Category: untitled

Lodging a Worker’s Compensation Claim form – when and why? 


A worker who is injured at work is entitled to compensation benefits including (subject to restrictions) payment of medical expenses, compensation for wage loss and compensation for permanent impairment suffered.

Need help with filling Work Injury Claim Form? Contact our workers compensation lawyer.

Injuries suffered in the course of employment can often need little by way of time off work or treatment. However, even the most innocuous incident can lead to considerable financial and medically disastrous results. They can, at first, seem not to have caused much by way of damage.

However, it can take considerable time for symptoms to materialise or an employee may fear for their job if they make a claim.  


It’s imperative that workers lodge incident reports and workers compensation claim forms for all incidents to which they have suffered injury.  

These forms are available from your employer and must be provided upon request. 

It is also advisable to seek medical attention by your local medical physician so that your medical condition is documented and you obtain an opinion as to the severity of your condition. 

This claim form must be as comprehensive in detail as possible, including all injuries suffered, even when the symptoms seem mild at the time. 


The Workers Compensation legislation sets time limits for the lodgement of claims. Any delay could mean that you lose the right to compensation.  

You must inform your employer that you have suffered an injury as soon as possible: Section 254 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) 

If you did not inform your employer and wish to make a claim, you must show special circumstances, including: 

a/ That the employer hasn’t been placed into a position of disadvantage in responding to or dealing with your claim, 

b/ You did not tell your employer due to your “ignorance, mistake, absence from the State or other reasonable cause”, 

c/ Your employer knew about your injury anyway, or 

d/ Your employer reported the circumstances to the nominal insurer. 

You must also then lodge your claim for compensation within 6 months of the injury: Section 261 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW).   

If you lodge a claim after the six month period, you must show special circumstances, including: 

a/ You didn’t lodge you claim in time due to some ignorance, mistake, absence from the State or other reasonable cause AND you made the claim within 3 years of your injury; 

b/ You didn’t lodge a claim in time due to some ignorance, mistake, absence from the State or other reasonable cause AND your work incident has caused serious and permanent disablement;  

c/ The insurer accepts your claim and fails to mention this issue, or  

d/ Your injury was only realised after the incident and you have complied with one of the conditions listed above. 


We strongly advise you to immediately lodge a claim for workers compensation and notify your employer of any injury. This will ensure your rights to compensation aren’t taken away from you, especially if there is a delayed or late onset of a serious condition.  

Indeed, I have come across many situations where employers have attempted to convince workers not to make workers compensation claims, instead agreeing to meet their time off work and treatment expenses themselves.  

Whilst workers may wish to keep their employer happy for reasons of job security, it must always be borne in mind that such agreements with your employer are far from secured long term.  

Given the protection from termination for 6 months from your claim (Section 248 Workers Compensation Act 1987) and the common uncertainty as to how long your condition may take to recover, the prudent course must be to lodge a claim for workers compensation.  

Should your condition require surgery, or seems to be causing you serious and permanent financial and medical hardship, you should contact our office in order to seek advice as to what other rights you might have to compensation. 


Timothy Driscoll LLM (Sydney) 

Associate of BPC Lawyers 

4 October 2017 




BPC Law have again been recognised by the Doyles Guide for our expertise in personal injury.

BPC Lawyers

The Doyles Guide is an independent organisation that ranks law firms based on peer surveys as well as extensive telephone and face to face interviews with clients, peers and relevant industry bodies. It is pleasing for BPC Law to be recognised by Doyles, as personal injury lawyers’ rankings are compiled by feedback from defendant insurance solicitors.

We believe having the respect of colleagues gives BPC Law an edge for our clients that other firms cannot provide.

In 2015 and 2016, BPC Law received the following rankings:

Leading Medical Negligence Law Firm (Plaintiff) – 2015, 2016;
Leading Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Law Firm – 2015, 2016;
Leading Workplace Injury & Compensation Law Firm (Plaintiff) – 2015 / Recommended Workplace Injury & Compensation Law Firm (Plaintiff) – 2016; and
Leading Public Liability Law Firm (Plaintiff) – 2015, 2016.

Courtenay Poulden

Leading Public Liability Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Recommended Motor Vehicle Accident & Injury Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Scott Hall-Johnston

Recommended Public Liability Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Recommended Medical Negligence Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Recommended Work Injury & Accident Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Mark Nelson

Leading Public Liability Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Leading Motor Vehicle Accident & Injury Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Kate Henderson

Leading Medical Negligence Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2016
Leading Medical Negligence Lawyers (Plaintiff) – NSW, 2015

About Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers

Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers is a leading Sydney legal practice with accredited motor accident compensation lawyers, specialist workers compensation lawyers. The practice has its origins as a legal practice started by Barry Beilby in 1975. The business expanded significantly in 1993 when the practice merged with that of Flannery Mura & Costello, a firm specialising in Compensation law.

For more information, please visit The website.

