days.
Ultimately, the matter was settled on the afternoon of the second day, with the AAT Member making formalised orders on the third day. The AAT:
Confirmed that the employer was liable for the Applicant’s injuries.
Overturned Comcare’s initial liability decisions.
Made an order for legal costs in favour of the Applicant.
The effect of the ruling is that the Applicant will now be eligible for weekly benefits for any periods of incapacity and medical treatment expenses. Should the Applicant experience permanent impairment as a result of those compensable conditions, he will also be entitled to bring a claim for lump sum compensation in the future.
Date of Accident: August 2021
Date of Judgement: March 2023
The worker was injured whilst working as a Registered Nurse with NSW Health, at a busy suburban hospital.
The worker had been employed by NSW Health for approximately 35 years. During that time, she was unfortunately subjected to verbal abuse from patients, and members of the general public. The worker was required to work extraordinarily long hours, with reportedly little to no support from her superiors.
As a result of these working conditions, and culminating in an incident in 2019, the worker sustained psychological injury and was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. Accordingly, the worker lodged a Workers Compensation Claim. That claim was accepted by the workers compensation insurer, and the worker received weekly benefits and medical treatment expenses.
The parties agreed that the worker had sustained 19% whole person impairment in respect of her psychological injuries. This resulted in lump sum compensation in the amount of $48,670.00.
As the workers’ whole person impairment was above the 15% threshold, she was entitled to bring a claim against her employer, for negligence in failing to provide a safe system of work which would have prevented the psychological injuries suffered by the worker.
After settlement negotiations, Marsdens was able to assist the worker in receiving a settlement of $512,000.00 in respect of the negligence claim.
Date of incident: 9 May 2019
Date of settlement: 21 December 2022
Total settlement (lump sum + damages): $560,670.00 inclusive of costs.
The Worker was seriously injured in the course of her employment as a farm assistant by the NSW Department of Education on 8 March 2021.
The Worker was employed in the gardening and animal section of an agricultural high school. Their job mainly consisted of feeding the farm animals and maintaining the general farm area.
On 8 March 2021, the Worker was off-site, collecting feed for the animals, when they slipped on a tray, which was used to catch water. As they fell, the Worker extended their right arm to catch themselves, causing injury to the right wrist and shoulder.
Due to the incident, the Worker underwent surgery to their right shoulder. Even though this mitigated the pain, the Worker has been left with permanent stiffness and weakness. Due to this, they have been unable to return to their pre-injury employment, which was quite physical in nature.
As a result of the incident, the Worker pursued a NSW Workers Compensation Claim. As the claim was accepted, the Worker received weekly benefits and treatment expenses. The Worker then investigated the possibility of a Section 66 lump sum claim.
The Worker was assessed by two Independent Medical Experts, one chosen by Marsdens and the other by the insurer, and their whole person impairment was assessed at 20% and 19% respectively. Both of these assessments entitled the Worker to a maximum of 5 years of weekly payments, and treatment expenses for a further 5 years after the cessation of weekly payments.
The matter was then settled for 19%, which equated to $50,260.00.
Date of accident: 8 March 2021
Date of settlement: 22 December 2022
Total settlement: $50,260.00
The Worker was seriously injured in the course of her employment as a Registered Nurse with NSW Health.
The Worker was employed as a Registered Nurse by NSW Health for approximately 40 years. During this time, they were required to repeatedly lift heavy patients and manoeuvre heavy machinery. This led to the onset a severe back injury, which eventuated in the Worker being unable to work after 13 February 2015.
Due to the injury, the Worker underwent several surgeries to their back, including fusions. Even though this mitigated the pain, the Worker was left with permanent stiffness and discomfort. The Worker subsequently injured their left knee whilst having rehabilitative treatment for the back injury, which eventuated in the need for left knee surgery.
As a result of the incident, the Worker lodged a NSW Workers Compensation Claim. The date of injury was deemed as the last date worked, being 13 February 2015. The claim was accepted, and as such, the Worker received weekly benefits and treatment expenses. The Worker then investigated the possibility of a Section 66 lump sum claim.
