QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION:
Burton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 437
PARTIES:
Burton, Evan Gilbert
(Appellant)
v
Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)
CASE NO.:
WC/2017/193
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:
24 December 2021
HEARING DATES:
3, 4, 5 and 6 August 2020
DATES OF WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS:
Respondent's written submissions filed on 23 February 2021 and Appellant's written submissions filed on 16 March 2021
MEMBER:
HEARD AT:
Merrell DP
Brisbane
ORDERS:
1. Pursuant to s 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the review decision of the Respondent dated 14 September 2017 is confirmed.
2. Pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011:
(a) the parties are to exchange and file written submissions on the costs of the hearing (of no more than two (2) pages, 12‑point font size, line and a‑half spacing with numbered paragraphs and pages) by 4.00 pm on Friday, 21 January 2022; and
(b) unless otherwise ordered, the decision on costs be determined on the papers.
CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - appeal against review decision of respondent - appellant employed as an auto electrician - appellant diagnosed with the injury of cervical spondylosis - allegation that when completing tasks, appellant was required to spend the majority of his time with his neck in a marked cervical flexion and in a static flexion position - whether appellant was required to spend majority of his work time with his neck in a marked cervical flexion and in a static flexion position - whether appellant's cervical spondylosis arose out of, or in the course of, his employment - whether any aggravation of appellant's cervical spondylosis arose out of, or in the course of, his employment - whether employment was a significant contributing factor to injury or aggravation - appellant's personal injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment and his employment was not a significant contributing factor to his injury - appellant did not suffer an aggravation of his personal injury which arose out of, or in the course of, his employment - review decision of respondent confirmed
LEGISLATION:
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32 and s 558
CASES:
Avis v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QIC 67; (2000) 165 QGIG 788
Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461
Heald v Q-Comp [2004] QIC 74; (2004) 177 QGIG 769
JBS Australia Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2013] ICQ 13
Kavanagh v The Commonwealth [1960] HCA 25; (1960) 103 CLR 547
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48; (2006) 1 Qd R 519
Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Civeo Pty Ltd and Anor [2016] ICQ 001
State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q‑Comp and Beverley Coyne [2003] ICQ 9; (2003)…
Continue reading Burton v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Burton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 437
- Case
- [2021] QIRC 437
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Burton's cervical spondylosis arose out of, or in the course of, his employment as an auto electrician and whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The court also considered whether Burton suffered an aggravation of his personal injury which arose out of, or in the course of, his employment. The court was required to determine whether the evidence established that Burton's employment required him to spend the majority of his time with his neck in a marked cervical flexion and static flexion position, and whether such employment practices were a significant contributing factor to his injury.
The court found that Burton had failed to establish that his employment required him to spend the majority of his time with his neck in a marked cervical flexion and static flexion position. The court found that the evidence did not establish that Burton's employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury, and that Burton did not suffer an aggravation of his personal injury which arose out of, or in the course of, his employment. The court concluded that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was correct and confirmed the review decision. The court ordered that the parties exchange and file written submissions on the costs of the hearing by 4.00 pm on Friday, 21 January 2022, and that the decision on costs be determined on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the review decision of the Respondent dated 14 September 2017 is confirmed.
2. Pursuant to r 41(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011:
(a) the parties are to exchange and file written submissions on the costs of the hearing (of no more than two (2) pages, 12‑point font size, line and a‑half spacing with numbered paragraphs and pages) by 4.00 pm on Friday, 21 January 2022; and
(b) unless otherwise ordered, the decision on costs be determined on the papers.
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.