Dodd v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2024] QIRC 273

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Dodd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 273
PARTIES:	Dodd, Erin Maree Appellant v Workers' Compensation Regulator Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2023/65
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	25 November 2024
HEARING DATE:	9 – 11 September 2024
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Pidgeon IC Brisbane
ORDERS:	The orders contained in paragraph [192] of these reasons for decision.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – whether the Appellant's accepted physical injury was a significant contributing factor to a new psychiatric injury or an exacerbation of a preexisting psychiatric condition – whether the Appellant's injury is excluded by the operation of s 32(5)(c) of the WCRA
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32 Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 Ebsworth v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 28 Groos v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 106 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Langerak [2020] ICQ 2 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 10
APPEARANCES:	Ms M Stone of Counsel, instructed by Brighton Langley Law for the Appellant. Mr P Rashleigh of Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision

The issue for determination in this matter is whether Ms Dodd's accepted neck injury ('the accepted injury') was a significant contributing factor to a new psychiatric injury or an exacerbation of a preexisting psychiatric condition.
If I find that the accepted neck injury is a significant contributing factor to the psychiatric injury, a secondary question arises: whether the psychiatric injury is excluded due to the operation of s 32(5)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCRA') on the basis that the injury arose out of, or in the course of the Regulator's or an insurer's actions in connection with the worker's application for compensation.
Background
Ms Dodd ('the Appellant') was employed as a Visual Merchandise Planogram Builder by CGL Retail Services Pty Ltd from October 2018. The nature of the work performed by Ms Dodd was physical, repetitive, and involved heavy lifting. By March 2021, Ms Dodd was experiencing pain in her right shoulder.
On 12 May 2021, Ms Dodd filed a claim for workers' compensation in relation to her shoulder injury which was accepted by WorkCover on 15 May 2021.

Over the subsequent months, the shoulder injury claim was closed and a new claim was commenced for an accepted neck injury.

Ms Dodd contends that by 19 October 2021, she had sustained a new psychiatric injury or, in the alternative, an aggravation of her pre-existing psychiatric condition, with her accepted neck injury being a significant contributing factor.[1] Specifically, Ms Dodd states that the psychiatric injury arose out of her work-related neck injury due to ongoing pain; functional limitations; inability to work; and an associated loss of income.[2] Ms Dodd also states that she was exposed to additional stressors during this time, which included her dealings with WorkCover, the breakdown of her marriage and family-related stress in respect of her children.…

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 Dodd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Dodd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 273
Case: [2024] QIRC 273
Decision Date: 25 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Dodd v Workers' Compensation Regulator was heard in the Industrial Court of Queensland. The Appellant, Ms Dodd, sought compensation for a psychiatric injury she claims arose out of and in the course of her employment as a Visual Merchandise Planogram Builder with CGL Retail Services Pty Ltd. Ms Dodd contended that her accepted neck injury, which was a consequence of her employment, was a significant contributing factor to a new psychiatric injury or an exacerbation of a pre-existing psychiatric condition. The Respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, argued that any psychiatric injury suffered by Ms Dodd was due to factors unrelated to her employment, specifically her marriage breakdown and her dealings with WorkCover and the Regulator, and further, that any psychiatric injury was excluded from the definition of injury under s 32(5)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCRA').

The court was required to determine whether the Appellant's accepted neck injury was a significant contributing factor to her psychiatric injury. A secondary question was whether the psychiatric injury was excluded from compensation under s 32(5)(c) of the WCRA because it arose out of or in the course of actions by the Regulator or an insurer in connection with the Appellant's applications for compensation. The court analysed the evidence presented by both parties and considered the provisions of the WCRA relevant to the definition of injury and exclusions. The court found that the Appellant's accepted neck injury was indeed a significant contributing factor to her psychiatric injury. However, the court determined that the psychiatric injury was excluded from compensation under s 32(5)(c) of the WCRA because it arose out of or in the course of actions by the Regulator in connection with the Appellant's applications for compensation.

The court's decision was that the Appellant's claim for compensation for her psychiatric injury was dismissed. The court found that while the Appellant's neck injury was a significant contributing factor to her psychiatric condition, the injury was excluded from compensation due to the operation of s 32(5)(c) of the WCRA. The orders of the court are detailed in paragraph [192] of the reasons for decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [192] of these reasons for decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

If I find that the accepted neck injury is a significant contributing factor to the psychiatric injury, a secondary question arises: whether the psychiatric injury is excluded due to the operation of s 32(5)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCRA') on the basis that the injury arose out of, or in the course of the Regulator's or an insurer's actions in connection with the worker's application for compensation.Background Ms Dodd ('the Appellant') was employed as a Visual Merchandise Planogram Builder by CGL Retail Services Pty Ltd from October 2018. The nature of the work performed by Ms Dodd was physical, repetitive, and involved heavy lifting. By March 2021, Ms Dodd was experiencing pain in her right shoulder. On 12 May 2021, Ms Dodd filed a claim for workers' compensation in relation to her shoulder injury which was accepted by WorkCover on 15 May 2021. Over the subsequent months, the shoulder injury claim was closed and a new claim was commenced for an accepted neck injury. Ms Dodd contends that by 19 October 2021, she had sustained a new psychiatric injury or, in the alternative, an aggravation of her pre-existing psychiatric condition, with her accepted neck injury being a significant contributing factor.[1] Specifically, Ms Dodd states that the psychiatric injury arose out of her work-related neck injury due to ongoing pain; functional limitations; inability to work; and an associated loss of income.[2] Ms Dodd also states that she was exposed to additional stressors during this time, which included her dealings with WorkCover, the breakdown of her marriage and family-related stress in respect of her children. She submits, however, that these stressors did not significantly contribute to her psychiatric injury.[3] [1] Appellant's Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed in the Industrial Registry on 3 April 2024, [62].[2] Ibid [63].[3] Ibid [60]. On 4 August 2022, Ms Dodd attended on her general practitioner ('GP') Dr Doxanakis who issued a Work Capacity Certificate that same day seeking that she have access to psychological support funded by WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover'). The Respondent contends that any personal injury suffered by Ms Dodd was mild depression and, further, that the only significant contributing factors to that mild depression were her marriage breakdown and her dealings with WorkCover and the Regulator. The Respondent says that the marriage breakdown is not work-related.[4][4] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed in the Industrial Registry on 24 August 2023, [70]. The Respondent says that even if the neck injury was a significant contributor to Ms Dodd's psychiatric injury, the injury is excluded from the meaning of injury as defined by s 32(5)(c) of the WCRA because it arises out of or in the course of action by the Regulator or an insurer, namely WorkCover, in connection with Ms Dodd's various applications for compensation.[5][5] Ibid [69].Relevant Legislation

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.