Category

Compensation Claims

call us for public liability claims

How to Make a Public Liability Claim in NSW?

What is a Public Liability Claim

A public liability claim refers to a claim made for injuries sustained in public places in accidents caused by the negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care and skill) of a person or organisation.

For instance, let’s say you’re walking through a shopping centre and you slip and fall as a result of a spilt liquid on the floor causing an injury to you. The owner of the shopping centre possibly could have prevented the unfortunate incident by ensuring that their cleaning staff better maintained the centre’s floor.

Compensatory damages are available under the Civil Liability Act NSW 2002 as follows:

  • Past and future medical expenses;
  • Pain and suffering (past and future);
  • Past and future loss of earnings, including loss of superannuation contributions;
  • Cost of other assistance (domestic assistance, personal care provided by friends, family or professional organisations for the past and future).

Public liability claims derive from numerous accident types. Here are some examples:

  • Assault-related injuries;
  • Animal attacks (most commonly dog bites);
  • Injuries due to defective machinery;
  • A slip and fall in public spaces and facilities;
  • Food poisoning;
  • Sporting, recreational  injuries;
  • Physical assaults;
  • Sexual assaults;
  • Schools and playground injuries;
  • Aviation (planes, helicopters) injuries;
  • Maritime (boats, ships) injuries;
  • Hotels and other venues injuries;
  • Injury at a construction site;
  • School yard injuries;
  • Amusement venue injuries;  and
  • Injuries in rental premises (e.g. landlord/tenant).

Public liability insurance

In most cases, business (private or public) have public liability insurance for these types of incidents,  which essentially means that in making a claim against the business, you’re in fact making a claim against their insurer. Some people can wrongly assume they are pursuing legal action against the business and for that reason, do not follow through with a public liability claim, despite incurring significant inconvenience and financial hardship.

Notwithstanding this, it is not uncommon for people who have an accident in a public place to initially suffer from only a little pain and discomfort, choosing not to pursue a claim, only to later find that the injuries sustained were serious, requiring surgery. For this reason, it is often wise to seek medical attention regardless of the injuries sustained.

Proving a Public Liability Claim

In a public liability claim, the evidence of the incident is vitally important, because your lawyer will need to be able to demonstrate that:

  • The person or company at fault owed you a duty of care.
  • The person or company breached that duty of care.
  • As a consequence, you were injured and suffered loss.

Practically speaking, following an injury in a public place if you’re able, the following should be attended to.

  • The first thing you should do, when injured in a public place is to let the owner/manager of the business know.
  • Ensure pictures are taken of everything, the injury itself, the establishment, the object causing the injury.
  • Witnesses are very important, take notes of their names and phone numbers
  • Access any surveillance camera footage
  • Make a video recalling what happened right away
  • Seek medical assistance as soon as possible.
  • Seek advice from a specialised lawyer in personal injury claims.
  • Save all medical evidence, bills, receipts, doctor’s records and anything else proving you sustained an injury.
  • Financial documents are also important to prove a loss of income resulting from the accident.

Getting Help

Public liability claims can be difficult to prove, hence the need to ensure you collect as much evidence as possible as promptly as possible and seek legal advice.

These matters have very strict time limits that apply.

Injured on the Roads while driving cycle. Contact BPC Lawyers today for help.

Your Rights as a Cyclist if you have Been Injured on the Roads

After 1 December 2017, if you are a cyclist and have been injured in a collision with a motor vehicle on New South Wales roads, then you will be able to claim damages pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act (NSW) 2017.

Your claim can be made against the CTP green slip insurer of the motor vehicle or bus with which you had the collision and if the vehicle was unregistered then you are still able to bring a claim against the Nominal Defendant.

Pursuant to the provisions Division 2.4 of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) is for the purposes of this Act the Nominal Defendant.

The writer has acted for many cyclists who have been seriously injured in accidents involving another motor vehicle.

It is now a common sight to see cyclists on our roads, both during the day and also at night.

The NSW Government has recognised this fact and has enacted new laws in relation to driver behaviour regarding cyclists.

Since 1 March 2017, drivers in NSW must leave at least one metre of space when passing a cyclist in speed zones of 60 km per hour or less. They must leave at least 1.5 metres in higher speed zones.

