Doman v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2017] QIRC 99

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Doman v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 099
PARTIES:	(Adam Sidney Doman) (appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/12
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision
DELIVERED ON:	31 October 2017
HEARING DATEs: HEARD AT:	31 July – 2 August 2017 Cairns District Court
MEMBER:	The Hon L. Kaufman, Deputy President
ORDERS :	1. Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION – where the regulator had rejected the application for compensation on grounds that s 32(5) excluded the psychiatric condition from the definition of 'injury' within s 32 – whether management action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way – onus of proof.
CASES:	Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 001 Davis v Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] ICQ 9 Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32
APPEARANCES:	Mr A. Doman in person Mr S. McLeod, of counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

[1]Mr Adam Sydney Doman appeals the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator confirming the decision of BHP Billiton Queensland Workers' Compensation to reject his application for compensation. The appellant made his application for compensation to WorkCover on 17 November 2014 citing ‘anxiety/depression/stress/insomnia’ which he alleged occurred in the course of his duties as an operator (large truck driver) with BHP Billiton at the BMA Cavil Ridge Coal mine.

[2]BHP (as a self-insurer) investigated the appellant's application and concluded in its decision of 16 January 2015 that “the issues it found to be substantiated and contributory to your injury involved management action which was both reasonable and taken in a reasonable way”.

[3]That appellant sought a review of the decision of BHP by the regulator which, upon considering submissions from the appellant, overturned the decision of 16 January 2015 and returned the matter to BHP with directions. The directions included the obtaining of an independent examination which was provided by a psychiatrist, Dr Martin Nothling. BHP again rejected the application on the basis that the management action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way.

[4]The appellant again sought a review by the regulator which, in its decision of 17 December 2015, concluded that the injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. On 13 January 2016 the appellant appealed to the Commission.

Preliminary
[5]The regulator, in its written submissions, sought that the appeal be dismissed only on the basis that the injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the appellant's employment, and was thereby excluded from the definition of "injury" by operation of s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Accordingly, I infer that the regulator concedes that Mr Doman was a worker; that he suffered a personal injury, being a psychiatric or psychological disorder; that the injury arose out of or in the course of his employment and that the employment was the major significant contributing factor to…

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 Doman v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Doman v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 99
Case: [2017] QIRC 99
Decision Date: 31 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Doman v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Court was tasked with reviewing the Regulator's decision to reject an application for workers' compensation. The applicant, Doman, sought compensation for a psychiatric injury sustained in the course of employment. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of section 32(5) of the relevant Act, which the Regulator relied upon to exclude the psychiatric condition from the definition of 'injury' under section 32. The Court of Appeal was called upon to determine whether the Regulator's decision was legally sound, particularly regarding the reasonableness of management actions and the method by which the Regulator had approached the decision.

The central legal issues before the Court were the correct interpretation of section 32(5) and the associated onus of proof in establishing whether the psychiatric injury was work-related. Doman argued that the Regulator had misapplied the statutory provisions by not adequately considering the reasonable management actions taken by the employer and the manner in which these actions were implemented. The Court had to scrutinise whether the Regulator's interpretation of the statutory exclusion was correct and whether Doman had discharged the burden to prove that the psychiatric injury was an injury within the meaning of the Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the Regulator's interpretation and application of section 32(5) were consistent with the statutory language and legislative intent. The Court held that the exclusion of psychiatric injuries was clear and unambiguous, and that the Regulator had correctly determined that the applicant's psychiatric condition did not constitute an injury for the purposes of the compensation scheme. Furthermore, the Court determined that the onus was on Doman to prove that the psychiatric injury was work-related, a burden which Doman had not successfully discharged. As such, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Regulator's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

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.