Victorian court probes serious injury threshold in workplace
The County Court of Victoria recently dealt with a case where a worker sought compensation under the Transport Accident Act 1986. She argued that injuries from a bus incident impacted her ability to work and her future employment prospects.
The worker needed to prove her injuries met the definition of "serious injury" under section 93(4)(d) of the Transport Accident Act 1986. She claimed both immediate injuries from the incident and subsequent complications affected her work capacity.
The case examined whether her injuries substantially impacted her employment and if they qualified for compensation under Victorian law.
In 2003, the worker started at Watch Works at Highpoint Shopping Centre after previous experience in customer service roles. On 26 February 2021, she injured her left heel during a bus incident.
Medical records showed she had pre-existing severe osteoarthritis in her left hip and had experienced a fall in 2020.
Western Hospital initially diagnosed an ankle sprain. Later examinations revealed a fractured left calcaneal, requiring a plaster cast until mid-April 2021 and a moon boot afterward.
During her recovery, she stayed with her sister as she couldn't access her apartment via stairs. This period significantly affected her ability to work.
After treatment, she returned to Watch Works in January 2022, working two days weekly before resuming full-time hours in April 2022. The business entered administration in January 2023, making her position redundant. She later secured employment with a different company at the same store.
Her treating physiotherapist, Ms Osborn, reported: "Due to the extensive degenerative changes within [the worker's] left hip it is likely she will need a total hip replacement in the future... [The worker] will likely have ongoing pain throughout her left foot and ankle due to the chronicity of her injury."
The treating psychologist, Ms Saffron, noted: "[The worker] is keen to recover and her usual everyday attitude is to enjoy life. She will recover well if she can gain meaningful employment that eases her financial worries, that does not exacerbate her leg pain, and that allows her to feel valued and respected as a competent and skilled person."
Orthopaedic surgeon Dr Dooley reported that following this type of injury, "most patients would notice some intermittent heel and ankle pain with prolonged standing on a hard surface and with walking reasonable to long distances."
The worker reported she could no longer walk to work twice weekly as before, though she could still walk up to 5 kilometres at a slower pace. She specifically mentioned difficulties with engraving tasks requiring left foot pressure.
Dr Dooley noted she retained capacity for light physical work, including her pre-injury employment.
The Court found that four years post-incident, the worker maintained stable full-time employment.
The medical evidence confirmed "she is fit for her pre-injury employment and otherwise has the capacity to perform suitable employment in a full-time capacity."
On future employment impact, the Court noted: "There is a suggestion that [the worker] may suffer some pecuniary disadvantage into the future if she were to lose her current job, because of the restrictions placed upon her as a consequence of her injury." However, they determined "there is no evidence this type of work might not be available with another employer."
The Court ultimately concluded: "Having regard to the range of cases, including those that do not come before the court, ultimately I am not persuaded that the consequences of the injury to the left ankle, even including a consequential injury to the left hip, individually or in combination, rise to the mark of at least 'very considerable.'" The application was dismissed with costs.
