More Benefits Should Flow To Insured Drivers
The Age
Friday February 3, 1995
from James B. Gurry, Gurry & Associates.
Efforts to highlight the continuing inadequacies with the Transport Accident Act and its implementation are to be commended, although it is sad that there are people who cannot understand that there are some lawyers involved in the personal injury jurisdiction who may be motivated by other factors beyond self-interest.
Many reforms of the act are still needed but are often overlooked because of successes by the Transport Accident Commission in other areas. But it must not be forgotten that the purpose of the act goes beyond merely reducing the incidence of transport accidents and the costs of such accidents to the community. It also includes the provision of just compensation to and the suitable rehabilitation of people injured as a result of transport accidents.
The determination of compensation should not be based solely on economic grounds. In all other insurance contracts, the insured person has the right to establish what are the entitlements and compensation that may be recovered if a claim is made. The unused funds are then returned to the insured in some way. This can be by further and better services or reduced premiums. Due to the incredible financial success of the commission, drivers should be receiving the benefits of this financial success. In other words, premiums should be reduced, or the money used to provide better benefits or increased compensation.
There are two clear examples where this could be done. First, there is a desperate need for suitable accommodation for seriously injured people after they have been discharged from rehabilitation centres. In most cases, the commission is responsible for payment of the assisted accommodation in such cases. Why therefore, doesn't it build and maintain suitable accommodation from which it can derive an income?
While such establishments may not be as news catching as the purchase of Southgate, it would be far more effective in assisting those in need.
The second situation exists where limits are imposed on injured people with regard to payment for loss of earnings. Unless a person has received an impairment assessment of 50 per cent or more, they are precluded from long-term loss of earnings benefits from the commission after three years from the date of the collision. This, of course, excludes those fortunate enough to have a common law entitlement.
However, as has been clearly demonstrated, there are many people who are well under the 50 per cent who are incapable of returning to work due to their injuries. Even if they can pursue a common law claim, they are still required to wait many years to be eligible to recover their loss of earnings. This places an extreme financial burden on the injured person and forces them to use the social security system.
There is no reason why such people could not receive additional benefits beyond the three-year period. There are adequate screening processes in existence to ensure that only legitimate people receive additional payments.
Of the suggested reforms made above, I in no way would benefit as a personal injury lawyer. The continued failure to address such issues must be of concern to the community and questions the real motives of those in control of the system. -- James B. Gurry, Melbourne.
© 1995 The Age
Share This