Queensland LGS Board ordered to disclose advice on TPD decision

TPD/advice/

28 September 2015
| By Nicholas |
image
image
expand image

The Queensland District Court has ordered the Queensland Local Government Superannuation (LSG) Board todisclose advice it received to deny a total and permanent disability (TPD) claim by a former Gold Coast City Council employee.

Court documents heard that Lynda Lorraine Allen, ceased work with the Gold Coast City Council on 11 January 2002, claiming she was suffering from workplace bullying and harassment, depression, panic disorder, osteoarthritis and myalgic encephalitis.

Allen who was a member of LGS alleged the Board refused to pay her a TPD benefit on 20 May 2002, and again on 9 December 2002. She sought a review of the fund's decision, providing evidence in support of her claim in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, including medical reports, Medicare records, a Centrelink file and taxation office records.

Allen said the LGS Board refused a third fund claim and refused to pay the TPD benefit in September 2014.

In its defence, the LGS Board denied Allen had ceased work because of her medical conditions and said her tax returns indicated she had "received some income in the 2003 and 2004 financial years", which implied she had an ability to work for a different employer.

The Court heard that LGS received a letter from Maurice Blackburn lawyers requesting a review of the decision to deny Allen's TPD claim, on 26 July 2013, following the provision of new evidence.

The matter was referred to King and Co for legal opinion on whether the Board needed to re-examine the claim, on 30 July 2013, and advice was provided to the Board on 16 October 2013.

On 25 September 2014, Allen's lawyers were advised that "there appeared to be new evidence demonstrating Ms Allen suffered from an adjustment disorder when anxiety, depressed mood and fibro myalgia from prior to 2002 but there remained insufficient evidence to demonstrate those conditions constituted TPD in 2002" and "a review of the new evidence provided to reopen the claim and further information received provided inconsistency in aspects of the case."

The court ruled that advice provided by King and Co was "very relevant" to the Board's decision and should be disclosed.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

2 months 3 weeks ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

3 months ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

5 months ago

ASIC has suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of a Melbourne-based financial advice firm....

2 weeks 2 days ago

The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered....

3 weeks ago

ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test....

3 weeks 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND