Work capacity decision disputes—maximum costs during transitional period
6A Work capacity decision disputes—maximum costs during transitional period
In this clause—
favourable finding, in relation to a merit review, means a finding or recommendation of the Authority that has the effect of increasing the amount of weekly payments of compensation payable to the worker concerned, as compared with the amount payable as a result of—
the review decision, or
the original work capacity decision that was the subject of the application for internal review,
whichever is the most recent decision.
internal review means a review by an insurer of an existing work capacity decision under section 44BB of the 1987 Act (as in force before the commencement of Schedule 1 to the 2018 amending Act).
merit review means a review of an existing work capacity decision under section 44BB (1) (b) of the 1987 Act (as in force before the commencement of Schedule 1 to the 2018 amending Act), but only if—
an internal review of the work capacity decision (the original work capacity decision) has been conducted and the worker has been notified of the decision of the insurer with respect to the internal review (the review decision), or
the insurer has not completed an internal review within 30 days after the application for internal review was made by the worker.
The maximum costs that a legal practitioner is entitled to be paid by, or recover from, the insurer for providing a legal service to a worker in connection with an application or proposed application for a merit review are—
if the application is made and results in a favourable finding—$1,800, or
in any other case—$1,200.
Note.
Division 3 of Part 4.3 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) requires barristers and solicitors, before providing any services to a client, to provide the client with a written disclosure of the basis of the costs (or an estimate of the likely costs) of services concerned.
However, subclause (2) is limited as follows—
only one amount for costs is payable in respect of the application or proposed application regardless of the number of original work capacity decisions or review decisions to be reviewed under the application or proposed application,
only one legal practitioner is entitled to be paid or recover costs in respect of providing the legal service to which subclause (2) applies,
without affecting the operation of paragraph (b)—if the worker retains more than one legal practitioner to provide a legal service in connection with a proposed application for merit review in relation to the same original work capacity decision, only the first legal practitioner so retained who provides the legal service is entitled to be paid or recover costs for providing that service,
the legal service must be provided within 30 days after the worker was notified of the review decision.
To avoid doubt, a legal practitioner is entitled to be paid or recover an amount referred to in this clause whether or not the worker makes an application for a merit review in connection with which the legal service was provided.
A legal practitioner is not entitled to be paid or recover an amount referred to in this clause for providing a legal service in connection with an original work capacity decision made before the commencement of this clause.
A cost fixed by this clause may be increased by the amount of any GST payable in respect of the service to which the cost relates.
This Act’s bill:Explanatory memorandum
The statute text is free to read above. View subscription options to unlock the case-law research tools for each provision.