In this edition we address:
- A recent decision from the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal regarding an employer’s liability to pay weekly payments of workers compensation in light of workers compensation medical certificates which purportedly did not specify areas of reduced capacity – Hari Gupta.
Updates in the Tasmanian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Jurisdiction
Recently, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published a decision regarding section 69 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Act). Section 69 outlines the amount of compensation to be paid where a worker is incapacitated for work, what workers need to do to get weekly payments of compensation (which are paid for the lost ability to earn) and other relevant matters.
L v Becketts Heavy Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2023] TASCAT 78 (27 April 2023)
In L v Becketts Heavy Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2023] TASCAT 78 (L v Becketts), the Tribunal accepted that a medical certificate which says a worker is fit for pre-injury duties may arguably not be enough to support a worker’s incapacity for work, but it also accepted that even if medical certificates do not specify areas of reduced capacity, if there are restrictions which affect a worker’s ability to work, then that is enough for a worker to show he has incapacity for work. The Tribunal also noted that certificates which certify a worker as fit for suitable duties (whether there are restrictions or not) would satisfy the requirements of section 69 of the Act.
L v Becketts tells us that the question of whether a certificate certifies incapacity can be answered by looking at a worker’s pre-injury role, the medical restrictions (if any) and, perhaps most importantly, whether the worker is certified as fit for suitable duties. As the learned Deputy President said, “The certificates certify the worker as fit for suitable duties and that is sufficient for him to be entitled to weekly payments of compensation pursuant to s69(1).”
Background
On 15 November 2021, the worker suffered an injury while working described in the initial workers compensation medical certificate dated 22 November 2021 as “Hyperextension of L knee at work – felt it POP” (injury).
According to the workers compensation claim form, the injury occurred when the worker’s left knee hyperextended and popped causing pain and a large bruise. The worker was initially certified as totally incapacitated for work from 16 November 2021 until 25 November 2021. The claim for compensation was accepted by the employer and workers compensation payments were made. Weekly payments continued until recently when there was a disagreement about the validity and effect of some medical certificates.
The Tribunal had to consider three medical certificates.
The first certificate was dated 13 February 2023 and it stated the worker was fit for pre-injury duties. However, the doctor also said that the worker was not to wear socks and boots above his ankle. It is unclear if the doctor knew that the worker was required to wear socks and boots above his ankle as part of his pre-injury duties.
The latter two certificates were from March 2023, and they stated that the worker was only fit for suitable duties (as opposed to fit for pre-injury duties). The restriction on wearing socks and boots above the ankle continued.
The contents of the first certificate did not end up being too critical because the second certificate covered the same period as it did.
One of the employer’s arguments was that the restriction about wearing socks and boots above one’s ankle does not define a disability which affects their ability to earn in the open labour market.
Decision
The Tribunal decided that the three medical certificates provided by the worker to the employer were valid workers compensation medical certificates and that the certificates from March 2023 certified a partial incapacity for work within the meaning of section 69(1) of the Act.
Further, the worker’s pre-injury duties and the requirements for him to be able to perform those duties seem to be relevant factors in considering whether he was incapacitated for work because of medical restrictions imposed upon him due to his injury.
Learning points
The main takeaway is that if an employer or its insurer wish to argue that a workers compensation medical certificate does not certify incapacity or is not valid, then it is important that the following are considered:
- Does the certificate say that the worker is fit for suitable duties?
- Does the certificate certify any restrictions?
- If so, do those restrictions affect the worker’s ability to work in his pre-injury role or in a role he could be expected to work?
While it is important to pay attention to workers compensation medical certificates, and while it is not unreasonable to expect that doctors who issue such certificates identify areas of reduced capacity where an injured worker is able to do some form of work, ultimately, if a doctor says is that a worker is only fit for suitable duties, then that is usually enough for the worker to be entitled to weekly payments of compensation.
More information
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us:
Mat Wilkins
Principal
M: 0419 106 417
E: mwilkins@pageseager.com.au
Tom Pilkington
Principal
M: 0417 669 478
E: tpilkington@pageseager.com.au
Hari Gupta
Senior Associate
T: (03) 6235 5133
E: hgupta@pageseager.com.au
