Legal Research
Cases
Davis v Blackwood

Davis v Blackwood

Case [2014] ICQ 9 2 May 2014

Entitlement to Compensation

Breach of Contract

Exclusions

Stress Injuries

Reasonable Management Action

Workers' Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009

PARTIES:

CLEAVON DAVIS
(appellant)
v
SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR)
(respondent)

CASE NOS:

C/2013/36 and C/2013/37

APPEARANCES:

In each appeal
S D Anderson on behalf of the appellant, instructed by Shine Lawyers
R J Clutterbuck on behalf of the respondent, instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2014

HEARING DATE:

12 December 2013

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER/S:

In each appeal

1. Extension of time granted

2. Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EXCLUSIONS – STRESS INJURIES: AS A RESULT OF REASONABLE DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY EMPLOYER – where the appellant sought damages in respect of a stress-related injury – where stressors on the appellant arose party in his personal life and partly from his work – where the work-related stressors on the appellant arose predominantly from reasonable management action reasonably taken – whether the appellant’s entitlement to compensation was defeated by s 32(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32

CASES:

Avis v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 788; [2000] QIC 67, cited
Chapman v State of Queensland [2003] QCA 172, cited
Ford v La Forrest [2002] 2 Qd R 44; [2001] QCA 455, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, applied
Hunter Valley Development Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344; [1984] FCA 176, cited
Neophytos Foundadjis v Collin Bailey (2007) 184 QGIG 177, cited
QANTAS Airways Limited v Q-Comp and Michelle Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115; [2009] QIC 20, cited
Q-Comp v Hohn [2008] 187 QGIG 139; [2008] QIC 56, referred to
Queensland Public Sector Union of Employees v Department of Corrective Services (2006) 182 QGIG 503; [2006] QIC 42, cited
Queensland Trustees Limited v Fawckner [1964] Qd R 153, cited

Cleavon Davis commenced work at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in May 2008 as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Liaison Officer – Men’s Business. The common description given to this role was: Health Liaison Officer or HLO.

He has appealed two decisions of the Commission concerning his claims under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act). Both claims failed due to findings that the psychiatric injury or injuries suffered by Mr Davis arose as a result of reasonable management action reasonably taken. Where such a finding is made, s 32(5) of the Act defeats an entitlement to compensation that might otherwise have arisen. The background to these matters is well set out in the two decisions under appeal. I have combined them to give an overview of the matters which led up to the claims which were made by the appellant.

Background

Mr Davis’ role was to act as a liaison or support person for indigenous people who were receiving treatment at the hospital or who were family members or friends of patients. The role, in part, sought to overcome some traditional difficulties…

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 Davis v Blackwood

Details

AGLC: Davis v Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] ICQ 9
Case: [2014] ICQ 9
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Davis, sought damages for a stress-related injury sustained during his employment with Blackwood. Davis argued that the injury arose from stressors related to his work, which were compounded by personal issues. Blackwood contended that the injury was excluded from compensation by section 32(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, which excludes compensation for injuries resulting from reasonable disciplinary or administrative actions by the employer. The court had to determine whether Davis's entitlement to compensation was valid despite the work-related stressors being a result of reasonable management action.

The court examined the nature and source of the work-related stressors on Davis, finding that they predominantly stemmed from reasonable management actions taken by Blackwood. It needed to decide if these circumstances fell under the exclusion of section 32(5) of the Act, which excludes compensation for injuries resulting from such actions. The court considered whether the reasonable nature of the management actions, despite causing stress, precluded Davis from claiming compensation for the injury.

The court concluded that Davis's injury, although stress-related, was a consequence of reasonable management actions by Blackwood. Given that the stressors were largely due to these actions, the court found that section 32(5) of the Act applied, thereby excluding Davis from compensation. The court upheld Blackwood's position, ruling that Davis's entitlement to compensation was defeated by the statutory exclusion. The court found in favour of Blackwood, dismissing Davis's claim for compensation.

Orders