WCRA: damages & allegations of fraud and pre-existing injuries

Hoppe v Burns [2010] QSC 490

McMeekin J refused to take into account allegations of fraud simply by reference to discrepancies in records from Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office. Likewise, his Honour did not factor in pre-existing injuries, which were not shown to impact his earning capacity. However, both loss of past and future income were heavily discounted because of the plaintiff’s lack of motivation to work, which was not displaced by contrary evidence. Future loss of income was allowed to the age of 67.

 

 Date  Decision  Age  Injury  CLA ISV  Uplift  Occupation Past loss of income  Future loss of income  G v K
30.03.10 Hoppe v Burns [2010] QSC 490

 

Rockhampton,

McMeekin

37(M) $65,000[1]

compound injury to the right upper arm involving deeper structures;

20 percent division of the median nerve and five percent division of the musculocutaneous nerve;

loss of sensation in his thumb, index and middle finger of his right hand and altered sensation on the medial side of his right forearm;

Dr Nave assessed the impairment at 32 percent loss of efficient use of the right arm and equated that to 19 percent whole person impairment

 

Labourer $70,000

After first having discounted by 40% because of lack of motivation to work and poor work history generally.[2]

$170,000

Allowed $250 per week until the age of 67[3] discounted by 15%.

Assessed residual earning capacity at 50% and factored low motivation when assessing overall net weekly wage

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack

 

 

 



[1] Bathis v Startrack Express & Ors [2009] QCS 331 referred to.

[2] At para [57].

[3] At para [63].

 

Related Posts

Recent Comments

    Categories