Canton v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] QIRC 145

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Jason Canton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 145
PARTIES:	Canton, Jason (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/227
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	9 October 2019
HEARING DATE:	30 September 2019
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	O'Connor VP Cairns
ORDER:	1. Application granted. 2. The Appellant is entitled to lead evidence in accordance with his Statement of Facts and Contentions including evidence regarding "the employer's conduct". 3. The Regulator pay the Appellant's costs of this application to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – nature of appeal – scope of the evidence – physical and psychological injuries
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (Qld) s 32, s 131, s 545, s 558 Workers' Compensation Act 1990 Capuano v QCOMP [2004] QSC 333 Carlton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 29 Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031. Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534 Mayer v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1996) 152 QGIG 1856 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 Trimble v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) and State of Queensland (for Queensland Audit Office) [2014] QIRC 172 Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland v Barclay (1995) 148 QGIG 37
APPEARANCES:	Mr M Glen of Counsel instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Appellant Ms L Neil of Counsel directly instructed by the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

The Appellant was at all material times employed as an electrician by Phaze Solutions Pty Ltd. On 31 January 2014 he suffered an electric shock injury when his right elbow came into contact with a live cable. On the same date, Dr Sakurai of Cairns Based Hospital issued a workers' compensation medical certificate providing a diagnosis of "electrocution".
On 3 February 2014 the Appellant lodged an application for workers' compensation with WorkCover Queensland. On 23 October 2016 the Appellant, through his solicitors, lodged an application for a permanent impairment which referenced right elbow and psychological injuries.
On 6 July 2017 WorkCover Queensland rejected the application for workers' compensation for psychological injury on the basis that the Appellant had not sustained an "injury" within the meaning of s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act).
In its decision of 15 November 2017, the Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover. It is against this decision that the Appellant now appeals to this Commission.
The Appellant has pleaded as part of his Statement of Facts and Contentions that it was the electrical shock incident and his employer's conduct subsequent to the incident which is causative of his injuries. The Regulator has raised an objection that the employer's conduct cannot form part of the appeal because it involves subject matter which was not part of the original application for compensation.
This is a preliminary hearing to determine the scope of the appeal…

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 Canton v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Canton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 145
Case: [2019] QIRC 145
Decision Date: 9 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Canton lodged an appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator concerning his eligibility for compensation for both physical and psychological injuries sustained in the course of his employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the court. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Appellant was entitled to lead certain evidence in relation to the employer's conduct and the extent to which this evidence could be admitted in relation to his claim for psychological injury.

The court found that the Appellant was indeed entitled to lead evidence as outlined in his Statement of Facts and Contentions, including evidence regarding the employer's conduct. The court reasoned that the Appellant's ability to present a comprehensive case regarding both physical and psychological injuries was essential for a fair determination of his claim. The court determined that the Appellant's evidence was relevant to understanding the full scope of the injuries and the circumstances leading to them. Furthermore, the court held that the Regulator's objections to the admissibility of certain evidence were not well founded.

In light of the above, the court granted the Appellant's application, allowing him to lead the evidence as proposed. Additionally, the court ordered the Regulator to pay the Appellant's costs associated with this application, with the amount to be agreed upon by the parties or, if an agreement could not be reached, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application granted.

2. The Appellant is entitled to lead evidence in accordance with his Statement of Facts and Contentions including evidence regarding "the employer's conduct".

3. The Regulator pay the Appellant's costs of this application to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.

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.