Care worker claims for injury triggered by overweight client
NEW YORK: A court has to determine whether or not wheeling an overweight client in a wheelchair triggered a back and shoulder injury and if it so finds, how much should the care employer be ordered to pay.
In Katica Ivanovic v State of New South Wales (South Western Local Health District), Arbitrator Marshal Douglas, Approved Medical Specialist Dr Drew Dixon and Approved Medical Specialist Dr John Ashwell of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales considered whether:
- the AMS was in error
- the worker should be reassessed
- the worker was entitled to compensation
The worker, Katica Ivanovic, worked as a ward assistant for the employer, the State of New South Wales. On 7 July 2017 she was wheeling an overweight patient in a wheelchair when she suffered injuries to her lower back and left shoulder.
She sought lump sum compensation from the employer for a 26 per cent whole person impairment. The employer denied the claim and the case was brought to court. The worker was referred to an approved medical specialist (AMS) who assessed her as having a total six per cent whole person impairment. The worker appealed this decision.
On the day of her injury the worker was pushing a patient weighing 125 kilograms in a wheelchair. She tried to push the patient up a ramp and felt pain in her back.
The worker had suffered previous injuries to her back in a car accident not long before. She later underwent surgery on her back due to the car accident injuries.
The worker’s doctor assessed the worker as having a five per cent impairment due to her upper spine, 13 per cent impairment due to her lower spine and 10 per cent impairment due to her left shoulder. The employer’s doctor had assessed the worker as suffering a total nine per cent whole person impairment.
The worker argued the AMS was in error in taking her previous injuries so much into account, and argued that the assessment contained inconsistencies. The employer argued the assessment was accurate.
In deciding the appeal, the judges reviewed the AMS’s findings and noted that they contained several assumptions. The judges found that the AMS did not indicate which evidence supported their findings. The judges found the AMS had made the assessment based on incorrect criteria.
The judges re-assessed the worker, finding that she had suffered a 14 per cent whole person impairment due to her work.