It is no great mystery that human beings like to be appreciated. Accordingly, it comes as no surprise that making genuine and sincere contact with an injured or ill employee, particularly where hospitalisation has taken place, can make all the difference in determining the quality of the employer-employee relationship in that "brave new world" that is epitomised by the RTW process.

Take the example of "Mr S", the chef who ultimately required a cervical (neck) fusion as a result of constantly lifting restaurant-sized pasta pots and large bags of flour.

With increasing neck and arm pain eventually leaving him nauseous, Mr S was sent by his general practitioner for an immediate MRI, as well as being urgently referred to a consultant neurosurgeon whose rooms were located close to the panoramic seaside locale where Mr S worked.

The neurosurgeon was blunt and to the point ; immediate and urgent cervical surgery was required , "no ifs" and "no buts".

Before he knew it, Mr S was in hospital. The requisite surgery was performed and the long haul of post-surgical convalescence had begun.

Friends and flat-mates came to the hospital and wished him well, offering all kinds of practical assistance. This partially alleviated Mr S' anxiety, particularly after being told by his operating neurosurgeon that although the surgery was successful, any thought of returning to the chef's kitchen would have to be put on hold for at least three to six months.

The supportive medical team (and the flat-mates) had ensured that the return back home from hospital would be as comfortable as it could possibly be. The insurer immediately provided home-help and that was genuinely appreciated, as was the immediate commencement of weekly compensation payments.

However, there was no "get well" card from the employer, not even a phone call. Mr S was his best chef in many years, and the employer was ticked off he was not at work.

Gossip from his colleagues at the restaurant would trickle back to Mr S on occasion. Disturbingly, it emerged that the restaurant owner was apparently engaging in a constant internecine battle with the insurer, apparently arguing that liability for the claim should not have been accepted by the insurer in the first place (notwithstanding all reasonable evidence to the contrary).

Mr S felt dismayed, humiliated and hurt upon hearing this gossip. After all, wasn't he "compelled" by his expert medical team to immediately undergo the intensive surgery? As if he would lodge a workers' compensation claim for financial benefit. After all, he was actually undergoing substantial financial disadvantage with the loss of his penalty rates, overtime and bonuses.

Mr S has never returned to the seaside restaurant.

On a positive note, he has returned to the restaurant trade, but only after a successful and bitterly-fought Common Law damages claim.

Mr S' former employer did sustain a modest hike in his insurance premiums for a period lasting approximately three financial years, but, after all the yelling and screaming had died down, the economic cost of the claim had not been the "dragon-slayer" that the employer had envisaged that it would be. In fact, the cost increase on the premium for this small workplace was less than $2000.

More importantly, the employer found once-loyal customers had drifting away from the restaurant, after learning of Mr S' fate (and upon noting the discernible drop in culinary standards).

After an uncomfortable three year interregnum, both Mr S and his former employer would both respectively bounce back on their feet.

The price paid, commercially, medically and relationship-wise, was ultimately excessive and disproportionate.

If only...

If only the restaurant-owner had visited the hospital and expressed his sympathy (and affection for the chef). The owner had indeed, upon reflection, noted that he had shared many convivial and enjoyable times together with Mr S.

It would not be the last injury the seaside restaurant would have to deal with but, thankfully, with a thoughtful overhaul of occupational health and safety practices (instigated by the owner himself), the restaurant owner learnt how to mitigate his losses.

And, from now on, the restaurant owner would not be reticent to pick up the telephone, or collect his car keys, with a view to seeing how the injured or ill member of his "team" was recuperating.

This new approach would be of reciprocal benefit to all concerned, namely, employer, employee, and...customer.

Learnings

While the restaurant manager was reacting negatively in the early stages, what could have been done to influence the situation and change his approach? Getting his perspective on the situation, understanding his concerns and addressing them takes time, but is not complicated.

In fact, costs were his main fear. Having heard all sorts of stories about comp he didn't want a claim. His cousin was a production manager in a food manufacturing company and talked often of their two million dollar WorkCover premium.

A full understanding of the cost implications for a small employer with a claim such as this reveals costs are more dependent on indirect costs (staff replacement, staff training, customer impact) than the direct premium impact.

The premium section of a WorkCover agent or insurer can provide a premium prediction, ie give a rough forecast of premium because of the claim. Claims have a significantly smaller impact on smaller employers than large employers. Half an hour spent on understanding the cost impact is likely to have changed the restaurant manager's approach.

The table below compares the restaurant costs depending on the possible claim scenarios:

1. Accepting the claim
2. Disputing the claim and being successful in having the claim not accepted as a work condition (an unlikely outcome in this case)
3. Disputing the claim but the claim being accepted as a work condition (the likely outcome in this case)

The loss of customer revenue far outweighed the claim costs. With modest forethought the restaurant owner could have predicted and prevented this. Revenue had been up significantly since Mr S joined the team.

The manager needed

1. Basic information about the costs
2. To know the duration of time off work needed for the neck operation (how long would the chef's job need to be covered), and how long would it be before the chef could return to close to his normal job
3. How to support return to work
4. Someone to spend time with him, so he had the facts on which to base his response.