Du Preez v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] QIRC 109

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:
Du Preez v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 109

PARTIES:

Du Preez, Edelweiss
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:
WC/2018/16

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:
28 July 2020

HEARING DATES:

25 September, 4-8 and 11-13 November 2019
25 June 2020

MEMBER:
HEARD AT:

O'Connor VP

Brisbane and Cairns

ORDERS:

1.      Appeal is dismissed;

2.      The decision of the Regulator is confirmed; and

3.      The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL - where psychological or psychiatric injury - where appellant contended stressors causative of injury - where principal had concerns about appellant's teaching performance - where implementation of formal managing unsatisfactory performance process - where appellant made allegations about the way the process was initiated and conducted - whether employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury - whether the injury was excluded by virtue of s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

LEGISLATION:
CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32.

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Adams [2015] ICQ 001
Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 27
Lawton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 99
Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009

APPEARANCES:
Ms E. Du Preez appeared for herself.

Mr P. B. Rashleigh of counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision
[1]Ms Edelweiss Du Preez has appealed to this Commission against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to reject her application for compensation for a psychological or psychiatric injury. At the relevant time the appellant was a senior teacher based at the Mission Beach State School (MBSS), Northern Queensland.
[2]The injury claim is for depression and anxiety diagnosed as being caused by "longstanding bullying throughout the Tully and Mission Beach school district starting at least from the first Managing Unsatisfactory Performance 'MUP'…"[1] process. The timeframe relevant for this appeal is approximately 21 November 2016 until 13 June 2017.
[1] Exhibit 21 - Independent Medico-Legal Report by Psychiatrist, Dr Mary-Ellen O'Hare, p 379 - citing medical certificate issued by General Practitioner, Dr Carla Jensen.
[3]To provide a brief factual overview the appellant worked predominately as a primary school physical education teacher for more than two decades. In late 2015 the appellant's role transitioned to include more classroom work and by January 2017 the appellant was appointed as a full-time Year 6 classroom teacher. The appellant struggled with the transition to the classroom teaching role and the school Principal, Mr Gordon Robertson, began to have concerns about the appellant's teaching performance. Mr Robertson spoke with the appellant informally on a number of occasions about her teaching performance, however, ultimately a decision was made to implement a formal MUP process on 2 June 2017.
[4]Central to the appellant's case is the evidence of Mr Robertson: it is alleged that he failed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Du Preez v Workers' Compensation Regulator and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] QIRC 109
Decision Date: 28 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Du Preez sought to appeal a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which dismissed his claim for compensation. The claim arose from an alleged psychological injury sustained during his employment as a teacher, which was exacerbated by workplace stressors. The Regulator's decision hinged on the interpretation of section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, which excludes certain psychological injuries from coverage if employment is not the major significant contributing factor.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to his psychological injury. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the injury was excluded from coverage under section 32(5) of the Act. The appellant argued that his employment was indeed a significant contributing factor due to the stressors he faced, including concerns about his teaching performance and the implementation of a formal managing unsatisfactory performance process. He also contended that the process was improperly initiated and conducted, which further contributed to his psychological injury.

The court found that the appellant's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to his psychological injury. The decision was based on the appellant's pre-existing mental health issues and the fact that the alleged stressors were not the sole cause of his condition. The court held that the injury did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Regulator was confirmed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal is dismissed;

2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed; and

3. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	Du Preez v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 109
PARTIES:	Du Preez, Edelweiss (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2018/16
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2020
HEARING DATES:	25 September, 4-8 and 11-13 November 2019 25 June 2020
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	O'Connor VP Brisbane and Cairns
ORDERS:	1. Appeal is dismissed; 2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed; and 3. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL - where psychological or psychiatric injury - where appellant contended stressors causative of injury - where principal had concerns about appellant's teaching performance - where implementation of formal managing unsatisfactory performance process - where appellant made allegations about the way the process was initiated and conducted - whether employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury - whether the injury was excluded by virtue of s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32. Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010 Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Adams [2015] ICQ 001 Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 27 Lawton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 99 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009
APPEARANCES:	Ms E. Du Preez appeared for herself. Mr P. B. Rashleigh of counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.