Compensation made in a variety of ways
IN 2012, an overhaul of state workers compensation legislation reduced the entitlements available to many people with work injuries and restricted the eligibility to make some claims.
Those restrictions limit the legal recourse available to some people, but in many cases other legislation can lead to a better outcome.
A recent example involved a hardware store employee who was injured after a colleague accidentally struck him with a forklift while they were both working.
The forklift, used solely to move items around the store, was not registered for ue on public roads, and for that reason wasn’t covered by a compulsory third party insurance policy.
While workplace injuries are generally covered by the Workers Compensation Act, in some cases other legislation apples.
In this case the Motor Accidents Compensation Act was more appropriate.
There is no requirement that this motor vehicle be registered, or even that it is used on a public road, and the definition of a vehicle is not restricted to cars, trucks and motorbikes.
Injuries covered by this Act extend from direct injuries – caused by being struck by a vehicle – but also injuries sustained while taking action to avoid a collision or another dangerous situation caused by the negligent operation of a vehicle.
The Motor Accidents Compensation Act also has a section that specifically ad- dresses accidents that give rise to work injuries, which are injuries caused by the negligence or failure of an employer.
A workers compensation claim would have required the injured man to demonstrate at least a 15 per cent whole-person impairment, and even then it would have restricted him to seeking compensation for past and future economic loss.
On the other hand, motor accident compensation allowed him to make a claim for economic loss, past and future treatment expenses, and even assistance around the house with tasks he was no longer able to complete.
Mikayla, 15, and Holly Souter, 12, Sam Willis, 17, and Tayla Arkley, 13.