The Worker was assessed by two Independent Medical Experts, one each for Marsdens and the insurer, and their whole person impairment was assessed at 45% and 36% respectively. Both of these assessment entitled to the Worker to weekly payments up until one year after the Commonwealth retirement age, and treatment expenses for live.
The main difference in opinion between the two assessments was in relation to the outcome of the left knee surgery and severity of the spinal scarring, as a result of several fusion procedures.
However, of note, was that the parties disagreed on the correct date of injury for the lump sum claim. Whilst the last date worked was the deemed date of injury for the claim in general, the Case Law supports that if an injury arises out of the nature and conditions of a worker’s employment, as opposed to a frank injury, the date of injury for a Section 66 claim should be the date that the claim was made. Due to these two interpretations, the Worker’s opening offer was $179,490.29, whilst the insurer’s was significantly less at $76,828.13.
The parties then negotiated, and whilst the matter was settled in respect of 36% whole person impairment, the insurer accepted the Worker’s date of claim as the date of injury, meaning that the Worker received $122,511.11.
Date of accident: 13 February 2015 (deemed)
Date of settlement: 19 January 2023
Total settlement: $122,511.11
The Plaintiff was seriously injured during a physical assault in October 2018, in which he was attacked by three people at the family home.
The assault occurred when the Plaintiff was having dinner with his pregnant wife at his parents’ house, with extended family also in attendance.
During dinner, the three assailants rang the front doorbell, which was subsequently opened by the Plaintiff’s father. One of the attackers then dragged the Plaintiff into the front yard, and all three proceeded to assault him, including by pinning his arms back whilst one repeatedly punched him in the face. This resulted in the Plaintiff sustaining serious cuts and bruises, as well as a broken nose.
Due to the assault, the Plaintiff requires two surgical procedures, and has had to change jobs. He also continues to suffer from ongoing symptoms in his nose and face, which affect all aspects of his life, including sleep and other daily activates.
As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff pursued an Intentional Tort Claim against all three assailants in the District Court.
The assailants failed to engage with the Court process or instruct solicitors. Consequently, the Plaintiff applied for Default Judgment, whereby the Court made judgement in favour of the Plaintiff and against the three Defendants, because the Defendants failed to defend the claim.
The matter then proceeded to an Assessment Hearing, in order to determine the value of the claim and make monetary judgment.
At Hearing, the Plaintiff was awarded $115,331.05 for general damages, aggravated damages, past economic loss (wages and superannuation), past and future treatment, and interest, plus costs.
Date of accident: 27 October 2018
Date of hearing: 26 October 2022
Total settlement: $115,331.05 plus costs
Our client and his wife attended a local shopping centre to complete their last minute Christmas grocery shopping. He recalled there being a storm earlier that day, and it was still raining heavily at the time they went shopping.
As our client proceeded to walk towards the trolley bay, which was located at the front of the supermarket, he suddenly slipped. He felt immediate pain in his right ankle. He did not observe any rubber mats in the trolley bay or wet floor signs.
He was conveyed by Ambulance to Campbelltown Hospital and was immediately advised that he had sustained a fracture in his ankle, for which he required surgery and extensive rehabilitation treatment.
At the time of the incident, our client was working as a boilermaker. His employer advised that his job would be kept open for six months after which a decision would be made as to whether he would still have a job or not. Our client attempted to return to work at the six months mark, on restricted duties; however, was then advised that there was no work available for him.
Medical evidence was obtained which confirmed that our client would not be able to return to his role as a boilermaker, due to the injuries sustained. During settlement negotiations, various offers were made and the claim ultimately settled for $135,000.00 inclusive of legal costs.
Date of incident: 21 December 2020.
Date of settlement: 26 September 2022.
Settlement amount: $135,000.00 inclusive of costs.
The Plaintiff was seriously injured during a physical assault in October 2018, in which he was attacked by three people at the family home.