Furthermore, if it is safe to do so, drivers can cross centre dividing lines or continuous lane dividing lines to overtake a cyclist. They can also drive on painted islands and dividing strips to pass a bicycle when safe to do so. If it is not safe, drivers must slow down and wait until there is enough space to pass.

As far as cyclists’ behaviour concerning other motor vehicles, the minimum passing distance is not specified for cyclists and they are advised to leave sufficient room to avoid a collision when passing cars.

The writer has been involved in several cases where cyclists were thrown from their bicycle and sustained serious injuries and in one circumstance was rendered unconscious. It is therefore important if you are a cyclist at all time you have with you photo identification and also a mobile phone. It has also been mandated by the government there is a requirement for bicycle riders to produce photo identification when stopped by police who have suspected they may have committed an offence.

It is helpful if you also carry a photo ID in the event that a person or persons witness your accident and may wish to keep in contact with you and provide you with statement regarding your accident to assist you in your claim. I have been involved in a number of cases where the statements by independent witnesses were crucial in proving the cyclist was not at fault and the entire blame for the accident fell upon the driver of the motor vehicle.

It is always important to have a mobile phone with you to be able to photograph the registration plate of a motor vehicle if needed and also record details of the driver including taking a photograph of their driver’s licence.

All of this information will assist you when completing the Application for Personal Injury Benefits which is the new claim form required to be completed for all accidents after 1 December 2017 and must be lodged with the relevant CTP insurer within three months of the date of your accident.

There may also be circumstances where a cyclist has sustained injuries from falling off their bike because of defects in the road surface such as a pothole or other dangers such as loose gravel, however, these claims are governed by the provisions of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002 and such claims against the local council, who are responsible for the maintenance of the road, require far more investigation.

The local council will endeavour to seek immunity from suit pursuant to the provisions of Section 43 of the Civil Liability Act. It will be necessary to seek the advice of an Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Law with regards to proceedings of this nature.

If you are injured whilst riding your bicycle on NSW roads, then contact the specialist accredited lawyers at BPC Lawyers who will be able to provide you with immediate assistance.

Statutory Paybacks to Centrelink and Medicare

Statutory Paybacks to Centrelink and Medicare Following Receipt of Compensation

In most cases, standard settlement terms allow a period of 28 days for payment of settlement monies to a claimant following receipt of statutory “clearances” from Medicare and Centrelink. A compensation payer has statutory obligations to notify Centrelink and Medicare following resolution of a claim and to attend to statutory paybacks prior to releasing settlement/judgment monies.

Centrelink

Part 3.14 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) imposes an obligation on a “compensation payer” to reimburse the Commonwealth any “compensation affected payments” received by a “compensation recipient” during the “lump sum preclusion period”. This means that a person who is responsible for the payment of compensation to a claimant must reimburse the Commonwealth any compensation affected payments received by a claimant during the relevant preclusion period. The preclusion period is calculated by reference to Section 117O of the Social Security Act. The preclusion period varies in each individual matter as a formula is applied based on the settlement/judgment amount and whether a claimant has received periodic compensation payments, a lump sum compensation payment or both.

Compensation affected payments include a range of social security benefits including unemployment benefits, various disability pensions and other payments and allowances. A full list of relevant payments may be found in Section 17 of the Social Security Act.

Liability to reimburse Centrelink generally arises following settlement/judgment if a claim for economic loss has been made. A compensation payer must notify Centrelink of the settlement/judgment amount. Centrelink then applies the statutory formula and provides written notice to a compensation payer confirming the recoverable amount. Upon receipt of a recovery notice, the compensation payer becomes liable to repay the amount specified in the notice. It is a strict liability offence for an insurer to make a payment to a claimant before any monies owing to the Commonwealth have been reimbursed. The insurer’s liability to the Commonwealth is discharged upon payment of the amount specified in a recovery notice.

Liability to reimburse Centrelink usually only arises in circumstances where a claim for economic loss has been pursued by a claimant. For claims that resolve without a component for economic loss, a request for a clearance usually results in a clearance being issued confirming that no payback to Centrelink is required. Insurers usually request a clearance even in such circumstances so as to ensure that they have discharged any liability to the Commonwealth.

