Australia's leading provider of affordable DIY legal kits
Call our Customer Care Specialists on 1300 728 200
   

Legal Forum

Welcome to the FREE AussieLegal Forum

This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.

To be sure we provide you with the most relevant information to your state, please let us know which state you your legal matter resides in:

ACT  NSW  NT  QLD  SA  TAS  VIC  WA  

AussieLegal recommends this law firm:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

A priori, does 100% functional capacity = healthy

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
faustus View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21/March/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
  Quote faustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A priori, does 100% functional capacity = healthy
    Posted: 21/March/2017 at 02:49

Greetings -- this is my virginal post So, what is it that brings me to here, these parts? A matter that makes no logical sense to me.


TL;DR I am being told that due to someone's current health issues, a person whose functional capacity has been assessed to be 100% is no longer available to do something with me. If this were actually true, I would presume that their could be no greater than 99%. Is my thinking reasonable?

--

To appreciate the cognitive dissonance I am experiencing, consider this oversimplified scenario:

Let's say someone falls seriously ill and there are real concerns whether or not they will live or die. But they recover. Bless them.

Their employer seeks to determine their functional capacity in terms of fulfilling the requirements of their job requirements. A panel of three medical specialists reviews the employees health issues and concludes they are able to work at 80% full capacity.

Cool. Now fast forward 12 months. Their functional capacity is upgraded to 100%.

Now, the way I see it, from a medicolegal viewpoint, 100% functional capacity does not mean that someone has no health problems. It simply means, as far as their employer is concerned, the employee can fulfill all the requirements of their tenure.

If this is correct, does it follow then, once an individual is assessed to be at 100% functional capacity, any utterance from the employer that the individual is not eligible to undertake x, y, or z, due to a health issue as it relates to current matters, suggests a departure from basic reason?

Let's just say that if one already suspected that the employer were attempting to leverage the employee's health concerns as a way of terminating their employment, this sort of claim should raise alarm bells.

--

But based on my limited understanding of all matters jurisprudence, ostensibly, it does not make sense.

As this is my first post, please be nice. No actually don't pull any punches -- please school me with cogent argumentation. My mind is completely open




Edited by faustus - 21/March/2017 at 02:51

 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Want to save money?

Check out our list of do-it-yourself legal kits.

Need formal advice?

Let us help you find a lawyer who specializes in your particular area of law.

Need further information?

Visit our legal forum where you can ask questions and search for similar topics.