The assault occurred when the Plaintiff was having dinner with his pregnant wife at his parents’ house, with extended family also in attendance.
During dinner, the three assailants rang the front doorbell, which was subsequently opened by the Plaintiff’s father. One of the attackers then dragged the Plaintiff into the front yard, and all three proceeded to assault him, including by pinning his arms back whilst one repeatedly punched him in the face. This resulted in the Plaintiff sustaining serious cuts and bruises, as well as a broken nose.
Due to the assault, the Plaintiff requires two surgical procedures, and has had to change jobs. He also continues to suffer from ongoing symptoms in his nose and face, which affect all aspects of his life, including sleep and other daily activates.
As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff pursued an Intentional Tort Claim against all three assailants in the District Court.
The assailants failed to engage with the Court process or instruct solicitors. Consequently, the Plaintiff applied for Default Judgment, whereby the Court made judgement in favour of the Plaintiff and against the three Defendants, because the Defendants failed to defend the claim.
The matter then proceeded to an Assessment Hearing, in order to determine the value of the claim and make monetary judgment.
At Hearing, the Plaintiff was awarded $115,331.05 for general damages, aggravated damages, past economic loss (wages and superannuation), past and future treatment, and interest, plus costs.
Date of accident: 27 October 2018
Date of hearing: 26 October 2022
Total settlement: $115,331.05 plus costs
Our client was involved in a serious accident in August 2019. Our client was approaching an intersection on his motorcycle, when another vehicle turned into our client’s path without warning, causing our client’s motorcycle to collide with the other vehicle. He was thrown into the air and landed on the road, sustaining multiple serious physical injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. As a result of the accident and his injuries, he also experienced severe psychological injuries.
At the time of the accident, our client was 27 years of age. He was working several casual jobs and was in the final stages of completing his PhD studies. At the time, our client’s intention was to become a Professor in his chosen field.
Due to his injuries, our client’s life changed drastically. He was in a coma for a number of weeks, he was hospitalised for several months and he required extensive treatment (including surgical treatment). He has not been able to return to work since the accident. He has however attempted to return to his studies, in the hope of finalising his PhD.
There was no dispute as to our client’s entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering.
Both parties’ evidence suggested that our client will be unlikely to become a Professor due to the serious nature of the injuries sustained. He will need to seek other employment and it was agreed that he is likely to suffer a significant loss in relation to his future income.
The parties agreed to participate in settlement discussions. During the negotiations, various offers were made and the claim was ultimately settled for $2,000,000.00 inclusive of legal costs.
Date of accident: 28 August 2019.
Date of settlement: 18 August 2022.
Settlement amount: $2,000,000.00 inclusive of legal costs.
This case relates to a worker who sustained psychological injuries as a result of workplace bullying and harassment, which occurred from November 2019 to March 2021.
In or around November 2019, the worker had commenced proceedings against her employer in the Fair Work Commission, disputing an unfair written warning regarding her KPI targets. She was successful in those proceedings. Following that time, she was subjected to repetitive and constant bullying and harassment from a number of colleagues, promoting a feeling that she was being ‘pushed out’ of the company.
The worker alleged that she was subjected to:
- Unreasonably frequent and unfair performance reviews;
- Dismissive and aggressive behavior from her superiors;
- A lack of managerial support;
- Unfair treatment whilst she was pregnant and when she returned from maternity leave;
- Feeling as though she was being performance managed out of the company.
The bullying and harassment culminated in an event in March 2021, when the worker was required to attend a performance management meeting. As a consequence of this situation, the worker suffered a panic attack and required medical attention.
A Workers Compensation claim was lodged. The insurer denied the claim, seeking to rely upon the statutory defence in Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act, which states that:
“No compensation is payable under this Act in respect of an injury that is a psychological injury if the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the employer, with respect to transfer, promotion, demotion, performance appraisal, discipline, retrenchment or dismissal of workers or provision of employment benefits to workers”.
