HR Focus: The Importance of Reasonable Adjustments for Injured Employees: A Case Study 

In a recent landmark case, an employer faced hefty fines for failing to provide reasonable adjustments for an injured employee. This case sheds light on the intricacies of workplace adjustments, the necessity of accommodating injured employees, and the legal ramifications of neglecting these duties. 

Background of the Case 

In the case of Panazzolo v Don’s Mechanical and Diesel Service Pty Ltd [2023], the Federal Family Circuit Court mandated Don’s Mechanical to pay a fine of $44,000 in damages to Mr. Panazzolo, a diesel mechanic with the company since July 2019. 

Following a non-work-related assault in October 2020, Mr. Panazzolo experienced a fracture in his left arm, leading to surgery. This injury significantly impacted his work capabilities, especially in a role that required the use of both arms. Medical evidence suggested a 3-month recovery period where he could not engage in heavy lifting. Despite providing all the necessary medical documentation, his return to work became a contentious issue. 

Misinterpretation and Miscommunication 

Confusion arose as the employer demanded a medical clearance to confirm that Mr. Panazzolo could fully return to work. Continued exchanges failed to yield a mutual understanding. This caused significant financial distress to Mr. Panazzolo, who even questioned his employment status at one point. 

Eventually, after seeking external medical opinions and undergoing a physiotherapy examination, a set of recommendations were given, suggesting restricted lifting duties and regular check-ups. The employer, however, misinterpreted these recommendations, insisting that Panazzolo undergo complete physiotherapy before returning to work. 

Discrimination Claims 

At the heart of the matter was the claim of discrimination. Mr. Panazzolo believed he was treated unfairly due to his injury, arguing that his workplace could’ve made necessary modifications to accommodate his temporary disability. The employer, however, believed that Panazzolo’s condition inherently disqualified him from his role, especially given the physical nature of the job. 

In his ruling, Judge Stewart Brown made several critical observations: 

1. Role Requirements: Only one task in the diesel mechanic role would’ve surpassed Mr. Panazzolo’s lifting restrictions, easily managed with coworker assistance. 
2. Untested Assertions: The employer never tested the claims of incapacity on-site, making their assumptions speculative. 
3. Misunderstanding the Act: The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 does not require creating a new position but making reasonable adjustments to the existing one. 
4. Physiotherapy Misunderstanding: The employer wrongfully took physiotherapy as a pre-condition for return, placing undue financial stress on Mr. Panazzolo. 
5. Reasonable Adjustments: The employer did admit that certain adjustments could accommodate workers with incapacities but failed to implement or suggest any. 
6. Unjustifiable Hardship: The court rejected the employer’s claim that accommodating Mr. Panazzolo would cause significant hardship. 

Judge Brown ruled in favour of Mr. Panazzolo, emphasising the wrongful treatment he received based on his temporary disability. 

Key Takeaways for Employers 

This case highlights the importance of: 

• Accurately interpreting medical reports. 
• Understanding the obligations under anti-discrimination laws. 
• Recognising the necessity of making reasonable workplace adjustments. 
• Seeking professional advice in return-to-work scenarios to ensure fairness and avoid legal complications. 

In conclusion, as employers navigate the complexities of workplace adjustments, this case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities they bear and the grave consequences of overlooking them. 

This article was published on the Liquid HR website on 25 September 2023. Liquid HR offer HR Consulting and HR Outsourcing to small and medium-sized enterprises, including the Australian Veterinary Association.