Applicant 202053 v Employers Mutual Limited

Applicant 202053 has applied to the Australian Human Rights Commission for a declaration that Employers Mutual Limited, which was appointed by the Australian Capital Territory to manage workers’ compensation claims on its behalf, discriminated against her on the grounds of disability. The applicant claims that the respondent refused to pay compensation for operational support and psychological treatment provided by a mental health social worker on the basis that it was not ‘medical treatment’. The applicant further claims that the respondent required her to attend independent medical assessments by medical practitioners of its choice, which caused her distress, and that the medical practitioners had unfavourable reviews on a website. The respondent suspended the applicant’s compensation payments on the grounds of her refusal to attend an independent medical assessment. The applicant claims that the respondent treated her unfavourably because of her disability, in contravention of section 20 of the Discrimination Act.

The legal issues for the Tribunal to determine were whether the respondent provides ‘services’ to employees who have suffered a workplace injury and whether the treatment of the applicant was ‘because of’ her disability. The Tribunal considered the test for causation and found that the applicant had not established a breach of section 20 of the Discrimination Act.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did provide ‘services’ to employees who have suffered a workplace injury, but that the services were not provided to the applicant because of her disability. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s refusal to pay compensation for operational support and psychological treatment was not because of the applicant’s disability, but rather because of the respondent’s interpretation of the legislation. The Tribunal also found that the requirement for the applicant to attend independent medical assessments by medical practitioners of the respondent’s choice was not because of her disability, but rather because of the respondent’s policy. The Tribunal found that the suspension of the applicant’s compensation payments was not because of her disability, but rather because of her refusal to attend an independent medical assessment.

The Tribunal orders that:
1. The application is dismissed.