No-show Setka too sick to deal with lawyers over push to oust AFL umpiring boss
Setka, or lawyers on his behalf, have now failed to show up for two preliminary Federal Court hearings to respond to accusations from the Fair Work Ombudsman, instead providing a medical certificate that he is too unwell to attend meetings.
The court heard that while the certificate provided few details of the nature of the union hardman's ailment, it also indicated he had a WorkCover claim in progress.
The ombudsman alleges the disgraced former CFMEU boss breached workplace laws by trying to pressure the AFL into dumping its umpiring chief, Steve McBurney, due to his previous job at the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).
A case management hearing on Friday was unable to proceed after Setka's second no-show in a month, leaving Justice John Snaden and lawyers representing the ombudsman to discuss options to go forward with the matter.
Loading
Representing the ombudsman, lawyer Marc Felman, KC, said he had received correspondence including a medical certificate that stated that Setka was not currently in a state of mind to attend meetings, make decisions or instruct legal representation, though there was no indication of how long it would take him to recover.
Felman said the letter indicated Setka would be receiving treatment for several months and had a WorkCover claim that was being assessed, but the nature of his illness was not disclosed because Setka was concerned about releasing personal and private information to government organisations.
He told the court Setka needed to file a defence or a report from a qualified specialist medical practitioner.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
5 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
There's a new app to spot sports concussions. Does it work?
That's BrainEye's claim. What does the evidence say? It's all in the eyes I sat down with BrainEye's app on Monday. I held my phone in two hands, elbows resting on my desk for stability, and then followed a small bobble with my eyes as it wandered across my screen. This is a test of 'smooth-pursuit eye movement': the ability to keep a moving target centred on my retinas. Athletes with concussion tend to struggle with this test, their tracking slow, the target often missed. 'Almost half the neurons in the brain are involved in processing vision,' says Fielding, who is also a research fellow at Monash University's Department of Neuroscience. 'Concussions hit the brainstem and frontal lobes particularly hard. When you smack your brain around, it's disrupting networks. The brainstem is especially vulnerable. That's where all the signals are generated for an eye movement.' A concussion causes short-term effects on neural patterns and, potentially, longer-term harm to the brain tissue. My BrainEye test informed me that I did not have a concussion, which is good news. Can it spot the red flags of concussion in athletes? That's where it gets murkier. Does it work? The company has received a lot of positive press for a validation study it ran on AFL footballers, in which the tech spotted 100 per cent of footballers with concussions, and had a false-positive rate of about 15 per cent. We should note other tests for sport-related concussion are not 100 per cent robust. A 2023 systematic review found the sensitivity of three common tools was between 50 and 88 per cent; all tools had false-positive rates of about 15 per cent. But the study itself, funded by BrainEye and published in Sports Medicine - Open in March, has several issues. First, the sample size: 11 concussed AFL footballers. Total (plus baseline data from 384 non-concussed players). 'Such a low sample size means this must be viewed with caution,' says the Australian Institute of Sport's Hughes, who is also lead author of the AIS Concussion and Brain Health Position Statement. It's also worth noting here three of the four Monash University researchers who conducted the Sports Medicine - Open study now work for BrainEye. The study was done on players the researchers knew already had a confirmed concussion. It was unblinded. And the paper does not report confidence intervals, standard measures that tell us the level of uncertainty in the data. One statistician who read the paper did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation: it was much lower than BrainEye's. 'I would hope to see more data collected before these sorts of claims can be substantiated,' Swinburne University's leading concussion researcher, adjunct professor Alan Pearce, tells me. The method of detecting potential changes to the brain in the study – red flags for concussion – is also intriguing. BrainEye took two measures, smooth eye tracking and 'pupillary light reflex', the quick response of the pupil to light, and combined them into an overall BrainEye score. It then generated a cut-off value for each measure, and for the overall BrainEye score. If an athlete's score was below the cut-off, they were assessed as concussed. 'It isn't clear how this is calculated as it isn't a direct average of these two outputs,' says associate professor Frances Corrigan, a concussion researcher at the University of Adelaide. Indeed, of the concussed footballers in the study, one had smooth eye tracking above the cut-off, and four had pupil reflexes over the cut-off. BrainEye tells me it no longer uses pupil reflexes in its app, and instead uses two measures of smooth eye tracking built on more than 150,000 completed tests. (I asked for additional clinical validation data, but it wasn't provided.) Then there's the usability question. A smartphone concussion test seems like a no-brainer. But when the researchers tried to enrol AFL clubs in their study, five declined because 'they found the kit and set-up too difficult and/or time-consuming to incorporate into their existing post-concussion assessment protocol'. Of the 10 clubs that did agree to take part, only three integrated BrainEye into their concussion screening. Even then, several concussions were missed because staff 'forgot' to use the device. Why did clubs find it so tricky to use, given it's just a smartphone? Well, when it was tested in 2022, BrainEye wasn't quite a smartphone. The tester version came with a custom stand and chin-rest, an LED light bar and an IR camera. Athletes had to sit on a height-adjustable chair to use it correctly. Even with the stand, about 10 per cent of players did not manage to get the tests to return usable data, often because they were moving their heads too much. The current version of BrainEye's app works without a stabilising stand. So is it reasonable to still rely on test data from the stabilised version of the app, which now captures different data from the eyes? Addressing this concern, the company provided an unpublished study titled 'Clinical validation of the BrainEye Smartphone Application'. The study tested BrainEye's unstabilised app against two medical-grade devices: the Tobii Pro Glasses 3 (RRP $13,000 plus) and the NeurOptics NPI pupillometer. It found the three devices produced highly similar results. 