An employer has been ordered to reinstate and compensate a worker it dismissed after he had spinal surgery, after an independent medical examiner's advice led to it wrongly concluding he could no longer perform his role safely.
A worker who was accused of breaching his employer's work health and safety requirements was unfairly dismissed, a court has ruled, finding the employer misinterpreted its own procedures.
A worker who attempted to return to work after suffering a non-work-related injury has been awarded $44,000 in damages, after a court found his employer discriminated against him by ignoring medical advice and refusing to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his return.
A worker who aggravated his osteoarthritis, which led to a secondary knee condition, has been awarded compensation for both injuries, with a tribunal rejecting his employer's claim it isn't liable because the worker experienced pain for more than a year before he disclosed it.
A court has ordered two companies to pay more than $1.6 million in damages to a labour-hire worker, who was injured performing a "mundane" task that was unsafe because it "included a tripping hazard as an integral part of its operation".
An employer has failed to convince a tribunal that lifting and twisting doesn't cause hernias, in seeking to avoid liability for an injury it argued was "almost certainly pre-existing".
More than one in two workers who were deemed, by a major study, to have poor posture while performing "pushing and pulling" tasks, developed severe lower back pain (LBP), highlighting the significant association between the two variables.
An "administrative" worker who was required to undertake repetitive bending work for a "long duration" - without adequate rest breaks or appropriate equipment - has been awarded more than $1.3 million in damages, after a court found her host employer negligently caused her lower back pain and secondary psychological injury.
In an environment where the findings of workers' compensation medical panels are facing increasing legal challenges, an appeals court - referring to a High Court judgment - has affirmed that applicants can't "overzealously" scrutinise panel reports to challenge their reasoning.