Worker denied income insurance claim after battling cancer, COVID

A construction worker struck down by cancer and COVID-19 is mounting a legal campaign after his insurance company refused to honour his lost wages.

Tony Scott spent a month in a coma and says his illness has cost him more than $200,000.

But his insurance company, MLC, denied his claim after Scott changed his employment status.

When the 62-year-old contracted the virus, he was only just recovering from lymphoma.

For months, Scott was left gasping for breath after COVID-19 hit him so hard he was placed in a coma.

When the 62-year-old contracted the virus, he was only just recovering from lymphoma.

Because of the intense treatment regime, he had changed his employment status from “salaried” to “contractual”.

He never realised how that would hurt him.

“Performing the same role in the same industry. I mean, what’s changed?” Tony said.

“My employment status – and why has that changed?

“I was trying to get back into the workforce after going through cancer treatment.”

COVID-19 kept him in hospital for six months, delaying his return to work and costing him two hundred thousand dollars in lost wages.

COVID-19 kept him in hospital for six months, delaying his return to work and costing him two hundred thousand dollars in lost wages.

He had been paying income protection insurance with MLC.

“I just thought I had cover. I thought I had accident and sickness insurance,” Scott said.

He was wrong.

“They’ve tried to grab onto the first reason they could to actually deny the claim,” Scott’s lawyer from Shine Lawyers said.

Out of 230 pages of documents about the policy, there is one line that forms the basis of the rejection of Scott’s claim – something Scott said he was never warned about.

“Never at any stage did they say ‘if you’re on contract you won’t be covered’,” Scott said, adding that “I don’t think they’ve got a moral compass”.

In a statement, MLC said “Shine Law Firm is mounting a legal case for Mr Scott”.

Shine Lawyers said “we say that because there’s zero connection between the change in his employment status and the loss he suffered, we say the policy should still respond”.