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.