The worker was assessed by an expert psychiatrist, who provided the view that her injuries had been caused by the continual bullying and harassment which commenced in 2019, and not just the singular event in March 2021.
The matter was listed for a hearing before the Personal Injury Commission, where the matter was settled in favour of the worker, prior to the commencement of the hearing. The insurer accepted liability for the worker’s injuries, and agreed to payment of weekly compensation and medical treatment expenses.
In addition to receiving a back-pay of her weekly compensation entitlements and medical expenses, the worker has an entitlement to ongoing benefits, with a view to making a lump sum claim for her injuries.
Date of Injury: November 2019 to March 2021
Date of Decision: 19 July 2022
The Plaintiff was seriously injured in a shopping centre in June 2019. At the time of the injury, she was 73 years of age, but still very independent and in good health.
The incident occurred when the Plaintiff attended her local shopping centre to do her usual groceries. It had been raining overnight, but when she attended the next morning, the weather had cleared up. When the Plaintiff entered the shopping centre, she walked towards the supermarket and attempted to pull a trolley from the trolley bay. In the course of doing so, she slipped on a puddle of water and fell, injuring her back and left hip.
As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff pursued a Public Liability Claim against the company that collected the trolleys for the supermarket. It appeared that the trolleys had been collected from the carpark, but were still wet when brought inside.
Due to her injuries, the Plaintiff’s life drastically changed. She was left with ongoing pain in her lower back and left hip. Despite having a number of radiology scans, her treating doctors were unable to provide any treatment aside from pain management. As such, the Plaintiff lost a lot of her independence and became increasingly reliant on family members to assist her at home and in her life generally.
The parties were unable to resolve the matter in the early stages of negotiations, and the Plaintiff was required to commence Court proceedings in February 2021. Both parties continued to exchange offers as they prepared for hearing, and thankfully, just two weeks before the hearing date, the parties were able to reach a settlement.
The Plaintiff received $120,000 for her pain and suffering, past and future treatment, and past and future care.
Date of accident: 5 June 2019
Date of settlement: 6 June 2022
Total settlement: $120,000.00
On 30 September 2019, the Plaintiff, aged 60 years, was injured whilst walking to her place of work. The Plaintiff’s usual entrance to her office was blocked, so she was required to use the rear entrance of the building.
On this occasion, the Plaintiff sustained injury to her left shoulder when she tripped on an elevated/uneven step, which connected, to the rear entrance pathway.
As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff required surgery to her left shoulder, and was left with post-surgical scarring. She also required a substantial amount of domestic assistance from her immediate family, following her surgery. The Plaintiff was informed by her treating doctors, that she would require ongoing treatment, and a possible total shoulder replacement in the future.
Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff was employed as a part-time receptionist working approximately 16 hours per week. Following the incident, the Plaintiff was unable to work for 7 weeks. Following this time, the Plaintiff returned to work.
Court proceedings were commenced against the owners of the footpath (“the Defendant”). It was alleged that the Defendant had:
- Failed to make the ‘step’ safe.
- Failed to install and maintain a handrail for the ‘step’.
Prior to progressing to a Hearing, the Court required the parties to participate in a settlement conference. The Plaintiff had claimed damages for treatment expenses, domestic assistance, economic loss and pain and suffering. The matter was resolved by way of negotiation for the sum of $237,500.00 inclusive of costs.
Date of Injury: 30 September 2019
Date of Settlement: 27 May 2022
Amount of Settlement: $237,500.00
The Claimant was seriously injured in a workplace accident in March 2015. At the time of the injury, he was 35 years of age and worked as a storeman/forklift driver.
The incident occurred when the Claimant was working inside a shipping container, which was holding sharp-edged stone blocks, secured by wooden frames. The container had been packed overseas and the Claimant was tasked with unloading the container. Because the shipping container was very full, the Claimant was forced to work in awkward, cramped positions. When he jumped from the top of a stone block to the floor of the container, he sustained a serious injury to his back.