Contact Info:
Name: Mark Nelson Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers
Address: Level 18, 201 Elizabeth St., Sydney, NSW Australia 2000
Phone: +61 (02) 8280 6900


Australians Alerted To Proposed Changes To Motor Accident Compensation Laws

Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers is a leading Sydney legal practice and accredited specialists in Personal Injury law. In a recent communiqué they make all Australians aware of the proposed changes to motor vehicle compensation laws.
Personal Injury Lawyers Sydney
The Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, the Honourable, Victor Dominello MP announced in a media release on 2 March 2016 that the Government will be establishing a task force to counteract CTP fraud in New South Wales and will also conduct a review of the present CTP scheme.The Government has a clear agenda to reduce the cost of a green slip in New South Wales and is keen to see that a high proportion of the green slip premium goes towards helping the injured person.

Statistical information indicates only 45% of the premium is paid in direct claimant benefits and furthermore, 19% of the premium represents profit for the licensed insurers.

The Government has put on the table a number of potential reform options which are as follows: Option 1 – retain the current common law, fault based scheme with process improvements; Option 2 – retain the current common law, fault based scheme with adjustments to benefit levels as well as process improvements; Option 3 – move to a hybrid no fault, defined benefit scheme with common law benefits retained in parallel; and Option 4 – move to a fully no fault, defined benefit scheme with caps, thresholds and no common law.

As these discussions have progressed since March 2016, it appears the Government is in favour of option 3. This proposed scheme is similar to the scheme presently operating in Victoria which is managed by the Transport Accident Commission.

Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers believe it is important to note the present scheme in New South Wales is already a hybrid scheme with no fault benefits paid to a significant number of classes of persons injured in New South Wales. For example, upon lodgement of the Accident Notification Form payments are made to injured persons up to the sum of $5,000.00 for medical expenses. There is also the blameless accident legislation, Lifetime Care and Support Scheme and no fault coverage for children.

In the Victorian scheme there are no payments made for gratuitous domestic assistance. At the present time in New South Wales, persons who are injured can receive assistance from friends or relatives with self-care and domestic chores but such assistance must be not less than 6 hours per week and for a period not less than 6 months. The rate is legislated by statute at $29.44 per hour and is CPI indexed.

If the present legislation is changed, Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers believes there is cause for concern in ascertaining the entry level or threshold for access to common law benefits. Most objective observers of the proposed changes are concerned that the CTP scheme will not provide adequate economic loss compensation in most cases – meaning that those who cannot afford to pay for separate income protection insurance will be left ‘high and dry’.

Mr Mark Nelson, Partner of Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers said, “more than ever, injured persons need to consult experienced practitioners in the area of personal injury litigation and seek the assistance of solicitors who have many years’ experience in pe

Whose Fault, Doctor or Hospital?

Medical Compensation ClaimThe Supreme Court recently had occasion to look at the respective responsibilities of a hospital and a treating specialist when a patient tragically died in Newcastle Private Hospital.

In this case the patient died after undergoing elective surgery. The deceased’s family brought a claim for their nervous shock and for the loss of the financial benefit of the deceased.

In the case of Stefanyszyn -v- Brown & Newcastle Private Hospital, the specialist doctor admitted that he had breached his duty to the deceased. He filed a Cross Claim arguing that the hospital was at fault as well.

What happened to the deceased is that a loop of suture material was inadvertently looped around the deceased’s bowel resulting in a blockage and the onset of infection.

The specialist said that there were a number of steps that could have been taken by the hospital staff during the recovery process which should have been followed and communicated to him so that he could properly assess the deceased’s condition.

There are some very important comments in the Judgment of Justice Schmidt about the way in which a hospital and its specialist doctors have a responsibility to take reasonable care for a patient. The basis of a hospital’s duty arises out of the hospital/patient relationship. There is a distinction between the duty owed by a hospital which functions as a place where medical care facilities are provided for the use of physician and his patient, and that of a hospital which functions as a place where a person in need of treatment goes in order to obtain treatment provided by the hospital. The treatment provided in an Emergency Department of a hospital provides a common place example of the latter. In the former case, the patient’s use of the hospital is the result of an arrangement made between the hospital and the physician by which the physician is granted hospital privileges. In such cases, the hospital is not responsible for the negligence of the physician. The hospital is only responsible for those employed to provide the services the hospital provides to the patient.

In the result it was concluded that the duty which the hospital owed the deceased extended not only to the nursing and paramedical services it provided her, but also to the services which should have been provided to her by all members of the clinical team it assigned to help the specialist.

The Court found that both the specialist and the hospital each independently owed a duty of care to the deceased. While those duties no doubt overlapped given the way that the care was administered, the respective duties never passed from one to the other.

Justice Schmidt ultimately found that the hospital failed the deceased in a number of respects and apportioned liability between the specialist and the hospital.

We are regularly called upon to advise in hospital negligence cases and this decision provides some guidance on how Courts will examine cases where there is fault in more than one party.

Courtenay Poulden