In order to avoid unnecessary delays in receiving settlement/judgment monies at the conclusion of a claim, it is important to notify Centrelink and request a clearance as soon as possible.

Lawyers who act for claimants must ensure the prompt execution and return of all necessary documentation so as to avoid unnecessary delays. Lawyers must also ensure that all documents are completed properly otherwise they are likely to be rejected by Centrelink resulting in delays and financial hardship to claimants who have had their Centrelink benefits suspended following settlement/judgment.

In circumstances where a claimant is suffering financial hardship or has other extenuating circumstances, it is recommended that lawyers contact Centrelink directly to request that a clearance be given priority. This information should also be conveyed to the insurer or the insurer’s legal representatives at the time of settlement so as to avoid unnecessary delays.

Medicare

The Medicare payback scheme is governed by the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995.

In circumstances where a claimant has received Medicare benefits arising from medical expenses in respect of the compensable injuries for which compensation has been claimed, the total value of the benefits must be reimbursed to the Commonwealth if the claim resolves for a sum in excess of $5,000.00.

The “notifiable person” (usually the insurer or compensation payer) must notify Medicare in writing within 28 days of the date of judgment or settlement. Notification may be made by completing a Section 23 Notice titled “Medicare Compensation Recovery Notice of Judgment or Settlement”.

It is important that lawyers acting on behalf of claimants promptly request a Medicare History Statement following lodgement of a claim so that all Medicare benefits previously received in respect of a claimant’s compensable injuries may be identified and a Notice of Charge issued. A Notice of Charge is only valid for a period of 6 months and it is therefore important for lawyers to regularly update these notices to ensure that a valid Notice of Charge is available at the time of settlement.

A claimant is required to complete the Medicare History Statement to the best of his or her recollection and does not need to cross reference each individual benefit with records obtained from treatment providers. Medicare will contact a claimant if an issue arises or if there appears to be an error. It is extremely important that a claimant completes the Medicare History Statement promptly and returns the completed documents to Medicare. If the documents are not returned to Medicare within the prescribed timeframe of 28 days, Medicare will deem all listed benefits as being related to the claim and will issue a “deemed” Notice of Past Benefits for the full amount whether or not such benefits were in fact related to the subject claim.

To avoid unnecessary delays in claimants being paid the full amount of their settlement/judgment monies, lawyers acting on behalf of claimants should attempt to ensure that there is always a valid Notice of Charge retained on file so as to avoid the need for advance payments. A copy of a valid notice should also be provided to the insurer at the time of settlement so as to avoid an advance payment inadvertently being made.

If there is a valid Notice of Charge at the time of settlement, this amount can usually be included as part of a claimant’s claim for out of pocket expenses. A compensation payer is then only required to attend to payment of the amount specified in the Notice of Charge to discharge their liability to Medicare following settlement/judgment.

If there is no valid Notice of Charge at the time of settlement/judgment, an “advance payment” representing 10% of the total settlement/judgment sum may be made. In the event of an advance payment being utilised, notice must be provided to a claimant pursuant to Section 33A of the Act of the intention to make an advance payment. Any advance payment must also be made within 28 days of the judgment/settlement. Medicare then have a period of 3 months to conduct a reconciliation and issue a refund once the payback figure has been determined.

Claimants can avoid the need for a 10% advance payment being made in circumstances where there is an expired Notice of Charge but no additional injury related benefits have been paid since the last Notice of Past Benefits was issued. In such circumstances, a claimant may complete a Section 23A Statement and return it to the compensation payer with the other settlement documentation. The insurer will then only be required to pay the amount specified in the expired Notice of Past Benefits.

It is an offence for a compensation payer to pay the claimant any part of the compensation amount unless the required payment has been made to Medicare or the specified amount has been withheld from the claimant. In the event that settlement monies are disbursed prior to reimbursement to Medicare being made, a compensation payer is liable to make the payment over and above the settlement funds. Criminal sanctions also apply as a result of failure to comply with such obligations.

