Appleton v Workers Compensation Regulator - [2018] QIRC 104

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Appleton v Workers Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 104
PARTIES:	Appleton, Stefan (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/203
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	6 August 2018
HEARING DATES:	26 April 2018 9 May 2018 4 and 5 June 2018
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Vice President Linnane Caloundra
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 26 September 2017 is confirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the Workers' Compensation Regulator's costs of, and incidental to, this appeal by 3 September 2018.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW - APPEAL - whether worker suffered a personal injury - whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment - whether employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury - whether the actions taken by the employer involved reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32 Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992
APPEARANCES:	Mr S. Appleton, the Appellant in person. Dr M. Callaghan, Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator for the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

This is an appeal by Stefan Appleton (Appellant) against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator (Regulator) dated 26 September 2017 to reject the Appellant's application for workers' compensation in accordance with s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Act).

The Appellant was, at the relevant time, employed as a driver by ComLink Limited (ComLink). The Appellant lodged an application for workers' compensation with WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) on 9 November 2016 reporting that he had sustained workload anxiety and panic attacks while driving the work car in Maroochydore due to "working over hours, in home life hours, and in working day hours, panic attacks (and) anxiety from hours in work and outside". WorkCover issued a decision dated 16 December 2016 in which it found that the actions taken by the ComLink were "sound, based on reason, and were not arbitrary, nor involved any direct unfairness against" the Appellant. WorkCover decided that the management action was reasonable and undertaken in a reasonable way and therefore rejected the Appellant's application for compensation relying upon s 32(5) of the Act.

The Appellant sought review of that WorkCover decision to the Regulator. The Regulator in a decision dated 26 September 2017 confirmed the decision of WorkCover. The Appellant filed an Appeal Notice in the Industrial Registry on 26 October 2017 against that decision of the Regulator.

Legal Framework

The appeal relates to s 32 of the Act and in particular to subsection (5). Section 32(1) and (5) of the Act provide:

"(1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if -
(a)for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder - the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; or
(b)for a psychiatric or psychological disorder - the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Appleton v Workers Compensation Regulator and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QIRC 104
Decision Date: 6 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Appleton v Workers Compensation Regulator involved a claim for workers' compensation by the Appellant, who alleged that she had suffered a personal injury while in the course of her employment with the Respondent. The Appellant sought compensation for injuries she claimed arose from her employment, which the Respondent had denied. The matter was appealed to the court of appeal.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the Appellant had indeed suffered a personal injury, whether the injury arose out of or in the course of her employment, whether her employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury, and whether the actions taken by the employer involved reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. These issues required the court to examine the facts of the case and apply relevant legal principles to determine whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation.

The court found that the Appellant's claim was not supported by the evidence. The court held that the Appellant had not suffered a personal injury, and even if she had, the injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment. The court also found that the Respondent's actions did not involve unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 26 September 2017 was confirmed. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of, and incidental to, this appeal by 3 September 2018.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 26 September 2017 is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Workers' Compensation Regulator's costs of, and incidental to, this appeal by 3 September 2018.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.