HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKCOVER SA

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the minister who was trusted with the responsibility of looking after WorkCover a question.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just over a week ago, Mr Alex Mericka won a significant legal victory against WorkCover SA. Justice Trevor Olsson found for Mericka in his claim against WorkCover. He was critical of the way Mericka's case had been handled through WorkCover's authorised claims agent at the time, FAI, and the state manager, Ruth Mitchell, whose evidence the judge repeatedly said lacked credibility.

Put simply, Mr Mericka had accepted a payout of about $100,000 when Justice Olsson said that the amount was 'very small and manifestly inadequate' given the expected figure was more like $495,000. Justice Olsson was also critical of Stephen Lieschke, an ex-principal of the law firm, Lieschke and Weatherill, and said that he did not provide competent professional advice to the client, who was confused and in a poor mental state when he signed the documents.

Justice Olsson said that Lieschke, now Deputy President of the Workers Compensation Tribunal, had failed to give Mericka emphatic and unequivocal advice that accepting the payout was ill-advised. He also said:

The inevitable conclusion to which I am driven is that [Mericka] did not ever receive either competent financial advice or competent professional advice.

The judge said that he found it somewhat remarkable that Lieschke, knowing about Mericka's fragile mental state, had not acted more robustly on his behalf. Justice Olsson said:

What was said to [Mericka] was patently not sufficiently comprehensive to enable him to make a truly informed decision as to whether or not to consummate the proposed redemption, particularly bearing in mind his emotional and psychiatric conditions at the time.

Justice Olsson said that Lieschke had seemed to be more concerned about the legal after-effects of the signed agreements rather than the propriety and desirability of whether Mericka should have signed them at all, and there is further criticism of Mr Lieschke's actions in relation to that.

The soon-to-be premier, Mr Weatherill, also gave evidence in that case. In the statement made by Mr Mericka, he said, in a question put to Mr Weatherill—this is from the transcript:

He then recounts that you were flicking through some documents and you started to read the documents. His evidence is that he told you—

that is Mr Weatherill—

that he'd already read the documents a few times and asked you—he just wanted to know what they meant, and that you replied that you weren't here for that: 'You need to see your own solicitor. I've been only asked to read these documents to you,' and that you continued to read the documents out loud, 'and when he finished'—that is, when you finished, you said to Mr Mericka, 'That's it. Now I really must be off,' and stood up to signify that the appointment had come to an end.

Further on in the transcript of the hearings, Mr Mericka put the question to Mr Weatherill, 'Did you say that you've got some recollection of seeing me or do you not?' Mr Weatherill says, 'No.' Question is, 'Okay.' Answer, 'I have no recollection of seeing you.' Mr Weatherill's evidence is that he cannot even remember meeting with Mr Mericka and, therefore, was unable to answer a significant number of further questions in relation to his actions and advice on this important case. Given the transcript of the evidence and those findings of Justice Olsson, my questions to the minister are as follows:

1. Given the decision that has been taken in relation to this case, what does WorkCover propose to do for the many other injured workers who were treated similarly by WorkCover and their agents over those previous years and subsequent years as well? In particular, has WorkCover decided to appeal the judgement and has there been any discussion with the minister about whether the government supports WorkCover appealing this particular judgement?

2. What has been the total cost to WorkCover so far in fighting this long case?

3. Has WorkCover conducted and provided to the minister an estimate of the number of other potential cases that might be covered by the terms of the decision and judgement by Justice Olsson in the Mericka case, and, if so, what is that number and what are the costs and implications to WorkCover if this particular judgement stands and applies to many other injured workers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his questions and will refer them to the Hon. Jack Snelling in another place and bring back a response.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT