Employee Rights And Work Injury Claims In Singapore

Filing a Dispute

Question:

Discuss about the EOHS Law for Work Injury Compensation Act.

The employee has the right to make an objection against the assessment made by the Ministry of Manpower. The claim can be made within 14 days since the Notice of Assessment has been received by employee. In the given situation jack can be raise a claim if he is not satisfied in relation to the salary which has been disclosed by the employer to MOM. The employer discloses less salary so that the amount of compensation can be reduced. In addition jack can also make a claim if he believes that the assessment of the injury cause do him has not been done correctly as he has the right to dispute the assessment. Thus in the given situation where Jack is dissatisfied with the assessment made by the MOM he can file a dispute with the commissioner of labor in relation to his salary being underreported and the medical report which have been submitted by the doctor is not appropriate (1). 

A work injury claim can be disputed by an employer or there insurer within a time span of 14 days since the notice of assessment has been provided. In the given situation the employer has the right to claim that the assessor did not take into account the fact that the injury could have been caused due to a pre-existing disease to Jack and not the accident. In such situation it is not the liability of the employer to fully compensate jack for the injuries which have resulted out of a pre-existing disease and in relation to such right the employer can file a dispute to redo the medical assessment. Objections can include the question that whether the disease or injury is related to work or whether the Average monthly income which has been provided through the notice of assessment is appropriate. For the purpose of filing an objection the employer or the employee have to fill up the objection form attached with the NOA and such form has to be mailed or emailed to the case officer.

The employees who had been subjected to Injury in relation to work have the option of choosing between a claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act and a common law claim. Both the types of claim are different from each other in relation to the process of making, withdrawing and the deadlines. The main differences between common law claim and a claim under WICA are as follows. For the purpose of making a claim under WICA the claim has to made to the MOM and will be decided by the assistant commissioner. The claim under common law can be made either to the high court or the states courts. In case of a common law claim the dispute would be adjudged by the court. In case of a claim under the WICA there is no need of a lawyer. The engagement of a lawyer is not mandatory as a lawyer is not required to complete the process of making a claim. The MOM itself guides a person making a claim through the process. However the information and guidance provided by the MOM are not given in form of a legal advice. In case of a common law claim a person requires a lawyer who needs to be paid the legal fees. When an injury claim is made under the WICA the amount of compensation which can be claimed is restricted to limits and has a set formula to be determined. On the other hand the compensation which is provided by the court has no fixed limit or formula to be determined. However the compensation is based on the provisions provided by the precedents and damages needs to be provided before the court for availing compensation. In case of the WICA proof is needed for the purpose of proving the claim. It has to be provided by the person making the claim that the injury or disease is related to work. There is no requirement of proving that there was negligence or fault on the part of the others. In case of a common law claim it has to be provided before the court that the other party was at fault and the three elements of negligence Duty of Care, Breach of Duty of care and causation has to be established. The suit which has been filed under WICA or common law can be withdrawn within one year since the accident has taken place. The civil claim can be filed only before the NOA has been provided by the MOM. The claim can also be withdrawn in 14 days where there is no dispute and 28 days in case of a dispute.

Common Law Claims

Special damages are used by the court for the purpose of compensating the plaintiff for any quantifiable monetary losses. It is advisable to divide personal injury claims into consequential and incidental special damages claim.  However there are certain restrictions in relation to obtaining compensation with respect to a special claim. Under WICA, compulsory insurance by employer and payment should be paid by insurance company. In addition jack has to prove the intention of the employer to recover $42000 from him in form of loans and advances.  A special damages claim can be claimed if such damages are reasonably foreseeable. In the given situation special damages claim has been made by Jack as he predicts that the $42000 directed towards his injury would be charged by the employer in form of loans and advanced. In the given situation the insurers have the right to argue that the damages which are being claimed by Jack are not reasonably foreseeable. He cannot claim under WICA and Common law. It may also be argued by the insurers that claim which is made by Jack is not credible. In the case of Chang Mui Hoon v Lim Bee Leng
[2013] SGHCR 17 a claim for special damages had been filed by the plaintiff in Singapore which was rejected because it was not reasonable (2).

