Search

Workplace psychiatric injury is a significant health, economic and social problem. Multiple recent inquiries and reports have drawn attention to the failure of Australian law, including workplace health and safety ('WHS') regulation and compensation laws, to adequately respond to workplace psychiatric injury. This article considers how Australian negligence law has responded to workplace psychiatric injury since the High Court took a restrictive approach in 2005 in Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd. It considers the role of workplace psychosocial hazards in psychiatric injury and the changing Australian WHS landscape, including the evolution of Australian principles of negligence following Koehler. The 2022 High Court decision in Kozarov v Victoria which concerned injury from vicarious trauma is analysed and the tensions and unresolved issues post Kozarov are considered. The article argues that while Australian negligence law has experienced some change of direction post Kozarov, the failure of the High Court to overrule Koehler means it may remain difficult for some injured employees to recover for their workplace psychiatric injuries. Further development of negligence law is required in a way which promotes coherence with the Australian legislative regulatory landscape, and which adequately recognises the nature of workplace psychosocial hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As citizen support is often key in compelling governments to provide reparations, it is important to understand the predictors of citizen support. In two studies, we examined whether and how considering the potential benefits rather than costs of providing reparations affected support for an official government apology and financial compensation. All participants were White Canadian undergraduates, who learned about a previously displaced outgroup community; the community was Black in Study 1, and in Study 2, the community was Black or Indigenous. When the community was Black, participants in the benefit conditions were more supportive of the government providing reparations, because they perceived more benefit to doing so and experienced more empathy; this indirect effect was significant for both types of reparations in Study 1, but only financial reparations in Study 2. When the community was Indigenous, considering the benefits of reparations did not impact support for reparations. We discuss implications for theory and social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Workers in post-industrial societies increasingly occupy jobs with greater risks of psychological injury than physical harm. At the same time, a growing body of research is recognising the untenability of treating psychological injury with less importance than physical harm. In response, Australia's workers' compensation law has evolved to serve this changing landscape by affording comprehensive cover to victims of work-related psychological injury. Conversely, New Zealand's accident compensation law offers limited cover to such victims -- largely remaining an ignorant anachronism of yesteryear. For victims of work-related psychological injury in New Zealand, the repercussions of this disparity are significant. Barred claimants are able to seek compensation under employment law or tort, but such avenues are fraught with obstacles. As a result, successful claims are seldom achieved. These victims then often have no choice but to resort to WINZ benefits -- a welfare system evidenced to render victims less likely to return to work and more likely to face increased poverty and worsening health. Soliciting guidance from Australian legislation, this article argues for the reform of accident compensation law in New Zealand to more liberally compensate for work-related psychological injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In injury compensation schemes, claimants engage lawyers to navigate the claiming process, access benefits, and resolve disputes. As a result, lawyers can play a central role in facilitating claimant access to entitlements, and shaping claimant experiences and outcomes. This article presents findings from the largest empirical investigation of lawyer use in a single compensation scheme: using evidence from almost 50,000 claims in the road traffic injury scheme in Victoria, Australia, the socio-demographic, crash, injury, and recovery factors associated with lawyer use are identified, and explanations for these relationships explored. The analysis shows that some claimants who struggle to access lawyers in other contexts are supported to do so in this scheme. The findings highlight opportunities for improving access to justice within and outside compensation settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Class actions are legal proceedings brought on behalf of numerous persons, known as group members. When a class action settles for a monetary payment to compensate the group members, the payment needs to be divided among the group members. The division and distribution takes place pursuant to a court-approved settlement distribution scheme ('SDS'). Although the SDS is central to the determination of the actual amount that an individual group member receives from a class action settlement, the design and operation of SDSs have attracted little critical attention. This article seeks to start the process of elucidating the operation of SDSs by explaining three main types of class action SDS: (1) global sum with formula; (2) global sum with individualised assessment; and (3) process approach. The article then draws on those SDS models and class action settlement decisions to develop guiding principles or steps for the design of an SDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is wide agreement that existing approaches to valuing noneconomic losses from personal injury lack coherence. “Health‐utility” measurement—an approach developed in health economics for valuing health outcomes in public health and medicine—holds considerable promise for bringing greater rationality and consistency to assessments of injury‐related noneconomic loss. However, the feasibility of creating utility measures that are suitable for use in personal injury compensation has not been demonstrated. This study takes that step. We surveyed more than 4,100 members of the general public in Australia to assess people's preferences for a variety of nonfatal “health states.” The health states were selected to reflect harms commonly seen in claims to compensation schemes for transport and workplace accidents. We then followed established methods for transforming the survey responses into a “severity weight” for each health state. We show how these severity weights can be used to define tiers in a schedule for guiding noneconomic damages determinations. We also discuss the strengths and limitations of the approach, and consider implementation challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]