Davidson v Blackwood - [2014] ICQ 8

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 008

PARTIES:

STEVEN FREDERICK DAVIDSON
(appellant)
v
SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR)
(respondent)

CASE NO:

C/2013/25

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2014

HEARING DATE:

10 December 2013

APPEARANCES:

D Turnbull on behalf of the appellant, instructed by Dean & Bolton

D Callaghan on behalf of the respondent, directly instructed

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER/S:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – EMPLOYMENT SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR – TO INJURY – where a worker suffered an injury to his leg in 2010 for which he received compensation – where the worker suffered a disc protrusion in 2011 – where there was conflicting medical evidence as to the cause of the disc protrusion – whether the worker’s employment was a “significant contributing factor” in the disc protrusion

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – NATURE OF RIGHT – APPEALS IN THE STRICT SENSE AND APPEALS BY WAY OF REHEARING – APPEALS BY WAY OF REHEARING – SCOPE AND EFFECT OF REHEARING – where the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 provides for an appeal to the Court to proceed “by way of rehearing” – where the appellant submits that the hearing should proceed “de novo” and that the appellant must demonstrate an error on the balance of probabilities – where the respondent submits that the Court ought not intervene where the Commission gave “sufficiently comprehensive” reasons and reached conclusions “reasonably open” to it – whether either submission consistent with authority

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 561, s 562

CASES:

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40, applied
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, applied
Labaj v WorkCover Queensland (2003) 174 QGIG 370; [2003] QIC 155, referred to
Q-Comp v Hetherington (2004) 176 QGIG 493; [2004] QIC 47, referred to
Q-Comp v Ungerer [2012] QIRComm 169, not followed

In December 2010 Mr Davidson was working as a plumber on a building site. While doing some roofing work, he fell from a scaffold some 2.5 metres above ground. As a result of the fall he suffered a compound fracture dislocation of the right ankle. He was treated in hospital and, on release, was required to wear a “moon boot” for some time. This injury was accepted as being compensable under the Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“the Act”).

In late September 2001 Mr Davidson and his children went to a shopping centre to watch some school holiday entertainment. While doing that he experienced the sudden onset of back pain. The pain worsened to the point where, on the following day, he was taken by ambulance to a hospital for treatment. Mr Davidson was diagnosed with a large left posterior L4-5 disc protrusion, extending inferiorly and compressing the left L5 nerve root within the spinal canal.

An application…

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 Davidson v Blackwood

Details

AGLC: Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8
Case: [2014] ICQ 8
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davidson commenced proceedings against Blackwood in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking a review of a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. Davidson, a worker, had previously received compensation for an injury sustained at work in 2010. In 2011, Davidson suffered a disc protrusion, and the issue before the court was whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to this injury. Davidson contended that his employment was a significant contributing factor, while Blackwood argued that it was not.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: firstly, whether Davidson’s employment was a significant contributing factor to the disc protrusion; and secondly, the nature of the appeal process under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The court needed to determine the standard of review applicable to the appeal and whether it should proceed de novo or by way of rehearing. Davidson submitted that the appeal should proceed de novo, and the appellant must demonstrate an error on the balance of probabilities, while Blackwood argued that the court should not intervene if the Commission provided sufficiently comprehensive reasons and reached conclusions reasonably open to it.

The court found that the appeal was to be conducted by way of rehearing, in accordance with the statutory provision. The court determined that the appeal should not proceed de novo unless there was a clear error in the primary decision-making process. The court held that the Commission had provided comprehensive reasons and reached conclusions that were reasonably open to it. Consequently, the court found that the appeal was not well-founded, and Davidson’s appeal was dismissed.

Davidson’s appeal was dismissed, and Blackwood was not required to pay any further compensation in relation to the 2011 disc protrusion. The court affirmed that the appeal was to proceed by way of rehearing and that the primary decision-making process by the Workers' Compensation Regulator was not flawed.

Orders