In relation to the given scenario for the purpose of establishing negligence Lucy has to prove that the four essential elements of negligence were present with respect to the incident. The major elements of negligence are as follows

1. Duty of care
2. Breach of the duty of care
3. Causation
4. Remoteness of damages

Duty of care- the theory for duty of care was given by the British case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 522. The “neighbor principle” had been provided by this case which rules that a person must act as a good neighbor and protect any other person by taking precautions who may be reasonably injured by his actions (3). In Singapore the theory has been used in the case of Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe Phing [1993] 2 SLR (R) 366 (4). The fundamental principles related to the duty of care provide that a person (A) would be deemed to owe a duty of care towards any person (B) if A’s action can reasonably cause harm to B. The test for determining the duty of care known as the caprao test is also based on such principles as provided in the case of Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (5)

Special Damages

Breach of duty of care - the duty which is owed by A has to B has to be violated or breached for the purpose of establishing negligence. A duty is violated or not is analyzed by implementing the objective test which has been stated in the case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467 (6). According to the test if increased and enhanced safety measures are taken by a reasonable person in the same circumstances which had not been taken by A than B has violated the duty of care

Causation- causation or better known as factual causation is also required to establish a negligence claim. According to the principles of causation the harm has to result out of the breach or violation of the duty of care. In case the harm is not caused directly or indirectly due to the Breach in the duty of care the concept of negligence would not be established.

Remoteness- Remoteness is assessed for the purpose of determining damages in case of negligence. According to the principles of remoteness if the injury is too remote a claim for negligence cannot be made.

Thus Lucy must prove that there was a duty of care which has been violated and the harm has resulted out of such violation and is not too remote.

The issue in this case is to determine whether Lucy can bring an action against Mark

For the purpose identifying whether Lucy can bring a claim against Mark it has to be proved that Mark owes a duty of care to Lucy.

According to the principles of duty of care if a person can foresee the other getting injured due to one’s actions a duty of care is owed by such person. The duty of care can also be established through the application of the neighbor principle or the caparo test.

Through the application of the test in this situation it can be analyzed that a reasonable person in the position of Mark would know while driving his actions could injure the pedestrians. In addition to ensure that the duty is not breached Mark must have ensured that he checked everything was ok with the car when he left out of the garage. Thus Mark has violated the duty and injury has been cased to Lucy

Conclusion 

Lucy can make a claim against Mark

Can Lucy make a claim against Abacus Garage

Negligence

 For the purpose identifying whether Lucy can bring a claim against Abacus Garage it has to be proved that Abacus Garage owes a duty of care to Lucy.

According to the principles of duty of care if a person can foresee the other getting injured due to one’s actions a duty of care is owed by such person. The duty of care can also be established through the application of the neighbor principle or the caparo test.

The duty of care as per the objective test is violated if a reasonable person would have taken more precautions

In the given situation if a reasonable person is paced in the situation of Abacus Garage he would be able to foresee that of breaks are not fixed the driver or any other person or property on the road may get injured. Thus there was a duty of care. The duty of care was violated as the breaks were not fixed the injury would not have been caused to Lucy if the duty was not violated

Conclusion

Lucy can bring a claim against Abacus Garage

Issue

Can Lucy bring a claim against the hospital

In the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 (7) it had the relative of the plaintiff was suffering from a terminal disease and had went to the hospital. The doctor advised the patient to go home. The patient died and a claim for negligence against the doctor had been brought by the relative. It was held by the court that negligence would only have occurred if the patient had not died if the doctor would have treated him. As the plaintiff would have died any way there was no negligence. The test provided by the court in this case was known as the “But for” test.

In the given situation it can be determined through the application of the rules related to the duty of care that the hospital owed a duty of care to Lucy as it could be foreseen that the actions of the hospital may injure Lucy. The duty was breached by not giving her priority as a reasonable person would have treated the injury immediately.

In the given situation through the application of the rules provided in the Barnett v Chelsea case it can be stated that Lucy would not have been injured if the hospital would have been more careful towards treating her injuries. She would have avoided permanent paralysis if she would have been immediately treated by the hospital. It was only because of the negligence of the hospital that Lucy was not able to get up and suffered paralysis. Thus it can be evidently stated that there was negligence on the part of the hospital in relation to Lucy.

Conclusion

As negligence has been established Lucy can make a claim against Abacus Garage.

References

1. The Work Injury Compensation Act 2016
2. Chang Mui Hoon v Lim Bee Leng [2013] SGHCR 17
3. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 522
4. Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe Phing [1993] 2 SLR (R) 366.
5. Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
6. Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467
7. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428