“I spent my life preparing to care for my ageing parents — but after my injury at work, they’re the ones caring for me”
A mother, wife and a carer for her elderly parents has successfully settled her common law claim against her Employer for $350,000.
Background
Our client, a 54-year-old bakery assistant, worked full-time for nearly three decades as a Bakery Attendant for the Defendant.
Her role in the high-paced production environment involved :
- Repetitive manual handling
- Lifting metal trays
- Feeding biscuits into conveyor belts
- Manually packing trays
- Moving heavy pallets and wrapping film rolls
- Piping icing
Over time, the physically intensive nature of of her duties led to a range of injuries, including :
- Left shoulder injury : Full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, infraspinatus tendinosis, and subacromial bursitis
- Left elbow tendinosis/epicondylitis
- Aggravation of osteoarthritis in both thumbs
- Right shoulder injury : Secondary to the left shoulder injury
- Lower back injury : Disc bulge at L5/S1
- Right knee injury : Medial meniscus tear and aggravated osteoarthritis – sustained whilst engaged in rehabilitation for her shoulder injury.
- Chronic pain syndrome
- Psychiatric injuries : Major depressive disorder and adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood
Subsequent to the work related injuries, our client had a fall at a shopping centre, where she sustained further injury to her left shoulder.
She had consulted a Surgeon who considered the left shoulder to have aggravated following the fall.
Impairment Benefits Claim and Serious Injury Application
Due to the number of injuries our client suffered, she opted to explore an impairment benefit first.
The objective in pursuing such claim was with a view to achieve a score that was as close to 30%.
Whilst her impairment did not reach 30%, it was high and awarded her over $50,000.
In her Serious Injury application, emphasis was placed on our client’s left shoulder —which was surgically treated.
Despite this, the injury was complicated by the subsequent fall in the shopping centre.
Negligence
The employer was alleged to have failed to provide a safe system of work, particularly in relation to our client’s manual handling duties.
These duties were not adequately risk-assessed, tailored to our client’s physical capabilities, or structured with reasonable rotation and breaks.
The employer was also accused of not providing sufficient supervision, instruction, training, direction, or warnings, nor offering adequate assistance—mechanical or otherwise—when such duties required lifting, carrying, or reaching.
There was an alleged lack of proper hazard inspections and risk assessments for tasks involving varying heights, heavy loads, repetitive motions, and above-shoulder reaching, all of which posed foreseeable injury risks.
It was further claimed that the employer permitted our client to perform heavy and repetitive manual handling without sufficient breaks or rotation, exposed them to avoidable injury risks, and failed to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and the associated 2007 Regulations.
In the alternative, our client asserted their injuries were directly caused by these statutory breaches.
The Settlement
Due to the complexity of our client’s claim and the high award of impairment and weekly payments (amounting to over $220,000), our workcover lawyers initiated settlement discussions within the 120 day determination period.
Our submissions emphasised the severity and extensive nature of the injuries, the significant impact the injuries have had on her life and capacity for work, and the strength in our case in negligence against the employer.
We ultimately resolved the matter for $350,000 in addition to the statutory benefits she had received, plus costs.
The case is a powerful example of how long-term workplace strain and repetitive duties can lead to permanent injuries, and the importance of legal representation.
