On 7th December 1992 I attended an appointment made by the WorkCover insurer for a medical assessment to determine my fitness status with regards to my WorkCover claim. The doctor's decision as stated was fit for full duties. As I was obviously taken back when he stated this, he then advised that if I didn't like his decision, to fight it through the courts whilst he opened the door to get rid of me as quickly as possible.
Being in this situation and knowing the truth, I knew his assessment to be wrong, for this and other reasons I had to challenge his decision before the consequences killed someone.
Having nothing to hide, I rang the insurer again, to better understand the implications of the doctor's decision. I was advised the insurer felt they were no longer liable and all work-related payments had now ceased. Their doctor had stated in his report I required no rehabilitation and they the insurers were going to adhere to his recommendation.
I couldn't even begin to understand the full implications of this information. From this time on I was treated by the insurer, many doctors and my employer as a liar and cheat. I had been judged and sentenced by a doctor paid by and at the request of an insurance company.
Those in the system seemed content in the knowledge that any action taken by me to stop them trying to bastardise my life and for me to ensure any type of justice was going to take years and not necessarily achieve a just outcome.
The rehabilitation providers in Newcastle were advised of the insurers denial of liability, however they assessed I was not yet fit to resume my duties and allowed me to continue the program, which I did, until the Christmas break. A hydrotherapy section of this program was never commenced as it was cancelled so as to facilitate my returning to work on the 4th January 1993.
I returned to PDT on the advice that a rehabilitation program was going to be implemented. I like most people wanted this to be a low key affair as I had no wish to be ostracized by a rehabilitation program that would increase the work load on my work mates and have the appearance that I was bludging or just being lazy.
I had only been at work for a short period but was becoming increasingly concerned with a medical problem that severely restricted my ability and a positive result from this program. The goal of this rehabilitation program was to return me to full time work without delay as the insurer was not paying for this service as dictated by their director of medical services. This meant a token program had been put together without the input from the Newcastle rehabilitation providers or myself.
During my absence in late 1992, a Safe Driving Policy had been introduced into the NSW Police. Its commitment was to safe driving practices within the police service by all its members and the NSW public by reducing road trauma, human and financial costs.
This policy contains a large number of relevant sections relating to rehabilitation that I believe should have been implemented the moment the policy came into effect. This policy required them to provide appropriate training, counselling, rehabilitation, and other services such as assessing and counselling on medical, psychological and professional grounds as required.
Before anyone had a chance to determine the effects this policy would have, the PDT co-ordinator's changed attitude towards me would not allow him to implement the necessary requirements. I believe this could have made all the difference and assisted to gain the truth had I been awarded the care that this policy provided, along with the principles of EEO and OH&S, which were a prerequisite of my employment with the police.
I was finding severe restrictions in doing my normal tasks. Maintaining and repairing my car had become problematical and impacted on my ability to be as reliable as I had always been. With an uncaring PDT co-ordinator, these problems escalated to the point of bullying where he abused, denigrated and demanded written documentation, then objected when I carried out his demand and documented in my reports more accurate information than he wanted in writing. (Click to view PDT reports)
On 8th February 1993 prior to commencing afternoon shift at PDT in Goulburn, I returned to Newcastle to see the rehabilitation consultant. The information documented on this day suggests aggravation to undiagnosed associated medical problems.
Wording from Report:
He has been back on full duties as directed by the Insurance Company and the NSW Police Rehabilitation, but has found there is a significant increase in pain…………………He probably will not be able to continue in the longer period with his present pains.
On examination today there was evidence of muscle tenderness in the lower mid thoracic spine bilaterally, worse on the right and also tenderness in the lumbar paraspinal muscles and the gluteal muscles bilaterally. There was also evidence of some mild stiffness affecting the lumbar joints. He continues of course to have the neck and right shoulder pain.
This doctor then goes on to describe problems associated with inappropriate rehabilitation attempts caused by denial of liability and police rehabilitation inability to allow outside input.
Now with increased symptoms he had to accept the obvious deterioration to my health from an undetermined cause and how detrimental this was proving to be to my whole life.
On 16th February 1993 whilst working at PDT, I contacted a medical centre in Goulburn as recommended by some work mates. This being the designated government medical appointee I had seen for my employment medical, I requested his assistance to help me, although he was a little reluctant at becoming involved in this insurance situation.
