Pipe v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2016] VCC
57
In a serious injury application, a worker's ability to
perform full-time work and participate in co-curricular activities
often becomes an important consideration. In the County Court
decision of Pipe v Victorian WorkCover Authority, it was
held that Darren Pipe (the Plaintiff), who was able to work
full-time as a security guard and had completed a number of courses
following his injury, had not suffered serious injuries.
It is often difficult for a Defendant to resist a finding of
serious injury in circumstances where the Plaintiff's
work-related injury is not disputed and their credibility is
unchallenged. However, this decision shows that a Plaintiff with a
demonstrated capacity for alternative employment will have greater
difficulty proving serious pain and suffering, as noted in the
previous Court of Appeal decision of Sumbul v Melbourne All
Toya Wreckers Pty Ltd [2006] VSCA 292. This is not to say that
a