Armed Hold-Ups Compensation Claims

Armed Hold-Ups

Beilby Poulden Costello have had a number of successful claims recently acting on behalf of the victims of robberies. One of those cases involved a lady who was the subject of an armed hold-up whilst working for a fast food restaurant and another was employed to look after the takings from the gaming area at a hotel. In each case we have been successful in demonstrating that the appropriate measures were not taken to ensure the safety of our clients, as a result of which they have suffered loss and injury.

Read More
Why Your Retirement Age Can Have a Big Impact on Compensation Payout

Why Your Retirement Age Can Have a Big Impact on Compensation Payout

One of the key factors when determining compensation payout is the expected age of retirement for the injured person.

When calculating compensation settlements, the expected age of retirement is 67 years of age. Anything beyond 67 years must be submitted for review, explaining why you believe you (as an injured claimant) should be expected to work past 67 years under your expected life path before the incident.

CASE BACKGROUND –  Allianz Limited v Habib & ORS (2015) NSW SC1719

A scenario was recently resolved in the Supreme Court where Allianz, the CTP Insurer, overturned a previous decision to award compensation to an injured claimant based on a retirement age of 70. It was found that there was no substance or justified reason for the claimant to receive compensation past the expected age of 67, and thus the decision was overturned. Read below for more details.

There was a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW where His Honour Mr Justice Beech-Jones set aside the decision of a Claims Assessor because of a failure by the Claims Assessor to state (and to the extent necessary explain) the claimant’s age of retirement.

The proceedings were for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30 January 2013. At that time, the plaintiff sustained an injury to his lower back in the accident. The CTP insurer, Allianz accepted liability for the claim. The Claims Assessor issued a certificate and reasons for decision on 14 May 2015 and awarded damages in favour of the claimant in the sum of $221,586.00 plus schedule legal costs.

In the reasons, the Assessor awarded the claimant an amount of $160,000.00 for future economic loss and the sum of $36,500.00 for future commercial care.

The CTP insurer sought a judicial review of the assessment on a number of grounds and in particular sought to set the decision aside because the calculation of future economic loss was projected to an age of retirement of 70 years.

There was a document headed, ‘Claimant’s Calculations’ which set out the schedule of damages claimed by the claimant.

This document had been served upon the CTP insurer.

However, in the Assessor’s reasons, there was no reference made to this document.

Allianz in their submissions stated that they had never agreed to the assumption the claimant would continue working until the age of 70.

In most cases, the parties now agree the anticipated working life of a claimant is until the age If a Judge or Claims Assessor is to award compensation for loss of earnings beyond the age of 67, then it is incumbent upon that Judge or Assessor to provide adequate reasons as to why he or she has awarded damages for that further short period of working life.

The decision is worth reading as all the other grounds of review which were submitted by Allianz were rejected by His Honour.

Accordingly, it is important when seeking to have damages for economic loss beyond the age of 67 years to set out in detail for submission to the Judge or the Claims Assessor the reasons why you wish to submit the claimant had intended to work beyond the age of 67 years.

But for the accident, you should submit the claimant was in good health, had a secure employment or worked in a profession where working beyond the age of 67 years is more the norm than the exception and if possible, provide corroborating evidence from either fellow workers or members of that particular profession.

If you have been injured and are seeking compensation, we can help. BPC Lawyers have represented injured Sydney and NSW residents for over 20 years, and we will be happy to offer a complimentary, free consultation to discuss your claim and determine whether you have a genuine claim for compensation.

David R. Ford, Special Counsel

Is it Possible to Claim Motor Accident Compensation If No One is at Fault? Call BPC Lawyers.

Is it Possible to Claim Motor Accident Compensation If No One is at Fault?

When you’ve been in a motor vehicle accident as a result of the negligence of another driver, there is generally a clear entitlement to compensation for injured drivers and passengers.

But what happens when someone gets injured in a motor accident, and no one is to blame?

There was a recent decision in the District Court at Sydney involving an interpretation of the “blameless” accident provisions of the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The case was Garry Connaughton –v- Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Limited and was heard on 12 February 2015. The case was determined by Her Honour, Judge Norton SC.

