$ex injury compo claim

**Pesca77** · 20-04-2012 08:18

http://www.news.com.au/business/work...-1226333292525

What are your thoughts??!

Personally I think it's ridiculous that she 1) even thought she had a case and was happy for this to be made public and 2) our system actually agrees that this would be considered a work compo claim!!

I would have thought at best she could try and sue the motel....but then her 'friend' has admitted they may have damaged it themselves anyway because they were 'going hard'....WTF??! Lmao.....

**share a book** · 20-04-2012 08:22

Laugh if you like, but this was a workplace injury and she suffered from it.

**happygirl1982** · 20-04-2012 08:23

When I first saw this I thought she was a sex worker and thought fair enough. Then I read the article. What a joke!! People who have genuine claims are getting rejected and she's winning! Dodgy :/

**lambjam** · 20-04-2012 08:23

I have no problem with it at all. As the judge said, had she injured herself playing cards in her room it would be considered a work related injury; how is this any different?

Had she not been travelling for work, she wouldn't have been in the room and wouldn't have sustained the injury. It might be a little more unusual than the average workers' compensation case, but the logic remains the same.

**MsMummy** · 20-04-2012 08:24

I would think that workcover will seek to recover against the motel, as light fittings shouldn't fall off.

Workcover claims are pretty broad, and include travelling to work. She was only in the motel due to work commitments, and sex can be a normal element of staying in a motel. As they said, if she was playing cards in the motel, she would be covered, so why not sex.

I feel sorry for her. Even though there's a suppression order for her name, her colleagues would know, she's had to recount intimate details to her lawyers and the court.

**Janesmum123** · 20-04-2012 08:27

Love it. The best bit was "at the time going hard"..hahaha.

**biscotti** · 20-04-2012 08:46

Originally Posted by Pesca77

http://www.news.com.au/business/work...-1226333292525

What are your thoughts??!

Personally I think it's ridiculous that she 1) even thought she had a case and was happy for this to be made public .

I'm not sure we can assume she was " happy" for it to be made public

She sustained facial injuries from the glass, it all sounds pretty dreadful to me and she has had to retell the event who knows how many times to complete strangers, sounds stressful, embarrassing and unpleasant

**MsMummy** · 20-04-2012 08:51

She wasn't happy for it to be public. She wasn't going to proceed unless the court suppressed her name.

**lambjam** · 20-04-2012 08:52

Originally Posted by biscotti

I'm not sure we can assume she was " happy" for it to be made public

She sustained facial injuries from the glass, it all sounds pretty dreadful to me and she has had to retell the event who knows how many times to complete strangers, sounds stressful, embarrassing and unpleasant

It does sound simply awful. I'm not sure how anyone could view this as money-grabbing.