After a serious workplace injury left him unable to continue his career, Mr Juma’s initial claim for loss of earning capacity was denied. With PRD Compensation by his side, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision restoring his right to seek fair compensation injury lawyers.
Mr Muwafak Toma Juma, a former electrical service technician, was injured in January 2019 while repairing an escalator at Dandenong Plaza. Initially affecting his left shoulder, the injury triggered overuse and pain in his right shoulder and elbow—ultimately forcing him out of manual work. Despite surgeries, injections, and extensive treatment, the impact on his ability to work was undeniable.
Mr Juma applied for leave to pursue a common law claim for damages for loss of earning capacity, under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. While the County Court accepted that he had endured serious pain and suffering, it denied his claim for pecuniary damages.
PRD Compensation challenged the County Court’s ruling—arguing that the credibility findings were glaringly improbable and the omission in the affidavit was not deceitful. The Court of Appeal agreed and determined that Mr Juma’s pain, functional limitations, and consistent disclosures to medical professionals clearly supported his claim injury lawyer near me.
“It is glaringly improbable that Mr Juma intended to mislead… He consistently disclosed his employment to multiple medical professionals, including those retained by the respondent.”
For injured workers:
This ruling reinforces that your right to justice shouldn’t hinge on paperwork errors. If your ability to earn has genuinely been affected, your case deserves a fair hearing—backed by facts, not assumptions.
For allied-health referrers:
When a patient’s work capacity fluctuates or changes due to pain and post-surgical impact, their credibility should not be questioned without a full picture. Accurate, well-documented reports and timely communication can make all the difference in legal outcomes workers compensation lawyer.
The Court applied the “correctness standard” of appellate review and held that the trial judge’s conclusions on Mr Juma’s credibility and medical evidence were unsupported by the broader record.
We champion your rights and work tirelessly to ensure justice is not just accessible but also meaningful.
