WorkCover has been slammed by a panel of Supreme Court justices for its "win at all costs" fight against an injured tuna diver.

WORKCOVER has been slammed by a panel of Supreme
Court justices for its "win at all costs" fight against an injured tuna diver.
The compensation authority's five-year campaign against Port Lincoln man Jeffrey lan Thompson ended on Friday after the court ruled It had been "oppressive" and "un-
fair".
The court ruled WorkCover had failed to prove Mr Thompson faked decompression Illness to avoid go-
ing to work, despite a lengthy investigation that saw him tracked across Europe throughout his honeymoon.
The decision could result In tax-payers handing over more than $800.000 in court costs after the bench ruled WorkCover would have to pay Mr Thompson's legal
fees and expenses.
A court-appointed auditor will determine the exact amount.
WorkCover has spent at least that amount prosecuting the case.
"It's just such a relief after having it over my head for five years," Mr Thompson said on Friday.
"I had to sell my home: I had to borrow money from family.
"But I stood firm. Not just for myself but for the other people who have been oppressed."
Mr Thompson, 38, from Port Lincoln, was paid more than $590,000 in workers' compensation over 10 years after he was diagnosed with decompression illness in 1994,
But the payments were cut off when WorkCover laid a complaint of 95 charges against the sick man.
Including 69 counts of dishonestly making a statement about a claim and 26 counts of obtaining a payment by dishonest means.
The compensation authority claimed in court that Mr Thompson had either invented his 1994 illness,
or that he had recovered but pretended to still be sick years later.
He was eventually found guilty on 16 counts - amounting to $9571 in wrongly claimed benefits and was sentenced to two years and four months jail, with a nonparole period of five months.
But bizarrely, Mr Thompson was ordered to repay $90,000 of the benefits he received and $60.000 in court costs.
A retrial was later ordered but this week's judgment saw the matter thrown out in its entirety.
The panel of three justices said Mr Thompson had been refused repeated requests for adjournments to allow him time to sell his house and organise legal representation.
"Mr Thompson was unrepresented during critical stages of
the trial, and although he later obtained representation, the initial prejudice was incurable," the judgment said.
WorkCover was heavily criticised for trying to claim Mr Thompson had either made up his illness or continued to act sick after recovering, "The alternative particulars made
it impossible for Mr Thompson to have a fair trial." the judgment said.
"On the one hand, he faced an allegation that he had suffered no compensable injury. "At the same time, he faced an allegation that he did suffer a com-
pensable Injury but had recovered."
The judgment said these charges were "not simply latently ambiguous, but patently ambiguous" and that the prosecution effort "bore all the hallmarks of a desire to win at all costs with scant regard to the fact that it was prosecuting serious criminal offences".
The justices said that, in any case, Mr Thompson would have been unfit for work. having developed clinical depression as a result of his Illness.
WorkCover was also criticised for using its own prosecutors in a matter where it considered itself
the victim of a crime. They said the authority's prosecu-
tion team would not have been able to conduct themselves with "fairness and impartiality".
WorkCover yesterday would not comment on the case, other than to say it was looking into the decision.

Posted by Sunday Mail 06/09/09 Story by Kate Kyriacou at 8:21 AM, 6/9/2009

another spotlight illuminating workcovers entrenched adversarial approach to injured workers.surely the message that the number of genuine people forced to claim through workcover far exceeds the minute number of scammers.of course i may have missed the point and there may be some long term benefit associated with throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into investigations rather than thousands into rehabilitation?maybe the key decision makers will fill us in! paul

here is one of the most intriguin workcover stories I have ever read.
Shame on WorkCover


http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=584