LOSING out ... Queensland grandmother Anita Dawson's pension was cut after she won compensation.
THE Rudd Government has been accused of ripping off a blind
woman by cutting her pension to claw back money awarded to
her in compensation.
Anita Dawson, 54, was recently awarded Government compensation
after she was injured while working at a Queensland TAFE. But before
the money could even be deposited into her bank account, the
Government had helped itself to $30,000 - the equivalent of two years'
pension.
In a second stinging blow, Mrs Dawson was told she was also
being stripped of her pension for a further two years thanks to her
winning a six-figure compensation payout."I was told by the Government
that they couldn't have me double dipping into workers' compensation
funds and the pension pot," she said."They said I shouldn't think I'm
any different to anyone else just because I have a disability."I find it just
absolutely appalling. It is just a way for the Government to get away
with not paying me the compensation I am owed for the accident.
"Grandmother Mrs Dawson, of New Beith, south of Brisbane,
previously received $565 a fortnight from the Centrelink pension,
which is not supposed to be income tested.Without it she is unable
to claim pharmaceutical benefits, mobility allowance, up to 40 per
cent off her rates bill, and discounts on public transport and taxis.
Her pension will not automatically be restored to her in two years.
Instead she will have to undergo painful tests to determine whether
she remains eligible.Requests for help from the Government and
Centrelink officers have fallen on deaf ears.
Yesterday she was reduced to tears after speaking to a public servant
from Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin's office.
The department refused to comment when contacted by The Courier-Mail.
A spokeswoman for Centrelink described the situation as a "policy matter"
and said that although the blind pension was not income tested, compensation
payments had to be taken into account when pensions were issued.
Mrs Dawson's former husband Lee is disgusted."The Government is
ripping off a blind woman," he said. "It's nothing short of victimisation.
"Details of Mrs Dawson's accident and compensation amount cannot be
revealed for legal reasons but Mrs Dawson said it was a low six-figure
sum.
WCV's: This is so typical of the Government! How blind do you need to be?
Centrelink recuperate what they have paid to any injured
worker or TAC victims from any compensation payments, so you lose out
again, by having to repay part of what you would have earned had you not
been injured and still able to work, then you have to give up part of your
compo as well. Does this ever end?
Don't get injured at work readers because if you do, your life will be totally
stuffed,you will have no job and no ability to work, and your income will be
reduced to the poverty line levels by the DSP or sickness
benefits and you will be treated like a leper by many, and that's the reality
of a workplace injury!
This is not a way of life nor is it a living, so to all of those who judge injured
workers, "up yours" and "get a life" because injured workers are not enjoying
themselves here or is it a lifestyle, they are suffering at the hands of all they
encounter, so readers next time you are speaking to someone who is injured,
take a minute to walk in their shoes, before you judge them.
1 comment:
Remember though that the injured person has had the use of the money. It is probably not a problem if you are a worker who makes say $600 per week and you actually get back paid for that figure and Centrelink recovers the difference. It is also ok too for the future if you are compensated your actual loss but if you settle for a discount then accessing the benefit such as subisdised medicine etc is a real hardship. Re loss of sight though the real bastards are the Motor Accident Authority of NSW. In that scheme you only get pain and suffering if you have a whole person impairment (WPI) greater than 10%. Surprisingly loss of sight in one eye can be less than 10% under that formula. One victim had lost sight in one eye years before his car accident. He lost sight in the remaining good eye. The victim had been living a full & mobile life before this. The MAA doctor assessed him as over 20% WPI because it was assessed as loss of sight (2 eyes). The insurer appealed and the assessment was made less than 10% because it had to be treated a loss of 1 eye not a loss of sight. No pain and suffering even though this guys life was ruined. The insurers would have been pleased with that.
Post a Comment