“When someone makes a workers’ compensation claim, the insurer needs to figure out two main things: whether the person meets the definition of a ‘worker’ and whether the injury is one that falls under the scheme,” Denning said.
“To do that, they often ask for personal detail, like how the person was employed, where they live, and exactly what was happening when the injury occurred. That’s especially the case for injuries that happen on a journey to or from work.”
Greg Muller’s WorkCover claim was rejected as he was injured during his commute after work hours. Credit: Paul Jeffers
Denning said if someone was worried about what could happen with their data – especially if the claim ends up being rejected – it was a good idea to speak with a lawyer before proceeding.
Under Victorian legislation, employees are entitled to compensation if their injury arises “out of or in the course of any employment”.
But as the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry notes, “there is no single definition of what will and will not be deemed to be a work-related injury” – leading to ambiguity on whether a worker’s injury should lead to compensation.
The chamber said the legislation provided “some clarity by listing several examples deemed to be ‘in the course of employment’, such as where the worker is travelling for the purpose of their employment, or where they are injured whilst attending a compulsory training course”.
Insurer Allianz Australia, an authorised agent of the Victorian WorkCover Authority, rejected Muller’s claim because he was injured during his commute outside work hours.
“Allianz has determined that your injuries have not arisen in or out of the course of your employment … you sustained the injuries while travelling from your home to your workplace,” it said.
Allianz did not respond to requests for comment on Muller’s case.
Loading
Muller accepts the decision to reject his claim but does not understand why he was interviewed about his personal life when his accident did not fall under WorkCover’s umbrella. “I thought, why the hell did I go through all this? This should never have proceeded,” he said.
He is also frustrated that Allianz says it is unable to delete his personal information – particularly when large-scale cyber breaches are increasingly common.
“Regarding the request to erase information obtained during the claim investigation, please note that we are unable to delete this information. However, rest assured that no personal data will be disclosed externally,” it said.
Investigators are not required to determine whether a person is eligible for WorkCover before interviewing them about their personal life. WorkSafe, which manages workers’ compensation in Victoria, said investigators had a responsibility to ask a wide range of questions regarding a claimant’s personal and health matters to assess a claim. It also said it was required to hold on to claimants’ data for various periods in case claimants made future claims or launched legal proceedings.
John Pane, data privacy expert and chair of digital rights not-for-profit Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the Victorian and federal governments needed to update privacy laws to require organisations to delete individuals’ data on request, as happened in the European Union.
“There is no current right in Australia that grants individuals the power to demand that their personal data be deleted from any organisation that holds it, even if they unlawfully or erroneously captured it,” Pane said. “And the retention period of these records could be for a substantial period of time.”
While there is no “right to erasure” in this country, Allianz is required, under the Australian Privacy Principles, to only use or disclose personal information “for the purpose for which it is collected”.
Taxpayers have poured more than $1.3 billion into WorkCover to help cover the rising cost of claims, particularly in mental health-related claims. There were 35,575 new claims to WorkCover in the 2024 financial year, up 25 per cent in three years.
Read the full article here
