Worker’s $90 doctor’s bill claim over Covid vaccine ‘back injury’ criticised by judge

A judge has levelled a scathing judgment at a CMI Toyota worker and his Salisbury councillor lawyer over a $90 doctor’s bill, labelling it an “abuse of process”.

South Australian Employment Tribunal President Justice Steven Dolphin (right) has levelled a lashing at a CMI worker, represented by Salisbury Councillor Beau Brug (inset).

A judge has levelled a scathing judgment at a CMI Toyota worker claiming $90 over what he said was a vaccine-induced back injury, labelling his claim an “abuse of process” and criticising the documents provided by his lawyer.

Pandeli Paterakis, represented by Salisbury Councillor Beau Brug, pursued a claim for $90 in the South Australian Employment Tribunal over a doctor’s visit at Next Generation Occupational Medicine.

The visit related to a back injury Mr Paterakis claimed was the result of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, which he said he was required to receive for work purposes.

Mr Paterakis was working for Commercial Motor Industries (CMI) when he received the vaccine in November 2021.

After being vaccinated, Mr Paterakis said he suffered “chronic whole back spasm with pain” and his “whole back was tight and painful”.

He filed two claims with Return to Work for both the back spasm injury and psychological harm, but these were rejected in June 2022 and December 2022.

Mr Paterakis already has three other ongoing disputes in the SAET – seeking to overturn Return to Work’s decision to reject compensation for his back injury, disputing their decision to deny a claim for psychological injury, and disputing their decision not to cover two other accounts from Next Generation Occupational Medicine.

President of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Justice Steven Dolphin. Picture: SAET.

Those cases are yet to be decided.

This case, labelled by SAET President Justice Steven Dolphin as the “$90 dispute”, related to a third doctor’s visit at Next Generation.

In a spectacular lashing, Justice Dolphin described the $90 claim as “brazen” and “remarkable” and slammed Mr Paterakis’ submissions, which were eight paragraphs in total and “even with double lined spacing took up barely a page and a half.”

“It is not always the case that brevity equates to paucity of pertinent information, but that is the case here,” he said.

Dismissing the case as an abuse of process, Justice Dolphin said no actual account of the $90 doctor’s bill had been submitted as evidence and “three applications had been filed when one would suffice”.

Mr Paterakis argued that he was “required” to file the $90 dispute application, to which Justice Dolphin said: “No, he wasn’t”.

The applicant was represented by City of Salisbury Councillor Beau Brug, pictured. Picture: Dylan Coker

“Allowing this type of litigious excess to continue would open the door to a plague of Applications for Review … a $15 prescription for painkillers here; a $98.80 physiotherapist’s account there. And again. And again,” Justice Dolphin said.

“The valuable resources of this Tribunal would become stretched to breaking if such litigious behaviour was to become commonplace.”

If Mr Paterakis‘ $90 claim was not dismissed as “vexatious”, he would have been entitled to receive costs of almost $3,500 from Return to Work.

This, Justice Dolphin said, would have been almost 30 times the amount sought.

“It does not need a judicial officer to point out that a potential maximum of $3,482 is grossly disproportionate to a medical expense,” Justice Dolphin said.

In dismissing the case, Justice Dolphin said Mr Paterakis would still have the opportunity to recover the $90 bill in two of his three other disputes.

Originally published as Worker’s $90 doctor’s bill claim over Covid vaccine ‘back injury’ criticised by judge