CASE BACKGROUND – Garry Connaughton –v- Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Limited

The proceedings were for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13 July 2011. At that time, the Plaintiff was a driver of a motor vehicle which was involved in a single vehicle accident involving a tree which fell onto the road. The Plaintiff, Garry Connaughton, was driving his truck in a northerly direction on Mount Ousley Road at Mount Ousley at approximately 10:30am when a roadside tree fell and struck the cabin of the truck, which then ran out of control but subsequently came to a halt. The Plaintiff was badly injured in the accident and injury was conceded by the Insurer and there was no issue regarding contributory negligence.

The Plaintiff had little recollection regarding the accident. He was driving his truck in the curb side lane of the road and his first recollection was a man yelling out and his last recollection was driving up the road and there being nothing on the road in front of him.

The Judgment is quite detailed but in summary, Her Honour was asked to decide three questions:

  1. Has there been a motor vehicle accident?
  2. If so, is it a blameless accident?
  3. Is the Plaintiff excluded from recovery under the blameless accident provisions by operation of Section 7E in relation to drivers?

in summary, Her Honour found there had been a motor vehicle accident and it was a blameless accident. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was not excluded from recovery under the blameless accident provisions by operation of Section 7E as she found the Plaintiff did not cause this accident. His driving on the raod was no more than a background fact which explains why he was in a position where he could be struck by a tree. Plus the driving of the Plaintiff was nothing more than “the mere occasion of the injury”.

Furthermore, at Paragraph 73 Her Honour stated:-

“73. Looking at the words of the Section and bearing in mind the words used in the second reading speech (of Parliament) I find that even under the extended definition of causation of Section 7E there was no act or omission on behalf of the Plaintiff, either voluntary or involuntary, which can be said to have caused the accident. I do not accept that the words mean the driver in single-vehicle accidents are deemed to have caused that accident.”

Accordingly, in summary, there was a verdict entered in favour of the Plaintiff which means liability was wholly determined in his favour against the Defendant Insurer. There was a further order made by Her Honour that damages are to be assessed.

In the end, it was found that because no act by the man who suffered injury in his blameless motor accident, either voluntary or involuntary, could have caused the accident, with a verdict in favour of the plaintiff delivered to assess his damages from the insurance company.

If you have been in a motor accident, regardless of whether it is negligent or blameless, we will be happy to offer a complimentary, free consultation to discuss your claim and determine whether you have a genuine claim for compensation.

David R. Ford, Special Counsel

The Truth About Trasylol

Update: The Truth About Trasylol

The Truth About Trasylol  – Trasylol could be responsible for death, stroke, heart attack or kidney failure, you should act quickly.

Following the airing of the news and current affairs program, Sunday Night, on 12 October 2014, BPC Lawyers have received a number of enquiries from people wondering whether the administration of Aprotintin (known commonly as Trasylol) may have contributed to the loss of a loved one or resulted in stroke, kidney failure or heart attack.

We encourage all those who believe they may have been affected by the administration of Trasylol to make contact with our firm. There are significant cost benefits associated with being a client of a firm that represents other clients in similar circumstances. These benefits arise as a result of the sharing of costs associated with investigating proceedings.

If you or a loved one suspect Trasylol could be responsible for death, stroke, heart attack or kidney failure, you should act quickly. Please contact BPC Lawyers on 8280 6900 to discuss your case with a specialist solicitor or email: info [at] bpclaw.com.au.

About BPC: BPC provides people with workers compensation claims, motor accident claims and public liability claims. BPC has its origins in a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975.

Medical Negligence & the Inquest into the Death of Luke Wood

Medical Negligence & the Inquest into the Death of Luke Wood

We are fortunate in New South Wales to benefit from some of the most highly trained medical practitioners in the world.

However, incorrect diagnoses and negligently performed medical procedures do sometimes occur. The consequences can be catastrophic.

The recent Inquest into the death of Luke Wood, a Sydney bodybuilder, and former Australian bodybuilding champion, is a timely reminder of this fact.

On August 20, 2011, Mr Wood underwent a kidney transplant. Three days later, on August 23, his body began to show symptoms that it was rejecting the kidney. On August 26, despite the risk of kidney rejection, he was discharged in circumstances that are reported to have been allegedly premature.

