Despite the fact that only a minority of injury claims cases go to the courts, they carry a huge weight in determining the outcomes for a small proportion of cases and – along with legal practitioners – have a significant amount of influence over cases that are settled.

And word filters down.

When the courts are generous to workers in awarding payments, the rate of lawyers' advertising goes up, and the proportion of cases going to court goes up. Studies have shown that the amounts awarded by the courts have little relationship to the severity of the injury and the severity of the medical problem. Many people with significant problems don't make it that far; it’s often related to the determination of the solicitor and of the person to achieve a positive financial outcome

So can the courts make a difference – can they actually do good?

How wonderful it would be to see the courts make decisions with a sound understanding of the system in which they operate, and decisions based on science.

Where is the evidence-based training for judges? Where is the system of accountability that reviews their decisions and provides peer feedback? If the courts judged consistently on the truth, that is, had a yearning to seek the truth and provide decisions based on the merits of the truth rather than the sympathy for the various parties, that would filter down through the system.

We know that compensation outcomes are significantly worse than outcomes from similar non-compensated injuries. If a person has a shoulder or a back or a knee problem, or even a psychiatric condition, and they have their problem dealt with inside the compensation system, they're significantly likely to have poorer outcomes, both on self-assessed measures and objective measures.

Injured employees need the courts, which act as leaders in the compensation system for complex cases, to make decisions that enhance the integrity of the system, to stop minor abuses of the system, and make the system a safer and better place for the inexperienced worker who needs help.

Courts can make a difference – but it’s not always a positive one.

If we want to improve this we need the courts to step up their role, to play fairly. We need judges to be more interested in the outcomes, in their influence, and to take a long hard look at the science.

What does this mean? It means courts need to be presented with good evidence and legal practitioners within the courts need to adopt improved systems, such as getting opposing expert witnesses in court to argue together so that the weight of evidence can be best assessed.