From time to time I fly into the courts. I hover around and see what's happening for people who have made it deep into the recesses of the workers’ compensation system and out the other side, into the equally complex world of the legal system.

What happens in the courts has far-reaching implications. Obviously it effects the specific case that is before the court, but it also has a trickledown effect. The outcome of one case sets a precedent for others. Unions, employers and other relevant parties get an idea of how the system works—and sometimes, get a few ideas about how to work the system!

Courts hear all sorts of evidence. They hear evidence from doctors, evidence from the employee, and they may hear evidence from the employer.

However, the decisions judges hand down are influenced not only by the content of the evidence, but also by the manner in which it is given.  

A doctor, for example, who sounds authoritative, presents well, and gives an impression of knowing what they are talking about, will often have sway. They might be spouting evidence-based information or they might be spouting nonsense. Often it doesn't matter; it’s how they say what they’re saying that influences the situation.

I watched one judge get cross with a doctor, called as a witness on behalf of an employer, who was presenting information that wasn't in line with what the judge understood as the reality of the situation. What the doctor was saying made absolute sense and was based on sound research facts; but because it didn’t fit with the judge’s preconceived ideas, and because the doctor wasn’t much of a talker, the judge wouldn’t have a bar of it. (Yes, I am a fungi.)

At the end of the day, the decision made by the judge was ridiculously out of line with even a rudimentary understanding of the science of the topic. Everyone who actually knew anything about the topic was left shaking their head.

The judge may have been motivated by sympathy for the employee, but what about the repercussions for other, genuinely deserving claimants?

When decisions are made that don't line up with medical evidence and common sense, the system loses part of its integrity. Employers become cynical, claims staff frustrated, and a little bit of negativity is added to the burden of the next person with a work injury.

One claims manager told my friends at RTWMatters that “In any welfare system there will always be an element of people who try and take advantage. It is very easy for people to get into this system, and very difficult to get people out of the system. My estimate is that ten per cent of claimants come into this system with ill-intent and, clichéd but true, they ruin it for the rest of them. Currently an employer has no recourse and is always at fault. This hardens our attitudes to all claimants, even the genuine ones.”

No doubt the judge that I’m talking about thought that he was doing a good thing in rejecting both the doctor’s advice and the employer’s appeal. But with my far reaching vision I could see employers across the land rolling their eyes and hardening their stances. That isn’t a pretty picture from any perspective; least of all the perspective of a worker with a bad back and that first compensation claim form in hand.