Workplace Injury Compensation: $1.39M Payout for Back Injury- Case Study and Guide

How much compensation for a workers’ compensation claim involving severe back injuries and multiple surgeries in Western Australia? $1,389,300.12 is awarded to The Injured Worker for a severe back injury involving lytic spondylolisthesis grade 1 at L5/S1, moderate disc narrowing at L4/5 and L5/S1, right L5/S1 foraminal disc protrusion with impingement onto a conjoined right L5/S1 nerve root, and right-sided foot drop, requiring multiple surgeries including lumbar microdiscectomy and spinal fusion – here is everything you need to know about this work-related injury claim.

Introduction to Workers Compensation Claim

This case study examines the personal injury claim of an injured worker (The Injured Worker) against an employer (The Employer). The case, heard in the District Court of Western Australia in 2018, is significant in personal injury law as it addresses workplace safety, employer liability, and the assessment of damages for a severe back injury with long-term consequences.

Claim Type: Lump Sum Compensation for Common Law Damages

This case involves a common law negligence claim brought by The Injured Worker against The Employer. The claim was pursued outside the statutory workers’ compensation scheme, as The Injured Worker sought damages due to the severity of the injuries, which extended beyond the typical scope of workers’ compensation.

Background of the Injured Worker

The Injured Worker was a 32-year-old machine operator at The Employer, a factory in Rockingham that manufactured steel reinforcing rods. He had been employed there since 2008 and was described as a fit, active man who enjoyed outdoor activities and sports with his family. Prior to the injury, The Injured Worker maintained his fitness through regular exercise, including walking, jogging, and working out at a gym. He was also engaged in various outdoor chores and participated in sports with his children.

Work Injury Suffered

The Injured Worker suffered a severe back injury, specifically, his back conditions were:

• Lytic spondylolisthesis grade 1 at L5/S1
• Moderate disc narrowing at L4/5 and L5/S1
• Right L5/S1 foraminal disc protrusion
• Impingement onto a conjoined right L5/S1 nerve root
• Right-sided foot drop

These injuries resulted in chronic pain, limited mobility, and significant lifestyle changes.

How did the workplace accident happen?

On May 20, 2013, The Injured Worker was operating a “Robo 45” bending machine. He was using a method that required him to manually lift short steel bars out of the machine after bending. While lifting a bundle of bars weighing between 12-20 kg, he felt a sharp pain in his back. Despite reporting the injury to the safety representative, he was initially told to continue working before being moved to lighter duties later in the day.

Key Disputes in the Work Injury Damages Claim

• Whether the method The Injured Worker was using to operate the machine was an accepted practice known to The Employer.
• Whether The Employer breached its duty of care by failing to assess risks and provide adequate training and equipment.
• The extent of The Injured Worker‘s ongoing incapacity and future earning potential.

Key Evidence in Securing Workers Compensation Payments

To secure workers’ compensation payment for The Injured Worker, a combination of medical, testimonial, occupational, and documentary evidence was presented:

• Medical Evidence:

  • Dr. Michael Kern, a neurosurgeon, provided crucial testimony, detailing The Injured Worker‘s pre-existing spinal conditions and the impact of the workplace injury on these conditions. This medical evidence was key in establishing the severity of the injury and its direct connection to the workplace accident.

• Testimonies and Reports from Workplace Personnel:

  • The Injured Worker‘s testimony about the working conditions and the method he was using to operate the “Robo 45” machine was essential. He provided details about how the machine was set up, how he was instructed to operate it, and the circumstances leading to his injury.

• Occupational Therapist Reports:

  • Reports from Kelwyn Yeo, an occupational therapist from Star Injury Management, assessed the physical demands of The Injured Worker‘s job and the impact of his injury on his ability to perform work duties. These reports were critical in determining the extent of his incapacity and the need for restricted duties and rehabilitation.

• Workplace Documentation:

  • Job cards and other workplace records documented the specific tasks The Injured Worker was performing on the day of his injury. These records were used to verify the conditions under which the injury occurred and to establish the timeline of events leading up to the injury.

• Surveillance Footage and Demonstration Videos:

  • Demonstration videos showing the standard operation of the “Robo 45” machine were used to contrast with the method employed by The Injured Worker. This evidence was crucial in establishing that the method he used, which led to his injury, was not in line with the standard operating procedures, thus highlighting The Employer‘s negligence.

• Expert Testimony:

  • Testimony from The Machinery Expert, engaged by The Employer, provided insights into the standard operation of the machinery and the potential risks involved in the method used by The Injured Worker. Although The Machinery Expert‘s assessment supported the standard method, it helped highlight the deviation in practice that contributed to the injury.