We agreed it would be more appropriate to gain my file from the Gosford GP allowing any subsequent treatment required to be more easily accessible closer to my place of employment. Another appointment was made, however my file had not arrived by the date of this second appointment. The medial centre contacted me at work to advise cancellation of my appointment.
I remained at work until 5th March with what seemed to be escalating medical problems. As my file still had not arrived in Goulburn I was forced to consult the GP in Gosford. He then dictated more time off work and referred me to yet another physiotherapist in Gosford, which I thought to be unusual as going to a new physiotherapist at this time deleted any continuity in treatment.
Commencing on 9th March I remained under their care having 26 consultations until 26th April. The treating physiotherapist used a term for what was happening in my body as total body dysfunction. When I asked the GP what the physiotherapist meant by this terminology or what could be causing my body to react and be aggravated in this way, he dismissed my question and their assessments, describing physiotherapists as boneheads.
When a report was later requested from this physiotherapy business, it did not mention anything that my physiotherapist had said to me. The report dated 12th August 1994 contains only this information:
"The physiotherapist concerned is no longer practising at this clinic and this report is based on his clinical notes; He presented on his initial consultation with pain in his lower back and hip and pain aggravated by driving, in his neck. Diagnosis was noted as C1-2 facet strain and L1-2 facet strain".
After 26 consultations all that could be noted was part of the referring doctors assessment from August 1992. From the treatment I had received I know that the thoracic area of my back had required and received as much treatment as the cervical and lumbar areas. The information supplied does not relate this information, nor type of treatment, how the injuries responded or ongoing treatment recommendations, nothing at all.
22nd March I attended an Orthopaedic Surgeon, Elizabeth Street, Sydney, for the workers compensation insurer after their denial of liability on the 7th December 1992. A very worrying trend was starting to emerge with misinformation being supplied and passed on that no doubt helped to pervert justice.
The main points are as is stated in the doctor's report:
a) the patient was referred to a rehabilitation consultant in Newcastle and assessment was made that further treatment was necessary. A rehabilitation program was suggested but not undertaken.
A deliberate lie which builds a perception in the assessing doctor's mind, dictating a certain type of treatment or assessment. The truth that I did attend rehabilitation even after denial of liability would tell the doctor I was trying to assist my return to work and thus might be assessed as a genuine case. The doctor then proves his perception by repeating the same lie in his closing opinion
b) the patient's hands are quite heavily calloused from working in the nursery
This doctors wording is specific hands are quite heavily calloused which means he accepts they both work equally hard. These callouses are consistent with a person prepared to do the hard honest work such as changing wheels, tyres on rims and all garage duties as required by my job as a police driving instructor and in general years of hard honest work.
Three times this doctor mentions my commercial nursery as though it was a multi million-dollar enterprise where at this time it consisted of tube stock being sorted and maintained in a single igloo.
1) he states my hands are quite heavily calloused from working in the nursery
2) he strongly suspects that my activities in the nursery has continued to aggravate my discomfort
3) he also suspects that involvement in the nursery will also continue to cause some aggravation
Twice this doctor mentions aggravation, but what injury is the aggravation to?
If he had concentrated his effort on making a proper medical assessment, then the issue of the nursery would have been irrelevant. The nursery, being a part time hobby business. I had a full time commitment and income with PDT in Goulburn. As he deems the nursery to be the cause of an injury aggravation, a person would believe this medical/legal doctor would advise some sort of treatment or rehabilitation, enabling me to continue working at PDT and maintain the nursery so as to avoid a secondary cost to the insurer.
c) I advised of a history of suspected poliomyelitis, which left some residual muscle weakness of the right upper limb
Although by this time this information was common knowledge, this doctor tries to make believe gaining this information was like tooth extraction
d) some mild generalised wasting right hand side upper body, at the base of the neck, shoulder girdle and right hand as the effects of polio as a child
By noting and blaming this muscle wasting on childhood polio, this doctor deleted the possibility of this injury having occurred in the accident. He also deleted the need to try and halt this deterioration being caused through the later injury.
e) I see no bone or joint abnormality
This is a precise statement from the doctor but then he continues with this contradiction "apart from some very minor degenerative change in the lumbo-sacral area" but once again neglects the obvious and that is to say further deterioration must be expected with age.