Ultimately, on August 31, 2011, Mr Wood was rushed to the Hospital after he collapsed at home. He died at Sydney’s Westmead Hospital following cardiac arrest which was reportedly caused by the “massive hemorrhage” in his abdomen following his transplant. With the Inquest continuing, the circumstances of his death are not yet fully apparent. Evidence, however, given by his treating practitioners is reported to have indicated that not only was he required to wait over four hours for a CT scan, but that the emergency physicians that treated him did not have access to his complete medical records as they were locked in a secured room and inaccessible.

The Inquest continues.

If you or a loved one has suffered as a result of medical negligence, you should contact BPC Lawyers on 8280 6900 to speak with a specialist in medical negligence.

About BPC: BPC provides people with workers compensation claims, motor accident claims and public liability claims. BPC has its origins in a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975.

The Dangers of Sydney Roads; Car, Bus and Truck Accidents

The Dangers of Sydney Roads; Car, Bus and Truck Accidents

The recent spate of motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales, particularly those involving trucks and buses, is a reminder of the dangers associated with travelling on Sydney’s roads.

Remarkably, an accident on 13 October, 2014 in which two buses (one carrying school children) made heavy contact, did not result in any fatalities. The collision did, however, initiate a dangerous sequence of events, whereby the school bus lost control and careered into five passenger vehicles causing injuries to the drivers and passengers.

Unfortunately, accidents such as these occur all too often. Tragically, such accidents often result in death or injury through no fault of the injured party. Families can be left with the loss of the primary earner or caregiver or an injured person can be left permanently incapacitated, unable to return to work and provide for themselves or their family.

It is not only those that are injured in motor vehicle accidents that have legal rights, but also those that are left behind following the death of a loved one. Such compensation is provided for by the Compensation to Relatives Act. In order to explore your entitlement to compensation, you must act quickly. Strict time limits apply following car, truck and bus accidents.

Contact BPC Lawyers on (02) 8280 6900 for a free, no obligation discussion with an Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Law.

About BPC: BPC provides people with workers compensation claims, motor accident claims and public liability claims. BPC has its origins in a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975.

The Truth About Trasylol

The Truth About Trasylol

Considered a “wonder drug” and designed to prevent excessive bleeding during surgery, Trasylol was administered to thousands of unsuspecting Australians over the course of some 35 years.

At $1,000 per dose, it netted German pharmaceutical giant, Bayer, hundreds of millions of dollars.

There was a lethal catch though; the drug can cause an increase in the rate of heart failure, an increase in the instance of kidney failure and is said to have increased the risk of stroke by 181%. These were risks not posed by the cheaper alternatives. Recent allegations (including a TV item on Sunday Night) suggest that, despite Bayer’s own studies revealing this increased risk, the drug remained on the market and Bayer allegedly suppressed the negative results. It was not until 2006 when the author of one study became a whistle-blower, revealing all to the USA Food and Drug Administration.

In 2007, the drug was pulled off the market worldwide. It was too late, however, for the hundreds of families across Australia who suffered the loss of a loved one. Thousands more must now endure a lifetime of kidney dialysis and blood thinning treatment.

If you or someone you know has been affected by Trasylol, you must act quickly. Limitation periods apply. Please contact BPC Lawyers on 8280 6900 to speak to one of our medical negligence specialists and to find out whether you are entitled to compensation.

About BPC: BPC provides people with workers compensation claims, motor accident claims and public liability claims. BPC has its origins in a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975.

Workers Compensation: Death Claims

Workers Compensation: Death Claims

When a loved one dies unexpectedly or prematurely, they often leave behind family members who were financially dependent on them.

If the death of that loved one was caused or substantially contributed to by their work, the dependents have the right to claim a lump sum death benefit under Workers Compensation legislation.

We recently acted for the children of a deceased worker. The deceased worked extremely long hours and was on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, causing her significant stress. It was not disputed that she was a very dedicated worker.

On the day of her death, the deceased worker was travelling to a work meeting, when she suffered a fatal heart attack. The children brought a claim against her employer, alleging that their mother’s employment had been a substantial contributing factor to her death.