• Witness Testimony:

  • Testimonies from coworkers or supervisors (though not all were called to testify) supported the claim that the method The Injured Worker used was known and possibly accepted in the workplace, further implicating The Employer in failing to mitigate the risk.

This combination of evidence was essential in securing the workers’ compensation payment by demonstrating the extent of the injury, the working conditions that led to it, and The Employer‘s liability.

Psychological and Personal Impact

Beyond the physical injuries, the accident had a profound psychological and personal impact on The Injured Worker. He described feeling depressed and useless due to his inability to participate in activities he once enjoyed, such as coaching his children’s sports or engaging in outdoor adventures like beach fishing and 4-wheel driving. His injury also strained his marital relationship, with The Injured Worker’s Spouse taking on significant caregiving responsibilities. She described how The Injured Worker became withdrawn and less engaged with the family, adding to the emotional toll on their household.

The Injured Worker’s Spouse’s testimony provided insight into the challenges faced by the family. She detailed the extensive care she provided after each of his surgeries, helping him with daily activities and managing the household on her own. Despite his gradual physical recovery, The Injured Worker continued to experience pain and limitations, affecting his ability to enjoy life fully.

Findings by the District Court of Western Australia

The court found that The Employer had breached its duty of care to The Injured Worker. Key findings included:

• The method The Injured Worker used was known to and accepted by The Employer.
• The Employer failed to assess risks associated with this method.
• There was a foreseeable risk of injury from manual lifting in these circumstances.

Judge Braddock DCJ stated: “I conclude that there was a foreseeable risk of injury in the system of work adopted by The Injured Worker.” The court also found that The Employer failed to provide adequate training, instructions, or equipment to mitigate these risks.

Work Injury Damages Awarded

The court awarded The Injured Worker a total of $1,389,300.12 in damages, broken down as follows:

• General damages: $135,000.00
  • This amount compensates The Injured Worker for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life due to his injuries.
• Past economic loss: $296,242.56
  • This includes $221,891.01 for economic loss already paid to The Injured Worker and $74,351.55 for loss incurred from the trial to the judgment.
• Past superannuation: $23,917.32
  • Compensation for lost superannuation contributions due to his inability to work.
• Gratuitous services – past: $6,172.00
  • Compensation for services provided to The Injured Worker by family members, such as care and assistance due to his injuries.
• Past medical expenses: $183,105.40
  • Reimbursement for medical expenses already paid, including surgeries, medications, and other treatments.
• Expenses medical and gym since trial: $1,524.70
  • Costs incurred for medical expenses and gym memberships after the trial.
• Past rehabilitation: $16,413.26
  • Expenses related to rehabilitation treatments and therapies.
• Past traveling expenses: $5,189.55
  • Reimbursement for travel costs associated with medical treatments and appointments.
• Interest: $6,654.02
  • Interest awarded on the past economic loss and other financial losses.
• Future loss of earning capacity: $609,625.51
  • Compensation for the loss of future income due to The Injured Worker‘s inability to return to his previous employment or earn at the same level as before the injury.
• Future superannuation: $64,475.00
  • Compensation for future lost superannuation contributions due to diminished earning capacity.
• Future medical expenses: $10,500.00
  • An estimate of the costs of future medical treatments and care related to the injury.
• Gym membership (4 years): $2,880.00
  • Costs to cover gym memberships for four years as part of his ongoing rehabilitation.
• Future travel expenses: $500.00
  • Estimated travel costs for attending future medical appointments.
• Gratuitous services – future: $27,100.80
  • Anticipated costs for future care and assistance provided by family members.

The total amount of $1,389,300.12 reflects the court’s comprehensive assessment of the financial, physical, and emotional impact of The Injured Worker‘s injuries, providing compensation for both past and future losses.

Legal Principles Applied in The Injured Worker‘s Work Injury Compensation Claim

The court applied several key legal principles in assessing damages:

• The “Egg Shell Skull” Rule: The defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them, including any pre-existing vulnerabilities.
• Assessment of Future Loss of Earning Capacity: This is not an exact science but requires practical common sense. The court referenced cases such as Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) and Montemaggiori v Wilson [2011].
• Burden of Proof in Demonstrating Alternative Employment Opportunities: Once the plaintiff proves loss of pre-accident earning capacity, the evidentiary burden shifts to the defendant to show alternative employment opportunities.
• Consideration of Contingencies: The court applied a 5% reduction for standard contingencies and a further 25% reduction to account for retained earning capacity.