'Our conclusions are accurate and valid,' says Fielding. David Hughes, of the Australian Institute of Sport, is more sceptical. BrainEye 'cannot be recommended as a reliable tool for diagnosing concussion', he says. 'Further studies are needed with improved research methodology, and we also need for these studies to be done within the community sport environment.' We should be careful, I think, about damning an Australian innovation for not having done every study it needs; BrainEye remains under development. It is not yet regulated as a diagnostic device. But if the tech is not yet ready for prime time, what alternatives exist? There are non-smartphone tools that already exist for non-medicos to spot concussion - the CRT6 asks fairly simple questions such as whether the athlete has blurred vision or neck pain, or feels irritable. We could also put in place things to minimise the risk – such as banning heading in soccer training – and invest properly in training players and coaches to spot concussion at amateur level. And we can try harder to change a sporting culture that still seems to think blunt-force trauma to the head is acceptable. Swinburne's Alan Pearce says: 'Everybody thinks that 'tech' will save the day, but it's understanding the seriousness of the injury and cultural change towards concussion. It's not just a 'head knock'.'
The Age
5 days ago
- The Age
There's a new app to spot sports concussions. Does it work?
That's BrainEye's claim. What does the evidence say? It's all in the eyes I sat down with BrainEye's app on Monday. I held my phone in two hands, elbows resting on my desk for stability, and then followed a small bobble with my eyes as it wandered across my screen. This is a test of 'smooth-pursuit eye movement': the ability to keep a moving target centred on my retinas. Athletes with concussion tend to struggle with this test, their tracking slow, the target often missed. 'Almost half the neurons in the brain are involved in processing vision,' says Fielding, who is also a research fellow at Monash University's Department of Neuroscience. 'Concussions hit the brainstem and frontal lobes particularly hard. When you smack your brain around, it's disrupting networks. The brainstem is especially vulnerable. That's where all the signals are generated for an eye movement.' A concussion causes short-term effects on neural patterns and, potentially, longer-term harm to the brain tissue. My BrainEye test informed me that I did not have a concussion, which is good news. Can it spot the red flags of concussion in athletes? That's where it gets murkier. Does it work? The company has received a lot of positive press for a validation study it ran on AFL footballers, in which the tech spotted 100 per cent of footballers with concussions, and had a false-positive rate of about 15 per cent. We should note other tests for sport-related concussion are not 100 per cent robust. A 2023 systematic review found the sensitivity of three common tools was between 50 and 88 per cent; all tools had false-positive rates of about 15 per cent. But the study itself, funded by BrainEye and published in Sports Medicine - Open in March, has several issues. First, the sample size: 11 concussed AFL footballers. Total (plus baseline data from 384 non-concussed players). 'Such a low sample size means this must be viewed with caution,' says the Australian Institute of Sport's Hughes, who is also lead author of the AIS Concussion and Brain Health Position Statement. It's also worth noting here three of the four Monash University researchers who conducted the Sports Medicine - Open study now work for BrainEye. The study was done on players the researchers knew already had a confirmed concussion. It was unblinded. And the paper does not report confidence intervals, standard measures that tell us the level of uncertainty in the data. One statistician who read the paper did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation: it was much lower than BrainEye's. 'I would hope to see more data collected before these sorts of claims can be substantiated,' Swinburne University's leading concussion researcher, adjunct professor Alan Pearce, tells me. The method of detecting potential changes to the brain in the study – red flags for concussion – is also intriguing. BrainEye took two measures, smooth eye tracking and 'pupillary light reflex', the quick response of the pupil to light, and combined them into an overall BrainEye score. It then generated a cut-off value for each measure, and for the overall BrainEye score. If an athlete's score was below the cut-off, they were assessed as concussed. 