Case Study from the Queensland Ombudsman's Office on Natural justice for injured workers .

Investigation and findings:

We received complaints from two workers who had suffered psychiatric/
psychological injuries in the workplace and were dissatisfied with the
decision on their compensation claims by WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover).

In assessing their claims, WorkCover hired investigators to visit the workers’
workplaces, question witnesses and compile reports. In each case, the injured
worker’s application for compensation was rejected by WorkCover because
witness statements referred to in the report supported the view that
management’s decision was reasonable.

The injured workers complained to us that they were not provided
with information regarding the witness statements or given the
opportunity to comment on them prior to WorkCover’s decision
and, therefore had been denied natural justice.

We investigated the matter by seeking further information from, and
having discussions with WorkCover representatives. We found that:

WorkCover had an obligation under common law to provide
natural justice before making its decision and there was a clear
legislative intention that WorkCover provide natural justice in
the first instance

WorkCover’s procedures did not require injured workers to be provided
natural justice. In both cases, WorkCover had not supplied the injured workers with: all the information adverse to them which it intended to use to make its decision an opportunity to respond to the information adverse to them or have any information they provided taken into account before making its decision.

Recommendations and outcome:
We recommended that WorkCover:
• amend its procedures on the assessment of claims in respect of
psychological and psychiatric injuries to make it clear that decision-makers must comply with the rules of natural justice
• review its procedures in relation to all other claims to ensure that the procedures make it clear that decision makers must comply with those rules.

We were not able to take any action to directly assist the two injured workers because they had both exercised their appeal rights to Q-COMP and it had provided them with natural justice during the course of the appeal.

However, the implementation of our recommendations will result in fairer treatment by WorkCover for injured workers who seek compensation.

WCV''s: Get a load of the second last paragraph ! They were not able to directly assist the injured workers ? Why Not ! Is'nt that their job?

Even if they had exercised their appeal rights, that process should have shown that these two workers had not received their entitled natural justice so why didn't the ombudsman step in an ensure the workers rights as they are required to?

What good are these departments, if they cannot do the job they have been employed to do?