The following day, 23rd March 1993 I attended a consultant physician a Macquarie Street, Sydney, specialist as requested by the third party insurer. If any one wanted an accurate assessment of this medical situation, then this doctor only helped to confuse it more.
This doctor states:
a) 'no crutches were provided in hospital'
True. What he omits to say is 'a wheel chair was required' as back and leg pain made walking difficult and the hospital staff insisted on the use of a wheel chair.
b) the doctor at the Newcastle rehabilitation centre thought I would benefit by treatment at the centre but this was never followed through
Again the same deliberate lie as mentioned earlier building a perception in the assessing doctor's mind.
c) I was going to physiotherapy at Gosford every two weeks
I was in fact attending physiotherapy at Gosford nearly every working day for approximately six weeks.
d) I had been a Road Transport Examiner/Instructor years ago
The fact is I was a Driver Examiner for the DMT/RTA for 7 years.
e) His father is 85 and has some arthritis
Dad was 80 and not afflicted with arthritis.
f) I advised of a history of suspected poliomyelitis, which left some residual muscle weakness of the right upper limb
This does not explain his observation of a slight disparity in muscle bulk and appearance of the right side.
In his opinion I was fortunate the injuries were not associated with fracture or any intervertebral disc damage as far as one can assess from the investigations so far performed (plain x-rays).
He also states: "however prognosis for full remission of symptoms seems optimistic on his conservative program of management.
However, there are no cardiovascular, respiratory, gastro-intestinal, renal, neurologic, degenerative or other abnormalities noted."
With all this information or misinformation in these medical/legal reports, what hope has any judge got of wading through numerous reports like these and coming up with a judgement that even remotely resembles justice. Almost every possible injury had been deleted although the doctor admits we would have to be optimistic to believe I am going to get better whilst being treated like this.
Up until at least 8th February 1993 there was no mention in any medical documentation of muscle wasting. Neck pain had been assessed and neuclear bone scan results deemed the injury as consistent with muscle spasm type injury. The Newcastle rehabilitation providers had also noted right cervical fibromyalgia C2/C3 with soft tissue muscle injury of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine consistent with whiplash injury. Doctors including medical/legals have acknowledged whiplash type injury occurred in the accident, but denied any associated injury as none had shown up on plain x-rays.
Only after the normal period of time with the effects of these injuries not subsiding was muscle wasting noted which normally signifies an underlying problem.
When the Newcastle Rehabilitation consultant noticed and mentioned muscle wasting which had not previously been noticed, I asked 'could this have anything to do with polio?' This one word polio then became, according to the medical/legals, the cause of my disability and not these new injuries that are detrimental to my life, that for some reason need to be denied.
The NSW Police did not have an effective Rehabilitation Unit (as later stated by the Woods Royal Commission), nor one that I could trust. They sought assistance from an independent Canberra based Rehabilitation Service to make it look as though they were now prepared to live up to their responsibility and properly rehabilitate me back into the work force.
The new rehabilitation co-ordinator requested I go to Goulburn 19th April so a workplace assessment could be made at PDT. The PDT co-ordinator was unavailable on that day. When I advised her of this, she informed me that he was not required and that the appointment stay as originally scheduled.
A program dated 21st April was drawn up consisting of my work at PDT and physiotherapy in Goulburn. This physiotherapy I believed to be a plus as the effects of doing my job would be seen and hopefully treated and might achieve a full return to work, health and fitness.
This program also took into consideration nursery duties, as assessed by the police rehabilitation co-ordinator, for the nursery I had financed her new boyfriend to commence in Goulburn two years earlier.
On 27 April, I met with the independent case co-ordinator prior to work to discuss the program. It was only then that we gained the realization that the NSW Police were using her as a puppet rehabilitation co-ordinator with the same police rehabilitation co-ordinator pulling the strings.
At about 8am the police rehabilitation co-ordinator, which was to oversee the case and my old business partner, arrived together, I pointed out "that's where a big part of the problem lies, those two, a dangerous liaison".
Soon after my return to work, I was chastised by PDT co-ordinator for adhering to the requests of the independent rehabilitation co-ordinator and the effort I had made in spending the day driving to Goulburn on the 19th April for the rehabilitation appointment. I had travelled 550kms in my own vehicle, in their time, directly associated with my employment, with no pay or reimbursement for out of pocket expenses. He seemed to be going out of his way to prove that nothing I was prepared to do to assist my return to work would be good enough.
