[Australia] 'Uncontroversial' WFH compensation win has alarming implications for businesses

In Australia, the lawyer who represented a council employee in her winning worker's compensation claim following a household accident has defended the judgement, dubbing it 'uncontroversial', Mail Online reports.

Lauren Vercoe worked as an asset programmer for Adelaide's City of Charles Sturt Council. She was working from home on September 19, 2022, when she tripped over a 60cm puppy fence. Ms Vercoe broke her arm and hurt her knee as she fell.

Ms Vercoe’s initial claim for compensation against the Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme was reportedly rejected in October 2022. However, in a judgment handed down by the South Australian Employment Tribunal on 18 October, Ms Vercoe's injury was found to have arisen from her employment.

Auxiliary Deputy President Magistrate Jodie Carrel found that the fall occurred during an 'authorised coffee break at her place of employment'.

The decision, reported by Mail Online last week, led to annoyed reactions from the publication’s readers.

“That's outrageous when her employer has no health and safety controls over her workplace at home,” one wrote.

“They are not responsible for hazards she erected, which wouldn't have been allowed in her city office,” commented another.

Now the lawyer who represented Ms Vercoe has defended the judgement, stating that there is a “no-fault system” for workers compensation claims therefore all that was required was to prove was that the injury had been sustained while at work. 

Donald Blairs - a lawyer at personal injury firm Wearing & Blairs - reportedly said he was “surprised that people are surprised”. 

“People have been lodging workers' compensation claims for events that happen in their workplaces, which may well include places outside of the usual office, since forever, and this is just a continuation of that,” Mr Blairs told Daily Mail Australia.  

“If she was a TV repairman in someone's house who had tripped over a dog fence or something similar, there'd be no controversy. It's pretty straightforward and no one would dispute that.

“The only thing that was unique about this case is I suppose she was in her own house as opposed to a different house.'

Mr Blairs continued, “It's a no fault system. The legal test here is that it was an injury that occurred in the course of her employment.

“And getting up to get a cup of coffee is something that's deemed to be in the course of your employment on a day-to-day basis.”

The lawyer said he had seen similar cases adding that the only difference in this one was that the council decided to fight it.

“I've had other similar cases where people have tripped over their coffee table or the ledge of their front door whilst putting out the washing and they've all been accepted,” he said.

“This is not unusual. The only thing that is unusual is the council decided to run it as a bit of a test case and came unstuck.'

Responding to why the council might have taken the claim to trial, Mr Blairs said, “I don't think it was dollars and cents. I think it was that they wanted to set a precedent.”

The SA Employment Tribunal judgment agreed with Ms Vercoe's submission that she “fell during the course of a paid break” and that her “injuries arose out of or in the course of her employment”.

“Ms Vercoe submitted that it was not to the point whether the council had provided the pet fence, known about the pet fence, or told Ms Vercoe to erect the pet fence,” the judgment noted.

“Simply, there is nothing that limits the application of the workers compensation scheme by reason of an injury occurring due to a feature of the workplace not known or authorised by an employer.”

In her evidence, Ms Vercoe reportedly shared screenshots of a council video about flexible working arrangements. It encouraged employees to 'take regular breaks, 'get out in the sunshine' and 'enjoy time with the dog'.

Magistrate Carrel also criticised the legal firm who initially rejected Ms Vercoe's compensation claim for suggesting 'she exaggerated her evidence when convenient'.

“Rather, Ms Vercoe is a worker who has done her best to get on with things after suffering a significant injury,” Magistrate Carrel noted.

Ms Vercoe returned to work after six weeks.

The amount of compensation she is owed has yet to be determined. 

According to Daily Mail Australia, the compensation claim was simply to cover medical bills and the few weeks Ms Vercoe was not working. 

The City of Charles Sturt Council and Ms Vercoe reportedly declined to comment. 

Source: Mail Online

(Link and quotes via original reporting)

In Australia, the lawyer who represented a council employee in her winning worker's compensation claim following a household accident has defended the judgement, dubbing it 'uncontroversial', Mail Online reports.

Lauren Vercoe worked as an asset programmer for Adelaide's City of Charles Sturt Council. She was working from home on September 19, 2022, when she tripped over a 60cm puppy fence. Ms Vercoe broke her arm and hurt her knee as she fell.

Ms Vercoe’s initial claim for compensation against the Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme was reportedly rejected in October 2022. However, in a judgment handed down by the South Australian Employment Tribunal on 18 October, Ms Vercoe's injury was found to have arisen from her employment.

Auxiliary Deputy President Magistrate Jodie Carrel found that the fall occurred during an 'authorised coffee break at her place of employment'.

The decision, reported by Mail Online last week, led to annoyed reactions from the publication’s readers.

“That's outrageous when her employer has no health and safety controls over her workplace at home,” one wrote.

“They are not responsible for hazards she erected, which wouldn't have been allowed in her city office,” commented another.

Now the lawyer who represented Ms Vercoe has defended the judgement, stating that there is a “no-fault system” for workers compensation claims therefore all that was required was to prove was that the injury had been sustained while at work. 

Donald Blairs - a lawyer at personal injury firm Wearing & Blairs - reportedly said he was “surprised that people are surprised”. 

“People have been lodging workers' compensation claims for events that happen in their workplaces, which may well include places outside of the usual office, since forever, and this is just a continuation of that,” Mr Blairs told Daily Mail Australia.  

“If she was a TV repairman in someone's house who had tripped over a dog fence or something similar, there'd be no controversy. It's pretty straightforward and no one would dispute that.

“The only thing that was unique about this case is I suppose she was in her own house as opposed to a different house.'

Mr Blairs continued, “It's a no fault system. The legal test here is that it was an injury that occurred in the course of her employment.

“And getting up to get a cup of coffee is something that's deemed to be in the course of your employment on a day-to-day basis.”

The lawyer said he had seen similar cases adding that the only difference in this one was that the council decided to fight it.

“I've had other similar cases where people have tripped over their coffee table or the ledge of their front door whilst putting out the washing and they've all been accepted,” he said.

“This is not unusual. The only thing that is unusual is the council decided to run it as a bit of a test case and came unstuck.'

Responding to why the council might have taken the claim to trial, Mr Blairs said, “I don't think it was dollars and cents. I think it was that they wanted to set a precedent.”

The SA Employment Tribunal judgment agreed with Ms Vercoe's submission that she “fell during the course of a paid break” and that her “injuries arose out of or in the course of her employment”.

“Ms Vercoe submitted that it was not to the point whether the council had provided the pet fence, known about the pet fence, or told Ms Vercoe to erect the pet fence,” the judgment noted.

“Simply, there is nothing that limits the application of the workers compensation scheme by reason of an injury occurring due to a feature of the workplace not known or authorised by an employer.”

In her evidence, Ms Vercoe reportedly shared screenshots of a council video about flexible working arrangements. It encouraged employees to 'take regular breaks, 'get out in the sunshine' and 'enjoy time with the dog'.

Magistrate Carrel also criticised the legal firm who initially rejected Ms Vercoe's compensation claim for suggesting 'she exaggerated her evidence when convenient'.

“Rather, Ms Vercoe is a worker who has done her best to get on with things after suffering a significant injury,” Magistrate Carrel noted.

Ms Vercoe returned to work after six weeks.

The amount of compensation she is owed has yet to be determined. 

According to Daily Mail Australia, the compensation claim was simply to cover medical bills and the few weeks Ms Vercoe was not working. 

The City of Charles Sturt Council and Ms Vercoe reportedly declined to comment. 

Source: Mail Online

(Link and quotes via original reporting)