'It isn't clear how this is calculated as it isn't a direct average of these two outputs,' says associate professor Frances Corrigan, a concussion researcher at the University of Adelaide. Indeed, of the concussed footballers in the study, one had smooth eye tracking above the cut-off, and four had pupil reflexes over the cut-off. BrainEye tells me it no longer uses pupil reflexes in its app, and instead uses two measures of smooth eye tracking built on more than 150,000 completed tests. (I asked for additional clinical validation data, but it wasn't provided.) Then there's the usability question. A smartphone concussion test seems like a no-brainer. But when the researchers tried to enrol AFL clubs in their study, five declined because 'they found the kit and set-up too difficult and/or time-consuming to incorporate into their existing post-concussion assessment protocol'. Of the 10 clubs that did agree to take part, only three integrated BrainEye into their concussion screening. Even then, several concussions were missed because staff 'forgot' to use the device. Why did clubs find it so tricky to use, given it's just a smartphone? Well, when it was tested in 2022, BrainEye wasn't quite a smartphone. The tester version came with a custom stand and chin-rest, an LED light bar and an IR camera. Athletes had to sit on a height-adjustable chair to use it correctly. Even with the stand, about 10 per cent of players did not manage to get the tests to return usable data, often because they were moving their heads too much. The current version of BrainEye's app works without a stabilising stand. So is it reasonable to still rely on test data from the stabilised version of the app, which now captures different data from the eyes? Addressing this concern, the company provided an unpublished study titled 'Clinical validation of the BrainEye Smartphone Application'. The study tested BrainEye's unstabilised app against two medical-grade devices: the Tobii Pro Glasses 3 (RRP $13,000 plus) and the NeurOptics NPI pupillometer. It found the three devices produced highly similar results. 'Our conclusions are accurate and valid,' says Fielding. David Hughes, of the Australian Institute of Sport, is more sceptical. BrainEye 'cannot be recommended as a reliable tool for diagnosing concussion', he says. 'Further studies are needed with improved research methodology, and we also need for these studies to be done within the community sport environment.' We should be careful, I think, about damning an Australian innovation for not having done every study it needs; BrainEye remains under development. It is not yet regulated as a diagnostic device. But if the tech is not yet ready for prime time, what alternatives exist? There are non-smartphone tools that already exist for non-medicos to spot concussion - the CRT6 asks fairly simple questions such as whether the athlete has blurred vision or neck pain, or feels irritable. We could also put in place things to minimise the risk – such as banning heading in soccer training – and invest properly in training players and coaches to spot concussion at amateur level. And we can try harder to change a sporting culture that still seems to think blunt-force trauma to the head is acceptable. Swinburne's Alan Pearce says: 'Everybody thinks that 'tech' will save the day, but it's understanding the seriousness of the injury and cultural change towards concussion. It's not just a 'head knock'.'
ABC News
5 days ago
- ABC News
Easy ways to obtain a medical certificate for sick or carer's leave
Winter has well and truly arrived — and so has cold and flu season — meaning some of us may need time off to care for ourselves or a loved one. Workplaces often require evidence for sick or carer's leave, so what are your options for getting that? According to the Fair Work Ombudsman, an employer can ask an employee to provide evidence showing they took leave because they were: Unable to work because of illness or injury, or Needed to provide care or support to an immediate family or household member because of illness, injury or an emergency This can be for as little as one day or part of a day off work, and an employee who does not supply documentation may not be entitled to be paid for their sick or carer's leave. However, Shae McCrystal, professor of Law at the University of Sydney Law School, on the traditional lands of the Gadigal people, says medical evidence is not always required for personal leave, and employees should familiarise themselves with their workplace's enterprise agreements and industrial awards. The Fair Work Ombudsman says: "While there are no strict rules on what type of evidence needs to be given, the evidence has to convince a reasonable person that the employee was genuinely entitled to the sick or carer's leave." Visiting a fully bulk-billing doctor for a free consultation is an efficient and cost-effective way to get a medical certificate. However, recent surveys by ABC News and the Royal Australian College of GPs show fewer than 10 per cent of GPs exclusively bulk-bill patients, with average out-of-pocket costs to see a GP ranging from about $40 to $55. Securing a GP appointment at short notice can also be difficult, especially for Australians living in regional and remote areas. Booking a telehealth appointment can be a convenient way of securing a medical certificate, particularly if you are physically unable to get to a doctor or cannot secure an appointment. These appointments are offered via video or phone, and patients who use a telehealth service are generally directed to a short questionnaire and then assessed by an Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency-approved health practitioner. Costs of telehealth consultations can vary, with some costing less than $20, but according to Queensland Health, a telehealth appointment "should cost the same as an in-person appointment". Pharmacists can also issue absence-from-work certificates for a range of minor ailments within the scope of their practice. The cost of a pharmacy-issued absence-from-work form usually ranges from $20 to $35 for a single-day certificate, and Pharmacy Guild of Australia's Victoria vice-president Anthony Tassone says they can be issued for illnesses such as cold and flu, diarrhoea or migraines and severe headaches, for example. "[Illness where] they're not well enough to work, but it should resolve soon," Mr Tassone says. The Fair Work Ombudsman says statutory declarations are also an acceptable form of evidence for sick or carer's leave. Although there is no cost involved in getting a statutory declaration (stat dec), it has historically involved downloading and printing the form, filling out facts that you declare to be true and accurate, and having the document signed by a witness such as a justice of the peace. However, under legislative changes that came in early 2024, it is now possible to make commonwealth stat decs using your Digital Identity by creating a myGovID and attaching it to your myGov account. Australian National University professor of law and regulation Veronica Taylor says digital and paper stat decs "have exactly the same effect".