This rehabilitation program had the appearance of saying we were at least all trying. The discomfort from my back further aggravated during the afternoon physiotherapy sessions was always put down to "no pain, no gain". On 19th May the physiotherapist in Goulburn advised me "no more physio". I asked "why" her reply was "that's all they're paying for". "What about me? What about my job?" She replied "Oh well your nursery is looking good". To this I commented "I can't do my job with PDT and these idiots expect me to do something even harder". Her hands like mine appeared to be tied the insurers pulling the strings had made the decision.
I remained at work until compelled to ring the independent co-ordinator to advise I wasn't feeling up to continuing and that "we would have to 'can' the program or at least back it off until medical assistance could diagnose the cause".
She told me to stay where I was and that she would come to work and see me. When she arrived we discussed how I was feeling, how this was affecting me doing my job and my fear of losing the job if this medical situation couldn't be rectified. She then went to converse with the PDT co-ordinator. After this short meeting she came out to inform me "you don't have to worry, you're out of here one way or the other. I'm finished, good luck".
Once again probably being a little naive, I contacted the insurer on 23rd June. I felt something had to be done to reverse this dangerous driver training situation and allow proper assistance that would help me to perform my duties so I could retain my job, which I believed to be the most desirable outcome for all concerned.
During this phone conversation I was advised "we authorised one months physiotherapy, in Goulburn after working hours. You never took up the offer, we didn't have to do that." In sheer frustration I ended the phone conversation. Knowing this whole rehabilitation situation to be a farce as I had been doing my best to perform full duties and extending my days by attending physiotherapy that was effectively through the aggravation of my injuries reducing my ability for continuance at work.
The PDT co-ordinator kept advising me to quit my job telling me that if I were to get put off by the NSW Police I'd never get another job. His badgering pressured me to advise that if the police really wanted the truth and a resolution to the matter, forget the insurers and refer the case to HealthQuest to which he agreed. I believed we would both be bound by the decision of an independent arbitrator. I hoped that this assessment would allow a more enlightened treatment than that of their insurer and assist rather than hinder and deny.
I remained at work on full duties until 9th July waiting the HealthQuest assessment date that never came. The PDT co-ordinator had assessed my effort at trying to remain at work in his normal caring manner "you are at work that tells me there is no injury".
As if to disrupt attempts at rehabilitation I had another three medical/legal appointments during this period.
The appointment on 10th May 1993 was for the third party insurer and is of particular interest once again by the denials relating to issues previously mentioned by the other third party medical/legal dated 23rd March 1993.
The doctor states in part:
The appointment on 4th June 1993 was for the workers compensation insurers.
This doctor states in part:
a) there is some slight wasting of muscles and in the right upper arm and also around the right shoulder by measurement R upper arm 24cm and L 25cm, R forearm 24cm and L 25cm
b) there is no neurological abnormality to be found in the upper limbs nor muscle loss except that previously mentioned due to childhood poliomyelitis
c) the muscles of the hands were normal as were the heart, lungs and abdomen
This doctor concedes "he appears to have sustained musculo-ligamentous injuries in the neck, thoracic spine and lower lumbar, from the accident 6/8/1992".
So to date we have five medical/legal doctors examinations, all basically agreeing that there is 'no injury' preventing me from returning to work, nor are there any injuries that could deteriorate over time. Sections noted in these medical/legal reports for the insurers that should be consistent curiously aren't and are often contradictory.
Medical records from Goulburn base hospital on the night of the accident show my unexplained elevated pulse rate. Now we have a second medical/legal denying any heart injury or problem although no tests have been performed to back this up not even on the night of the accident.
The WorkCover insurers were informed prior to the 4th June that this particular appointment would require me to drive on my rostered day off, from the Central Coast to Canberra and return.
Naught was done by the insurer to treat me in a more humane manner, which could have easily been done, by altering this appointment to the doctor's Sydney surgery or change this appointment to a date when I would be at work in Goulburn. Although they paid mileage, they never even considered the effect on rehabilitation or the loss of this day.
The long trip home from this appointment gave my wife and I ample time to discuss the lack of assistance and retardation to my rehabilitation coming through my employment. We decided that she withdraw from her transfer to a vacant position with the RTA in Goulburn, as I may never receive the necessary assistance that may allow me to stay with driver training.
