Craig v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2014] QIRC 81

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Craig v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 081
PARTIES:	Craig, Courtney (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2012/248
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
DELIVERED ON:	12 May 2014
HEARING DATES:	15-18 January 2013 18 February 2013 (Appellant's written submissions) 12 March 2013 (Respondent's written submissions) 14 March 2013 (oral submissions)
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Knight
ORDERS :	1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) is confirmed. 3. The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF REGULATOR - AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION - DEPRESSION, BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, BULIMIA - A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR - REASONABLE MANAGEMENT ACTION - Where the Appellant sought workers' compensation for a personal injury described as an aggravation of a pre-existing psychiatric condition - Whether employment is a significant contributing factor - increased workload - unsupportive supervisor - inappropriate comments from co-worker - Where there was inconsistent use of treating medication - Where Bulimia was never really controlled - Where workload occurred in peaks and troughs - Where difficulties arose between Appellant and co-worker - Where supervisor worked with both parties to allocate duties - Where sick leave was taken but no work-related injury diagnosed - Where a new supervisor commenced employment - Where contractors did not adhere to LCO processes - Appeal dismissed.
CASES:	Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 550, s32, s 32(1), s 32(5), s 32(3), s 32(4), Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP and Michelle Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115 WorkCover Queensland v BHP (Qld) Workers’ Compensation Unit (2002) QIC 27 Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 Davis v Blackwood (2014) ICQ 009 at (51) Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139 Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93 Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197 Svenson v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 626 Misevski v Q-COMP (C/2009/29) - Decision - McHours v Q-COMP (C/2012/12) - Decision -
APPEARANCES:	Mr J. Dwyer, Counsel instructed by M+K Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr S. Gray, Counsel directly instructed by the Respondent.

Decision

This is an appeal by Ms Courtney Craig (the Appellant / Ms Craig) pursuant to s 550 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against the decision of Q-COMP's Review Unit dated 20 June 2012, which set aside a decision of WorkCover Queensland dated 5 December 2011 to accept the Appellant's application for compensation. Q-COMP substituted a fresh decision to reject Ms Craig's application for compensation in respect of a psychiatric or psychological disorder said to have arisen during the course of her employment as a Human Resources Administrator at Ausenco Services Pty Ltd, when based at the Kestrel Mine.

Since the hearing…

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 Craig v Simon Blackwood (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: [2014] QIRC 81
Decision Date: 12 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Craig v Simon Blackwood, the Appellant, Craig, sought workers' compensation for a personal injury that he described as an aggravation of his pre-existing psychiatric condition. The dispute was heard in the relevant tribunal, which was tasked with determining whether Craig's employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury, and if the employer had taken reasonable management actions in response.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether Craig's employment was a significant contributing factor to his psychiatric injury, specifically his depression, borderline personality disorder, and bulimia. The tribunal needed to consider the various factors, including the increased workload, the unsupportive nature of the supervisor, and inappropriate comments from a co-worker. Additionally, the inconsistent use of treating medication, the failure to control the bulimia, and the peaks and troughs of workload also needed to be examined. The tribunal had to determine whether these factors, individually or collectively, constituted a significant contributing factor to Craig's psychiatric injury.

The tribunal concluded that Craig's employment was not a significant contributing factor to his psychiatric injury. The tribunal found that the employer had taken reasonable management actions in response to Craig's difficulties, including working with both Craig and the co-worker to allocate duties and providing support. The tribunal also noted that the difficulties arose between Craig and the co-worker, rather than being solely work-related. The tribunal further found that the new supervisor's employment and the contractors' non-adherence to LCO processes did not contribute significantly to Craig's injury.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator). Craig was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal, to be agreed or, failing agreement, 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 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) is confirmed.

3. The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this 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

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.