Implications and Significance

This case highlights several important points for personal injury law in Australia:

• Employers’ Duty to Assess Risks: Even when a work method is accepted practice, employers must still assess and mitigate risks.
• Importance of Proper Training and Equipment: Failure to provide these can lead to significant liability.
• Consideration of Pre-existing Conditions: While these may increase vulnerability, they don’t necessarily reduce an employer’s liability if the condition was previously asymptomatic.
• Calculation of Future Losses: The court’s approach demonstrates the complex considerations involved in assessing future loss of earning capacity, especially for younger plaintiffs with significant injuries.

Practice Guide for Injured Workers: Tips in Workplace Injury Claims

When you’re injured or ill due to work-related activities, the last thing you want is a complicated dispute over your claim. This guide outlines key steps to avoid common pitfalls, as highlighted in the case study of The Injured Worker v The Employer, ensuring you receive the workers’ compensation benefits you deserve. It’s crucial to involve a workers’ compensation lawyer early in the process to protect your rights.

Report Your Injury or Illness Immediately

In The Injured Worker’s case, he reported his back injury but was initially told to continue working. Always report any work-related injury or illness to your employer as soon as it occurs. Insist on completing a compensation claim form, even if the injury seems minor. This step is essential in making a claim and ensures your injury is documented, protecting your rights and laying the groundwork for your claim.

Seek Medical Treatment Right Away

The Injured Worker’s injuries, including lytic spondylolisthesis and right-sided foot drop, required multiple surgeries. Even if your symptoms seem manageable, seek medical treatment immediately. Delaying treatment can worsen your condition and complicate the claims process. Early medical attention helps establish the connection between your injury or illness and the work-related incident.

Get a Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Involved Early

One of the key disputes in The Injured Worker’s case was whether the method of operating the machine was accepted by The Employer. Engaging a workers’ compensation lawyer early ensures your work-related injury is properly documented and the claims process is handled correctly. A lawyer can help you claim workers’ compensation benefits, navigate the legal complexities, and deal with the compensation authority, increasing the likelihood that your claim is accepted.

Ensure Your Employer Assesses Reasonably Foreseeable Risks

The case study emphasizes the importance of employers assessing work-related risks, such as the manual lifting that led to The Injured Worker’s severe back injury. If your employer has not assessed the risks associated with your job, it’s crucial to bring this to their attention. If the employer fails to take action, this can be used as evidence at a trial of the action.

Document Everything

Disputes often arise from a lack of evidence. Keep detailed records of your injury, medical treatment, and all interactions with your employer. Note the specific tasks you were performing when the injury or illness occurred at work, as these details are crucial when proving your claim. Documentation is key to avoiding disputes with your insurer and ensuring your compensation claim is successful.

Don’t Return to Work Too Soon

In the case study, The Injured Worker was moved to lighter duties after his injury, but his condition worsened. If this occurs it is important to discuss the return to work program with your doctor as soon as possible. Following this review the return to work may be ceased or modified.

Make a Claim for Work Injury Damages? Start Here!

If you’ve sustained a work-related injury in Western Australia, don’t wait to take action. The 3-year limitation period for making a claim is strict, and missing it could mean losing your right to compensation. Foyle Legal, specializes in helping individuals claim workers’ compensation for physical or psychological injuries. Whether you’ve suffered permanent impairment or need time off work for medical treatment, our expert team of personal injury and workers compensation lawyers are here to guide you through the workers’ compensation arrangements in WA.

We understand the different laws and compensation schemes in Western Australia, and we’re committed to ensuring you receive the financial support you’re entitled to. Our No Win No Fee representation means you don’t have to worry about upfront costs—your focus should be on recovery while we handle your claim. Contact us today to start your claim for workers’ compensation and ensure your rights are protected.

Conclusion

The case of [2018] WADC 17, underscores the importance of workplace safety and the potentially severe consequences of failing to adequately assess and mitigate reasonably foreseeable risks. It demonstrates the courts’ willingness to award substantial damages in cases of serious injury, particularly when the plaintiff is young and faces long-term impacts on earning capacity. The case also highlights the complex medical and legal considerations involved in assessing damages for personal injury claims, especially those involving pre-existing conditions and future economic losses.

This case remains relevant in Australian personal injury law as a benchmark for assessing damages in workplace injury cases, particularly those involving complex spinal injuries and long-term incapacity. It serves as a reminder to employers of their ongoing duty to provide safe work environments and to regularly assess and mitigate risks, even in seemingly routine operations.

Sources and Reference:

District of WA case decision: https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision/dfac9ac4-92c1-3993-4825-822c00093bff

Fair Work Ombudsman – Workplace Safety: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/taxonomy/term/377

WorkCover WA: https://www.workcover.wa.gov.au/workers/