On 3rd June 1993 I attended a medical/legal appointment arranged by my solicitor.
This report stated:
a) the lack of appropriate testing being performed
b) attempts at determining any permanent disability were premature
c) the more appropriate course of action should be further medical supervision, testing, treatment and rest
d) a further review in 12 months would be appropriate
e) I was fit for part time work on light duties only
My GP on having the first part of this information relayed to him took exception to having his ability questioned and immediately ordered CT Scanning, as if to prove no injuries would be found.
On the 11th June 1993, once again using my rostered day off, I had a CT scan of the neck performed. The results:
very minimal disc bulges at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7.
On the 18th June 1993 I had a CT Scan of the lumbar performed. The results:
"minimal disc degenerative changes at L1-2, L2-3 and L3-4. At L4-5 a mild severity posterior disc bulge with mild severity bilateral L4-5 foraminal narrowing. Slight osteoarthritic changes at the L4-5 facet joints. No significant L4-5 central canal stenosis.At L5-S1 slight disc degeneative changes, minimal foraminal narrowing, slight hypertrophic osteoarthritic change at the L5-S1 facet joints".
CT Scanning was not performed on the thoracic area of the back as the doctor advised with the number of bony joints, shoulders, ribs all joining in the one area, it is hard to get an accurate picture.
Although these results don't explain fully the severity of the injuries they do show the impact may have caused more serious injuries with increased complications over the progress of time. Although the medical/legals had already taken the opportunity of looking into their crystal balls and denying all injuries or blaming polio, the truth backed up by medical testing and/or imagery reveals there could be injuries hampering work efforts and life style that could not be blamed on polio. Injuries that could have already lead to early degenerative change.
Disregarding this, the WorkCover insurer now having access to another two medical/legal reports (as discussed) from their paid doctors, their director of medical services on 27th July 1993, agrees, apparently with all the discrepancies contained within and again states, I am fit to return to pre-injury work.
In relation to the recent CT scans he states this could not be related to the motor vehicle accident in 1992. Although his opinion in these matters is not stated in a medical report but in a short communiqué specifically marked "Comment only".
With the aforementioned information, assessments and denials specifically relating to neurological injuries and internal organs, I believe this to be a good place to relate some of the well-known events that can occur in a high impact motor vehicle accident.
On impact the seat belt is made to hold the human body which has it's own inbuilt protective padding however, internal organs keep moving until their movement is restricted by other body tissues, bones or organs. Muscle, ligaments and nerves are stretched or torn, bones can break if their movement is severely restricted and joints are opened up more than nature ever intended.
Internal organs such as the bladder, intestines, stomach, bowels etc stretch and are weakened in areas that can cause severe conditions. The heart can be pounded into the sternum or forced through the chest if it is split open. After the main impact the body and all internal organs rebound. The heart can contact internals such as the backbone etc causing bruising, pinching and sometimes causing heart attack.
A head sitting on the shoulders becomes an object just being thrown around, connected to the body by a flimsy spine. Skin, muscles and spine were never designed to hold up under this type of strain. Other objects such as a windscreen or pillar may come in contact with the head damaging but stopping it moving too far forward and allowing its connections through the spine to remain in tact.
Discs in the spinal column normally move allowing an even type of compression, however as the seatbelt holds the body, restraining it from a violent forward movement the spine can compress popping discs, chipping bone or injuring the spinal chord. This can happen even if the body doesn't come into contact with other parts of the motor vehicle. However serious these injuries may be, they are substantially less than would occur if a seat belt were not worn.
The normal seat belt used in street driven vehicles is a lap sash. This type of seat belt although effective is restricted in its efficiency thus newer cars are fitted with air bags. If you are seated on the left-hand side of the vehicle, it leaves your right upper body and limb free to be thrown around on impact if unsupported and vice versa if you are on the right hand side of the vehicle. Although the driver has more support through the steering wheel. For these reasons and others, racing drivers wear a different type of seat belt known as a harness. It comes down over both shoulders, holding their whole upper body firmly in the seat.
If internal injuries are misdiagnosed or neglected the results can be fatal. With joints being opened up, degenerative disease such as arthritis can afflict and will progress with age.
Some pain conditions will show if testing is done soon after the accident but as time goes on there is less likelihood that these can been seen on medical imagery and can only be diagnosed by the reporting and assessing of symptoms.
