Did employer do enough safety-wise? Worker refuses to return after medical clearance
The District Court of Queensland recently dealt with a case where a worker argued their employer failed to properly assess workplace risks and provide adequate safety measures, leading to a serious injury. The worker also claimed insufficient training contributed to the incident.
The case explored the obligations of both employers and workers following workplace injuries, particularly regarding return-to-work processes and ongoing communication.
It raised questions about workplace safety measures and the responsibilities of both parties in managing post-injury employment relationships.
The incident occurred on 1 April 2019, when a 23-year-old worker sustained an injury while operating machinery.
Despite making a good recovery and receiving medical clearance for suitable duties by late April 2019, he did not return to his usual employment after being certified fit in September 2019.
The worker was employed at a meat processing facility, where his role involved using a bandsaw to cut veal ribs. The task required manually feeding meat towards the blade while maintaining close hand proximity to the cutting edge.
The employer acknowledged owing a duty of care, particularly given that workers necessarily needed to bring their fingers close to an unguarded blade. However, they argued that all reasonable safety measures were in place.
The injury resulted in a partial amputation of the worker's right index finger. The treating surgeon, Dr McEniery, performed two surgeries and monitored the recovery process closely.
As noted in the court documents: "[The worker] made a reasonably good recovery and was certified as being able to perform suitable duties from 27 April 2019. His treating orthopaedic surgeon certified him as fit to return to his usual employment from 3 September 2019."
The medical evidence showed the injury had stabilised by September 2019, with Dr McEniery stating: "I have reassured [the worker] that he has a solid arthrodesis and he can load it knowing that the arthrodesis has united."
The employer's rehabilitation records documented several attempts to accommodate the worker through suitable duties programs. However, issues arose after the worker received full medical clearance.
When presented with the clearance certificate, the worker repeatedly stated his "finger is not right." The employer suggested getting a second medical opinion and requested to be kept informed of any developments.
The Events Log showed multiple instances where the worker either didn't attend work or became unresponsive to communication attempts, eventually leading to the termination of employment in October 2019.
Following the employment termination, the worker later secured a driver position with significantly higher pay. The court noted: "[The worker] had obtained secure work as a driver... His average weekly earnings at that time were $1,580; more than double his weekly wage with [the employer]."
The court found that the worker's actions, rather than the injury itself, led to employment losses: "[The worker's] own actions in disengaging with his employment when disappointed to have been certified as medically cleared to return to work which brought to an end the permanent employment available to him."
The final judgment emphasised: "Maintaining his employment as best he could, would have mitigated any potential loss. He failed to do that." This highlighted the court's position on the importance of workers actively participating in return-to-work processes.
