Beattie v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 20

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Beattie v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 020
PARTIES:	Jeffrey Beattie (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2012/469
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	28 January 2015
HEARING DATES:	10-11 April 2014
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Neate
ORDERS :	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator to reject application for compensation - worker had asymptomatic, degenerative spinal condition - worker experienced symptoms of sciatica at home - whether worker had an injury - whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment – whether employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury – Appellant bears onus of proof.
CASES:	Adelaide Stevedoring Company Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538 Avis v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 165 QGIG 788 Carmen v Q-COMP (2007) 186 QGIG 512 Chattin AND WorkCover Queensland (1999) 161 QGIG 531 Commissioner of Police v David Rea [2008] NSWCA 199 Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 EMI (Australia) Limited v Bes (1970) 44 WCR 114 Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 190 Holtman v Sampson [1985] 2 Qd R 472 Joyce v Yeomans [1981] 1 WLR 549, [1981] 2 All ER 21 Lackey v WorkCover Queensland [2000] 165 QGIG 22 Monroe Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell (1995) 65 SASR 16 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 519 Obstoj v Van de Loos (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Connolly J, 16 April 1987) Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1996) 152 QGIG 1181 Qantas Airways Limited v QComp (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Qantas Airways Ltd AND Q-COMP and Michelle Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115 Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642 Rossmuller v Q-COMP (C/2009/36) - decision < v Kosac (1978) 80 LSJS 112 (Wells J) State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v QComp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 WorkCover Queensland AND Currogh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (2003) 172 QGIG 6
APPEARANCES:	Mr S Neaves, counsel instructed by Jon Kent Lawyers Mr N Jarro, counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Decision

This is an appeal by Jeffrey Grant Beattie ("the Appellant") against the decision of the Review Unit of Q-COMP (now Simon Blackwood, the Workers' Compensation Regulator) ("the Respondent") to confirm the decision of WorkCover Queensland ("WorkCover") to reject Mr Beattie's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ("the Act").
The Appellant contends that he has a back injury which resulted from his work over a period of time at Austin Engineering Ltd ("Austin Engineering"), and that his employment was a significant contributing factor…

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.

Continue reading Beattie v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 20
Case: [2015] QIRC 20
Decision Date: 28 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court was an appeal by the Appellant, Beattie, against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, Simon Blackwood, who rejected an application for compensation. The Appellant alleged that he had sustained an injury arising out of, or in the course of, his employment which resulted in a degenerative spinal condition. The central issue for the Court was whether the Appellant had an injury and, if so, whether the injury arose out of or in the course of his employment. Furthermore, the Court had to determine if employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury. In the context of workers' compensation, the Appellant bore the onus of proof.

The Court considered the evidence presented, including the findings of Dr Coroneos, who examined the Appellant and reviewed his medical history and imaging results. Dr Coroneos diagnosed the Appellant with lumbar spondylotic stenosis causing sciatica, a degenerative condition. However, the Court noted that the Appellant had a history of asymptomatic degenerative spinal conditions prior to his employment. The Court found that the Appellant's symptoms did not arise out of or in the course of his employment, and that there was no significant contribution by his employment to the development of his condition. Given the Appellant's pre-existing condition and the lack of direct link between his employment and the exacerbation of his symptoms, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Regulator's decision.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, the decision of the Regulator be confirmed, and that the Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. These costs were to be agreed upon by the parties, or, if agreement could not be reached, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The evidence of Dr Coroneos: At the request of WorkCover, the Appellant saw Dr Coroneos on 28 June 2012, some 10 months after he first experienced the symptoms in his left side. Dr Coroneos made a clinical examination of the Appellant, and referred to CT scans of the lumbar spine on 4 August 2011, and MRIs of the lumbar spine on 25 August 2011. Copies of those images were attached to his report dated 2 July 2012 (Exhibit 6). In making his diagnosis, Dr Coroneos had regard to those images and the radiologists' reports, as well as the Appellant's medical and occupational history. It is clear that Dr Coroneos relied heavily on the history provided to him by the Appellant. It is relevant to note that in his report, Dr Coroneos wrote that the Appellant: According to Dr Coroneos, the Appellant had "no systemic features of illness." However, the Appellant told Dr Coroneos that he could not bend when Dr Coroneos tried to examine his back, so he was not forced to demonstrate any movement. There was no spasm, deformity or guarding. Dr Coroneos noted that the radiologists had reported degeneration and osteophytes. In respect of the two previous investigations, he wrote:"04/08/11 CT Lumber Spine - Longstanding spondylosis, multilevel particularly at L5/S1.25/08/11 MR Lumbar spine - multilevel desiccation, schmorls nodes L1/2 and L2/3. Modic endplate change L5/S1. Circumference annular bulging L5/S1. Disc osteophyte complex circumferential at L5/S1 and facet degeneration." (Exhibit 6, emphasis in original) Having documented the history, examination on interpretation of CT and MRI, Dr Coroneos wrote: In his oral evidence, Dr Coroneos gave his diagnosis that the Appellant had lumbar spondylotic stenosis causing sciatica. He described the condition as a degenerative condition. There was no disc protrusion. It was a stenosis due to a disc osteophyte complex formation. Dr Coroneos explained that this is a common condition that occurs in all people as they get older. The most prominent theory about its cause and development is that the nucleus or jelly inside the disc loses its water content. This is associated with this function of the disc and the disc responds by causing osteophytes to occur in the margins. Associated with the osteophytes is tearing or fissure of the annulus (the capsule of the disc) which causes the circumferential bulging of the disc and the disc osteophyte complex formation. There is also a process in the facet joints at the back where they also become dysfunctional and enlarged. The end result is that the spinal canal becomes narrowed and the nerves can become compressed and cause sciatica. Dr Coroneos explained his diagnosis by reference to the five photographic CT and MR images attached to his report which he had marked to show such things as: In summary, the images show circumferential disc osteophyte complex at L5/S1 causing spinal stenosis. It is a spondylotic slowly progressive condition. There is no focal protrusion or herniation or prolapse.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.