This was a complex matter. The deceased had a variety of risk factors for a heart attack, and some of these were unrelated to her work. However, she also had risk factors (such as not having time to exercise, and being under great stress on the day of her death) which were work-related.

We sought several expert reports from a cardiologist in relation to these issues, and we got reports that were supportive of the childrens’ case. We also took statements from all of the children, as well as close friends and partners as to the deceased’s work situation. This matter was then heard in the Workers Compensation Commission. A decision was given after some months, and the children won. They were awarded the maximum death benefit.

The employer’s insurer then appealed that decision, and several months later, that appeal was heard by the Deputy President of the Workers Compensation Commission. We have recently been advised that the children won the appeal as well.

This has been a long and hard fought case, and was helped by the thorough preparation of both lay and expert evidence. It has been very rewarding to assist such deserving clients, and to see them secure a positive outcome on 2 separate occasions.

About BPC: BPC provides people with workers compensation claims, motor accident claims and public liability claims. BPC has its origins in a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975.

Cyclist Receives Compensation from CARS After Injury in Car Accident

Cyclist Receives Compensation from CARS After Injury in Car Accident

Mr Smith (name changed for privacy reasons) suffered injury on 08 November 2009.

He was waiting at an intersection on his bicycle when a car did not see him and struck him from behind.

He suffered bruises, abrasions and a soft tissue injury to his shoulders and back. He was prescribed strong pain-killing medication.

In August 2010 the medication he had been prescribed caused Mr Smith to have a seizure as a result of which he suffered more serious injuries including fractures in his back that required surgery.

Mr Smith lodged his claim for compensation with the green slip insurer of the vehicle that caused his accident. It was not long however before he realised that he needed the assistance of a specialist lawyer to guide him through the process.

Initially, the insurer disputed that the injuries were caused in the motor vehicle accident. The insurer argued that the seizure was a separate incident unrelated to the accident and as a result, it was not responsible to pay for any further loss or damage.

We made an application to the Medical Assessment Service of the Motor Accidents Authority on behalf of our client who determined that the injuries suffered in the seizure were caused by the car accident because they arose from the medication that Mr Smith had been taking for pain.

An application was then made to have the claim assessed at CARS (the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service of the Motor Accidents Authority). Mr Smith was awarded $1,818,582.87 plus costs.

Whilst CARS can deal with claims of any size, traditionally CARS has been reserved for cases that are relatively straightforward.  Increasingly, however, CARS has taken on the role of determining claims where serious factual issues are involved.

If you have been involved in a motor vehicle accident and would like advice about your rights, please feel free to contact our office on 8355 4003 to make an appointment to consult with one of our Accredited Specialists.

About BPC: BPC Lawyers provides people with workers compensation claims, motor accident claims and public liability claims. BPC Lawyers has its origins in a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975.

Costa talks compo for cruise ship survivors. But who is to blame?

Six Costa Concordia cruise shipwreck survivors file suit in Miami Federal Court seeking $460 million in damages. The lawsuit names Costa Cruises and parent company, Carnival Cruises; lawyer cites ‘stress of disaster’

The lawsuit filed in U.S. Federal Court seeks $460 million in damages and names Costa Cruises and its parent Carnival Corp. Both have offices in South Florida.

The attorney representing the six passengers told The Miami Herald that the stress of the disaster off the Italian coast will never go away.

In another lawsuit filed in Chicago, a crew member seeks class-action status and at least $100 million in damages from Carnival and Costa.

Article Source: NY Daily News

Coronial Inquest: Death on the Newell Highway

In 2007, two trucks used to transport goods were travelling in opposite directions on the Newell Highway in Northern New South Wales. A tyre on one of the trucks blew, forcing it into the oncoming lane. A head-on collision between the two trucks was unavoidable and a massive fire ensued. Tragically, both drivers were killed. The deaths of both of these drivers were referred to the State Coroner, and it was determined that these deaths were to be the subject of a joint inquest.

Read More

BPC in the News

Many of our clients would have seen our partner, Courtenay Poulden appear on Today Tonight recently. Courtenay was being interviewed following a decision of the Supreme Court which accepted our argument that our client was entitled to substantial compensation as a result of negligent dental treatment.

Read More