Australia worker comp

[richard thurman]

(Newser) – In the just-so-you-know department: Getting injured while having sex on a business trip does not qualify you for workers' comp benefits. Or at least that's how things roll in Australia, where a crazy case managed to reach the nation's highest court, reports Bloomberg. It started in 2007, when a 30-something woman got hit in the face by a falling light fixture during a moment of passion with her lover in a motel room. Because her employer had booked the room, she filed for benefits and set off the legal fight.
Though a federal court ruled in her favor, Australia's High Court decreed today that the woman is out of luck, reports the Australian. “The relevant question is: Did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity?" said the court decision. “The majority held that the answer to that question was 'no.'" The woman needed treatment at the hospital for injuries to her face, notes ABC of Australia, and she also claimed post-traumatic stress disorder.

are you guys for real down there?? I thought this was so funny I had to share. I would like to see someone in the USA try this.

 

[Jastab]

I'm sure it's been done here in the USA, just never put in the spotlight. That's freakin hilarious tho!

 

[Bob W]

I saw the earlier court case on the news when I was in Australia last year. To help explain, it seems their laws are quite a bit different than ours.

Because she was injured on a work trip during an ordinary everyday activity (as opposed to sky-diving or skiing while on a company trip) it seemed like her injuries could be covered by their workers comp program.
In the states you'd probably only be covered under workman's comp on a business trip if you were working on the clock or at a job site.

And in the states, the hotel would have been at the receiving end of the lawsuit.

In the middle of the night a light fixture fell from the ceiling of an Australian hotel and smashed to pieces, scattering glass all over a co-worker's room. So it seems Australia has a problem with that...

 

[richard thurman]

but the way I am reading it. the light fell down while they where having sex. how is that the companies fault please?? Now if it fell down while she was just saying in the room then I could see the comp but not while she is having sex with some one.

 

[Bob W]

but the way I am reading it. the light fell down while they where having sex. how is that the companies fault please??

I don't believe she ever claimed it was the company's fault. But she was in the hotel on a business trip, as opposed to being in her own bed at home. Same as if she hit a 'roo while driving a company vehicle.

I don't think she was suing her employer either, merely trying to collect workers comp, which is a government insurance program that she'd paid into.

Now if it fell down while she was just saying in the room then I could see the comp but not while she is having sex with some one.

Her argument, which was successful in the lower court, was that she was doing an ordinary normal everyday activity when injured. The same as if the light fell while she was brushing her teeth or taking a crap.

I'll have to read up more. Like I said, their workers comp coverage is quite a bit different than ours, and I was curious how the court would rule.

 

[richard thurman]

well I copy the whole news letter that was on juno.com if you find something else then please post it here for the rest of us to read.

 

[Krav]

When I lived in south Florida, and you were driving down I 95 there was a big billboard there that said- who can I sue-
With a picture of a guy in a suit and a briefcase falling.

I'm sure she will try to sue someone else if they don't have a statue of limitations.

 

[Bob W]

well I copy the whole news letter that was on juno.com if you find something else then please post it here for the rest of us to read.

Here's a version of the story from last December when her claim was accepted by an appeals court:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559584/aussie-court-workers-comp-covers-sex-mishap/

"If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room, she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced her to engage in such activity," Nicholas wrote in his judgment in favor of the woman receiving compensation.

 

[Bob W]

I'm sure she will try to sue someone else if they don't have a statue of limitations.

She didn't sue anybody; she was appealing the insurance company's decision. And it flip-flopped every step of the way.
At first they accepted her claim. Then rejected it. Then a "tribunal" (like an arbitration I think) agreed with the insurance company's rejection. Then the appeals court ruled in her favor. Finally, the Australian supreme court over-rode the lower court decision.

I have no opinion as to whether she should have been covered by the insurance. Would they have covered if, as one judge supposed, if she were playing cards instead?

 

[Cereal_killer]

Is she trying to get cash or just get her med bills paid? I would have to agree with her (if she's only trying to get the bills paid) that she was in the room because her company required it, who cares what she was doing. Now if she's actually trying to get cash then I wouldn't agree with that because she was obvously partaking in personal activity.

Here's another view-who was she screwing? If it was someone releated to her business, either co-worker or client, I would think that would be taken into consideration (especially if, while not directly instructed to do so, she WAS expected to "entertain/socialize" with the businesses clients). I think it needs to come out who she was with.

 

[sideways]

It should be a pretty straight forward case. The fact she was having sex is just something to confuses the real issue. As I understand it, the case is not about saying whose fault the accident is, it is about whether the insurance covers accidents outside working hours while still on a business trip.

If "workman's compensation" is an insurance policy that covers employees health costs for the whole of a business trip then it is clear they should be paying for the medical bills. If the policy doesn't cover anything outside working hours it is still clear cut. If coverage is not clear from the way the contract is written then the insurance should still pay.

Any kind of punitive damages for pain and suffering should not factor into it, IMHO. Only the medical bills for the face getting stitched up. And PTSD from a lamp falling on your head during sex is not a valid medical disorder.