Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time WorkCover Corporation WORKCOVER CORPORATION The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council WORKCOVER CORPORATION The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:05): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the minister representing the minister for WorkCover a question about a WorkCover case. Leave granted. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On 5 September last year, Mr Alex Mericka, a badly injured road worker, won a major legal victory against WorkCover after he ran his own compensation case in the Supreme Court. Mr Mericka argued that he had been made to accept a poor redemption payout under duress and was the victim of misleading and unconscionable conduct by WorkCover and the claims agent. Justice Olsson, in his findings, found that the amount that had been accepted was very small and manifestly inadequate and, in fact, said that the expected figure should have been some five times the amount that Mr Mericka agreed to accept. Justice Olsson also made criticisms of the legal and financial advice that had been provided to Mr Mericka prior to him accepting that settlement. The legal advice was provided by the law firm of Lieschke and Weatherill. In the findings Justice Olsson said: The applicant attended Mr Lieschke on 9 May 1997 in the circumstances recited by me. The latter then tendered certain advice to him. For reasons already expressed, that advice does not constitute competent professional advice. There are other critical comments of the nature of the legal advice provided by the legal firm of Lieschke and Weatherill, Mr President, of which you would be very familiar I am sure, to Mr Mericka. WorkCover has subsequently appealed the decision and that appeal, I understand, is scheduled to be heard in May by the full bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal. In the meantime, WorkCover has refused to recommence weekly payments to Mr Mericka since October last year. Mr Mericka's argument (and advocates acting on his behalf) is that the act, in their view, requires that those weekly payments should have commenced from October of last year. My questions to the minister are: 1.	What is the legal basis for the decision by WorkCover to refuse to recommence weekly payments from October 2011 to Mr Mericka? 2.	Does the Minister support WorkCover's decision in this case? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (16:08): I am happy to take those questions on notice and give them to the appropriate minister and bring back a response.