It's hell isn't it?In 1994 or 95 I had my workplace injury.It wasn't until I applied for an interstate transfer(after going to Brisbane from Coffs Harbour for the interviews etc),that I received a letter from my employer's head office telling me that it would be best if I consulted a solicitor! Nice eh?Around 1988 this company had headhunted me,all was great whilst I was part of their management succession plan.Until the Workplace Injury....I did the full gradual return to work plan /had had a Caseworker,did the In hospital 3 week Pain Clinic...Anyway,NSW Worker's Compensation Legislation was changing...
Because,somehow their legals got in that I had congenital scoliosis (which it seems made me prone to back injury),to my advantage I had had witnesses when the pallet of footwear collapsed on me & we had been setting up a new department store,no Risk Assessments had been done,no Health & Safety etc etc...also as part of my Contract I had Salary Continua nce.If one was ill or injured & unable to work after 3 months,one was to get 75% of annual salary.
So my case had 2 parts..the NSW Worker's Comp part & the separate contract part.
At that time I was 45,by the time it was all settled (out of court,as I'm not a gambler!).
I used FWO"B in CH,solicitor & barrister bills came to $25k,(back then that was the ceiling amount they could change).
I did come out ok financially,but my health was shot to pieces,mentally & physically...at that time I was a single mother with 2 daughters,one at Uni,the other doing an apprenticeship in Sydney (Horticulture).
But Jamie with the laws changing that's why -to get max amount you virtually have to be in a wheelchair!
NT Laws are similar & I think it was brought in earlier up there from what I found out in 2003 when we moved.
I think one way to get around the limitations that they place on pain and suffering is to ask for compensation on the basis of the underlying injury, often they limit pain as it is hard to measure and can easily be manipulated, but if you have an underlying cause that is producing the pain then the condition rather then the symptom can be verifiable. In this sense you should be able to provide documented evidence from medical professionals who concur with your diagnosis, be that with diagnostic tests , scans or X-rays. An example would be nerve pain, the pain itself is the symptom of the damage to the nerve, so you would seek compensation for limited capacity based on the damage to the nerve not on the pain and suffering you have received. I don't know how successful this would be but could be one way to get around the limitations, I'm heading down the lawyer path soon with the road authority.
What I am trying to get my head around here is then what qualifies as a maximum payout?
What is more painful than nerves that are impinged?
Sure it does not mean that you are wheelchair bound, but instead you spend a lot of time unable to get up of the floor at all due to pain.
If your say in a wheelchair and quadriplegic than I am under the impression that you cannot feel pain from the neck down (please excuse my ignorance if I am wrong). Sure your suffering would be potentially greater being confined to a wheelchair but being left financially ruined for a very long time would also qualify as suffering surely.
I do not wish to compare myself to anyone less fortunate (as I would feel really bad for doing this), I am just trying to understand how the calculations for this take place and after having severe pain and suffering for so long feel somewhat dismayed.
Ultimately I will just have to speak to my lawyer about this and so I apologise to all for posting this, given the limitations of the answers were not practical given there are no lawyers here.
Thanks to all who posted
Regards and bets wishes
I know what you are trying to get at, however the problem with your remedy is that nerve pain (or impinged nerves) technically does not constitute as limitation/ impairment/ or loss of movement per se and hence any nerve impingements that cause you to be disabled from pain itself would still give you a 100% movement rating in the charts that Doctors use, in such a case the person would have no entitlement at all under your system even though it may have been confirmed (impingement) and place the person with a greater impairment than lets say a person who has a loss of limb but is still able bodied minus the limb compared to the person who has all limbs but is disabled and unable to move from pain itself. (hope that makes sense)
This is a difficult area to cover for so many variable reasons and so I do not believe there is any real solution to this issue that can apply to all.
There is no way that any of us here can possibly give you even a ball park figure for any payout that you may be entitled to. The majority of us have to make do with no payout at all because we are not suffering from work related injuries. This is something that you must discuss with your lawyer because they are the only people who can possibly have any idea about your particular case. No two cases are alike.
Regarding quadriplegia; please do some research on that condition. I am sure that even with your pain, you are a lot better off than a paraplegic or quadriplegic. Contrary to what you might think, many of them do have pain. Many of them cannot use their bladder or bowels and need to have their bowels evacuated by a nurse. It can take up to 2 hours to get them ready for bed. They need to be turned in the night and a whole raft of other issues that I won't go into here. I once read a book written by a quadriplegic and believe me, even with pain, you are much better off.
I have a cousin who lives in a wheelchair. He is hemiplegic (paralysed down one side) and I can assure you that I am definitely better off than he is. His was the result of a stroke.
Not every day is a good day, but there is good in every day.
"“It’s delightful when your imaginations come true, isn’t it?” ― L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables