Dickinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] QIRC 68

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Dickinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 068
PARTIES:	Dickinson, Bronwyn (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/119
PROCEEDING:	Objection to Witnesses – Relevance
DELIVERED ON:	13 May 2019
HEARING DATE:	13 May 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Knight IC
ORDER:	1. The evidence of Dr Jetnikoff and Dr Chau is not relevant for the purposes of the preliminary hearing to determine the date of Ms Dickinson's injury.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – where preliminary hearing to be held to determine date of decompensation – where respondent objects to relevance of evidence from expert witnesses who treated appellant after she visited her general practitioner.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 Kiesouw v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 064 Groos v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 106.
APPEARANCES:	Mr T. O'Brien, Counsel, instructed by Ms. K. Pitt of Everingham Lawyers, for the appellant. Mr. P. O'Neill, Counsel, directly instructed by Ms. C. Shedden of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Decision

Ms Bronwyn Dickinson ("the appellant") initially lodged an application for workers' compensation for a psychological/psychiatric injury on 10 October 2016. The Local Government Workcare Scheme ("LGW") subsequently rejected the application for compensation.
Ms Dickinson sought a review of LGW's decision on 6 April 2017. The Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Regulator") confirmed the decision of the LGW to reject Ms Dickinson's application for compensation on 16 June 2017.
Ms Dickinson subsequently lodged an appeal in the Commission against the decision of the Regulator to reject the application for a psychological/psychiatric injury.
Prior to being given carriage of this matter, another Member of the Commission correctly determined there would be some utility in setting the matter down for a preliminary hearing, with the objective of accurately identifying the date of Ms Dickinson's psychological/psychiatric injury, to ensure Ms Dickinson, her representatives, the Regulator and the Commission were better able to focus on the factor's causative of her sustaining the injury.
The proceedings to determine the commencement date of Ms Dickinson's psychological/psychiatric injury are set down for Friday, 17 May 2019. Both parties intend to adduce evidence from general practitioners.
Ahead of those proceedings, counsel for the Regulator objected to Ms Dickinson also relying on the evidence of two psychiatrists upon whom she has attended.
The respondent chiefly objects on the grounds of relevance.
The parties made oral submissions in a proceeding before me on 13 May 2019.

As best I understand it, counsel for Ms Dickinson maintains the views of the two psychiatrists are relevant in circumstances where it will be submitted Ms Dickinson suffered two distinct injuries during the relevant time, the first commencing on 7 July 2016 and the second commencing on 3 August 2016. Moreover, that one of the general practitioners by the name of Dr Shabani is not qualified or suitable to give an opinion insofar as it relates to the date of onset of Ms Dickinson's psychological/psychiatric injury.
Counsel for the Regulator questioned the utility of the evidence…

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 Dickinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Dickinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 68
Case: [2019] QIRC 68
Decision Date: 13 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dickinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, Ms Dickinson, appealed against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which had implications for her workers' compensation claim. The dispute centred on the date of decompensation for an injury Ms Dickinson sustained during her employment. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain expert evidence in the context of a preliminary hearing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence provided by Dr Jetnikoff and Dr Chau, who had treated Ms Dickinson after she initially consulted her general practitioner, was relevant for the preliminary hearing aimed at establishing the date of her injury. The court had to assess the relevance and admissibility of this post-general practitioner treatment evidence, particularly in relation to the timeline and causation of the injury.

In its decision, the court found that the evidence from Dr Jetnikoff and Dr Chau was not relevant for the purposes of the preliminary hearing. The court reasoned that the focus of the hearing was to determine the date of the injury, and the evidence in question did not directly pertain to the timing or causation of the injury. Consequently, the court upheld the Regulator's decision to exclude this evidence from the preliminary hearing, thereby affirming the Regulator's ruling on the matter.

The court's decision was final in this instance, and no further appeal was permitted on the issue of the admissibility of the expert evidence. The court's ruling effectively clarified the scope of relevant evidence in workers' compensation cases, particularly in preliminary hearings focused on determining the date of injury.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The evidence of Dr Jetnikoff and Dr Chau is not relevant for the purposes of the preliminary hearing to determine the date of Ms Dickinson's injury.

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.