Some non-visible to the naked eye type injuries if treated properly in the immediate period after an accident, will heal. If untreated or inappropriately treated these injuries may become chronic pain conditions.
If a heart is injured, this is harder to assess as the blood pressure and pulse may not give a clue that anything is wrong. Heart problems will only be assessed if symptoms occur and are recognised for what they are at the time.
Having discussed my situation with many doctors, none I had spoken to were prepared to take on this denied liability case, as they could not be assured of reasonably quick payment, the health of a human remained secondary to their income.
I had and would continue to forfeit my sick leave and holiday entitlements not used for medical appointments, to receive wages during part of periods off work, as I had been hurt on duty yet couldn't be paid by my employer as their insurer had denied liability. I tried to remain at work, although impossible at times as the injuries sustained in the accident kept negating my efforts. My duty of care to those around me at work and on the road remained paramount.
Another issue, that made rehabilitation programs harder than normal, was the distance I lived from my place of employment. Under normal circumstances prior to my accident the mileage to and from work and rent had never caused any problems.
Returning to work before fully medically fit under a part time rehabilitation program i.e. two hours per day progressing if possible as weeks went on and the denial of liability had caused the circumstance where I was being paid only for my hours at work on the program. Ten hours pay out of which, a full weeks rent and cost of travel still had to be paid which effectively meant I was paying more to attend the rehabilitation program than I was receiving in wages. A situation the NSW Police believed to be acceptable and of no concern to them although it was their insurer that had caused this situation. I was prepared to move my family to Goulburn if this would help, although without assistance from my employer this would probably be a futile waste of money.
I didn't have the unlimited resources or the health to comply with their oppressive demands. The only way left to try and cope was, when possible, return to work on full duties and to stop and seek assistance when I could do no more.
Home renovations had ceased at a point where it was nearly impossible to live in the house and we had no way of finishing the job. The added financial worries with losing a wage, obvious changes in my health and fitness, my employer's attitude and the effects these were having on my marriage and family were deeply depressing. The trust I had gained in the years preceding the motor vehicle accident now of little consequence and my confidence taking a battering.
My solicitor still wanted to run a third party claim instead of workers compensation claim. He kept advising this is only about money. I refuted this advice, as I couldn't perceive any action taken against the third party insurer, being able to assist with the problem created by the WorkCover insurer.
From 28th June 1993 to 6th July 1993 I participated as an instructor on Phase 1 Highway Patrol Course. During this course whilst doing the day drive, two sworn Police members and myself, in an unmarked police vehicle found ourselves right in the middle of multiple accidents. With us not being involved, we were the obvious people to take control, trying to assure no further accidents or injuries occurred. We all knew what we had to do and acted accordingly.
Although I didn't feel overly stressed by these events, my body which was already reacting to my work efforts, in this situation reacted in ways that I found hard to control, making me and those around me aware of a medical problem hampering my efforts since my accident. Although this week was thoroughly enjoyable, mentally rewarding and left me feeling good about myself, I had to admit at the end of this course, my body could not cope with what my job dictated. I remained at work for another week before seeking assistance.
With my inability to return to work on 12th July 1993 I went to see the GP at Gosford. He referred me back to the Newcastle rehabilitation consultant. This time he conducted a more thorough examination than he had done originally. In a report dated 20th July 1993 he states:
"There are essentially three areas of pain. One is occipital pain, bilateral and symmetrical. It is aggravated with neck movement. It is not present all of the time. In particular however is nearly always associated with development of a thoracic spine pain at the level of the inferior angle of the scapulae. This pain is mostly midline, but can spread out bilaterally. It is also symmetrical. This pain seems to be able to spread up to the occipital region. It is aggravated with prolonged activity, especially with the upper limb.The third pain is in the low lumbar spine. It is midline and can radiate symmetrically out to the hips (greater trochanters) bilaterally.
I noted the latest CT scan of cervical spine and lumbar spine and the reports, indicating multiple level (mild) disc impairment. Also some degenerative changes in the low lumbar z-joints."
I have enclosed this entire report as it describes the situation where recommendations are being made, with still no full diagnosis or prognosis whilst still being told that my work attempts will probably be doomed to failure, so I have to make the decision to quit my job. To me this whole situation doesn't look right, because if this is rehabilitation it definitely doesn't seem to be assisting me to return and remain at work. (Click to view report)
I then went back to the Newcastle rehabilitation providers where a more extensive physical examination was carried out.