As a result of the accident, the Claimant lodged a Workers Compensation Claim. He continued to work, however, his condition deteriorated and he was forced to stop working a few months after the injury.
The Claimant has been unable to work since mid-2014 and has undergone significant treatment, including surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery did not help the Claimant’s pain and it is likely that he will never be able to work again.
The Workers Compensation insurer accepted liability for the Workers Compensation Claim, and paid the worker his weekly benefits, treatment expenses and lump sum compensation. The Claimant then decided to pursue a Work Injury Damages Claim, suing his employer in negligence, as he was forced to work in an unsafe environment. There was argument as to whether Claimant was incapacitated for all jobs on the labour market, or only his pre-injury role, and also whether the employer’s negligence caused the injury, or if the worker was at fault.
As the parties were unable to resolve the matter at mediation, Court proceedings were commenced. However, before the matter proceeded to a final Hearing, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a settlement in the sum of $700,000.00, inclusive of costs and clear of past Workers Compensation payments.
Date of accident: 14 March 2014
Date of settlement: 4 April 2022
Total settlement: $700,000.00
The Claimant sustained physical and psychological injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred in January 2020. The Claimant was crossing an intersection at a set of traffic lights, as she walked to work. The Claimant entered the intersection when the traffic lights indicated it was safe to do so. As she was walking through the intersection, she could see a vehicle approaching the traffic lights which did not appear to be stopping. She jumped backwards, landing on her buttocks. Fortunately the vehicle did not collide with the Claimant, but the impact with the ground caused her significant injuries.
As a result of the accident, the Claimant suffered injuries to her lower back, buttocks, both hips and legs and also developed psychological injuries.
Following the accident, the Claimant was not able to return to work for approximately 6 months due to her physical injuries. The Claimant returned to work in June 2020 on a ‘Return to Work’ program, working 3 hours per day, 3 days per week. The Claimant continued with these duties until September 2020. In September 2020, it became evident that the Claimant’s psychological injuries had progressed. Consequently, she ceased working completely.
It was agreed between the parties that the claimant’s physical injuries and psychological injuries were greater than 10% whole person impairment. This meant that the Claimant was entitled to compensation for her pain and suffering.
The insurer admitted liability for the accident and the matter was settled for $725,000.00 inclusive of legal costs. This figure included compensation for economic loss and non-economic loss (‘pain and suffering’).
Date of injury: 16 January 2020
Date of decision: 7 April 2022
Total Settlement: $725,000.00 inclusive of costs
The Claimant was seriously injured in a motor accident in April 2019. At the time of the accident, he was 35 years of age and was self-employed across three businesses.
The accident occurred when the Claimant was riding his motorcycle through a busy intersection. The at-fault driver then proceeded to turn right on a green light (without an arrow) into the intersection, and collided with the Claimant.
As a result of the accident, the Claimant was rushed to hospital via ambulance. He sustained fractures to his right foot, ankle and leg, and required extensive surgery. He then developed a psychological injury, and was left with significant scarring and swelling in his right ankle.
The Claimant was unable to work for a number of months and received assistance from family, including family from overseas. He was then able to slowly return to work, however, he had to cease his involvement in two of his businesses, and he is still severely limited in the number of hours that he is able to work. This resulted in him being unable to expand his business, which he had only acquired less than 12 months before the accident, as he had planned.
NRMA accepted liability for the claim. However, due to the complex nature of the Claimant’s businesses, it was difficult to quantify his economic loss. There was little to no argument that the Claimant was partially incapacitated, however, there was question as to the “dollar figure” of this impairment.
The Claimant’s permanent injuries resulted in ongoing restrictions in his ability to perform his job and domestic tasks. He had difficulty walking on uneven ground, would suffer from pain in his ankle, and walked with a limp. This severely impacted his ability to work, as his business involved substantial physical labour.
It was agreed that the Claimant’s injuries exceed the permanent impairment threshold, therefore he was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering.
The parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a settlement in the sum of $750,000.00, inclusive of costs.