On 26th July 1993, the physiotherapist at the Newcastle rehabilitation provider noted:
a) myofascial pain shoulder girdle, unstable segment thoracic spine, lumbar region pain
b) increased muscular tension shoulder girdle
c) altered postural control neck, shoulder girdle, trunk
d) reduced truncal mobility, reduced shoulder girdle mobility
e) reduced activity tolerance
During the rehabilitation program, we would discuss the specific tasks I had performed and their effects and if necessary modify my actions in the hope of reducing pain. The no pain, no gain theory I had been subjected to to-date was not expected through this program as pain was seen as the body's warning mechanism advising of injury. We would also work through the exercise program together trying to stem the physical deterioration that had occurred since the motor vehicle accident.
Exercises normally performed lying back down on a mat increased sensitivity and discomfort draining all my strength. These exercises needed to be deleted from the program. We decided to assess the benefit of a back brace. After a couple of hours this had to be removed, as it was creating the same problems.
Increased pain levels experienced during this program led almost to despair and were discussed at length with the physiotherapist as I felt it wasn't just the exercises or trying to increase activity causing these problems in my body, it was just living. If I tried to work I wasn't able to exercise, if I tried to exercise I wasn't able to work, yet prior to the accident I could do both and more on any one day and back up with more of the same the following day.
They warned me to take it slowly, that we were trying to teach the muscles to work properly again and commented that my driving up to Newcastle, exercising and driving home I had already done half a days work, so not to push too hard. Their attitude although they were trying to help worried me because mentally I still wanted to be the active person I was prior to the accident. All my effort however, didn't seem to be changing the detrimental effects or get me any closer to my goal of returning to full time work and stepping back into my life.
A home exercise and work program was drawn up in August 1993. This program was discussed at length with the rehabilitation providers as my property was registered as a nursery. This would give the insurance peeping toms a perfect opportunity to misinterpret any or all of my time at home as working in the nursery. I had previously been warned and the implications particularly worried me. They advised not to let it worry me, as it was my responsibility under the WorkCover legislation to keep trying.
With the help of my wife and daughter we had potted up some of the plants we had propagated. This was done as a last resort rather than losing the stock. These plants were placed on weed matting at the front of our property to grow on.
With the plants in this position they were clearly visible to nurserymen passing en-route to the nursery's at the other end of our street. This provided us with a few sales, recouping a little of the expenditure we had employed in establishing the nursery.
The physiotherapist left this rehabilitation clinic just prior to the end of my program. On his last day I advised him I was thinking of forgetting the WorkCover claim although I didn't know what else I could do. He advised that I have a number of injuries that are hard to treat. Multiple pains were confusing the issue, however they are there and I can't give up the claim. He then went on to explain the thoracic portion of my back was 'unstable' and that aging would probably cause further deterioration.
After this program, I returned to see the rehabilitation consultant on 15th November 1993. After this consultation he writes:
"On examination of the thoracic spine today, there was evidence of changes which could result in biomechanical problems. There was a mild rotation and scoliosis of the upper mid thoracic spine, and that together with some apparent muscle wasting around the shoulder girdle could result in biomechanical changes.This together with the fact that the scapula-thoracic movements, especially during arm elevation in the sagittal plain was significantly different between the right and the left side, confirms that there is likely to be some mechanical problems in this area. Tenderness was noted mostly at around T6 and T5, but of course there was areas of tenderness through multiple areas of the spine.
Neurological assessment of the thoracic region showed that there was some alteration to pin prick in a T4 dermatome bilaterally".
Although this doctor had been providing treatment for over twelve months, this letter is not consistent with his earlier writings. He seems to go out of his way to make believe these are new injuries, not previously mentioned or treated. (Click to view report)
My time, effort and that of the team at the Newcastle Hospital and rehabilitation centre was now to all but those concerned, a total waste. The moment any attempt was made to pass this information on, the denial of liability by the insurer that had denied any rehabilitation now deemed the medical testing, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and the exacerbation of the injuries caused through having returned to work, as irrelevant or fabrication. My life was now a matter for the courts and was bound up as the saying goes 'in red tape'.