Faelmann v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] QIRC 36

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Faelmann v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 036
PARTIES:	Faelmann, Catherine Ann (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2015/258
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2016
HEARING DATE:	22 March 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Deputy President Kaufman
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed 2. The decision of the respondent is set aside *3. The application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* is accepted 4. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be agreed, or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission**
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - whether substantial deviation - whether substantial interruption - whether beyond control of deceased - beneficial legislation Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s36
CASES:	David Henry Riley v WorkCover Queensland (C 23 of 1997) Walker v Wilson (1991) 172 CLR 195
APPEARANCES:	Mr P de Plater, counsel, for the appellant instructed by Neilson Stanton & Parkinson Mr P Rashleigh, counsel, for the respondent instructed directly by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

Catherine Ann Faelmann, the widow of Harry Heino Faelmann, has appealed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to reject her claim for compensation. The reason for the rejection was that the death of her husband on 26 November 2014 was excluded from the definition of "injury" for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act") by virtue of the operation of section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
Counsel for the parties conveniently provided me with a set of agreed facts which I set out verbatim in paragraphs 3 to 31, inclusive.

Facts

The Appellant was the wife of Harry Heino Faelmann (“the deceased”).
The deceased suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred at approximately 5.25pm on 26^th November 2014 on Middle Creek Road, Federal in the State of Queensland.
The deceased suffered a personal injury in the motor vehicle accident on 26^th November 2014 and the deceased’s death on 26^th November 2014 resulted from this personal injury.
At all material times, the deceased was employed by Spotless Management Services Pty Ltd as a meter reader.
The deceased’s place of employment was the Gympie Energex depot located at 50 Corella Road, Gympie in the State of Queensland.
At the time of the motor vehicle accident, the deceased was travelling between his place of employment in Gympie and his home located at 475 Middle Creek Road, Federal in the State of Queensland.
The deceased commenced the journey between his place of employment and his home at approximately 3.45pm.
It was the deceased’s usual practice in making the journey from his place of employment to his home to travel via the Bruce Highway from Gympie to Federal where he would exit the highway at the old Bruce Highway exit and then travel in a westerly direction on…

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 Faelmann v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Faelmann v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 36
Case: [2016] QIRC 36
Decision Date: 31 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Faelmann v Workers' Compensation Regulator concerns an appeal against the decision of the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, to deny a claim for workers' compensation to the appellant, Faelmann. The deceased, who was the appellant's spouse, had been injured in a work-related incident. The legal dispute focuses on whether the deceased's actions constituted a substantial deviation from the course of employment, whether the incident was a substantial interruption in the continuity of employment, and whether the incident was beyond the control of the deceased. The case was heard in the Industrial Commission of Queensland, and the appeal was subsequently brought before the court.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions regarding workers' compensation, specifically sections of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The court had to determine whether the deceased's actions were a substantial deviation from their employment duties, whether the injury event was a substantial interruption in the continuity of employment, and whether the injury was beyond the control of the deceased. The court's task was to assess these issues in light of the statutory criteria and relevant case law.

In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory language and found that the deceased's actions did not amount to a substantial deviation from their employment duties. The court considered that the incident was an integral part of the employment activities, rather than a significant departure from them. Additionally, the court determined that the injury event was not a substantial interruption in the continuity of employment, as it directly resulted from the employment activities. Finally, the court held that the incident was beyond the control of the deceased, as it occurred unexpectedly during the course of employment. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the respondent's decision to deny the compensation claim was erroneous. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the respondent's decision, and accepted the application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the decision of the respondent was set aside, the application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 was accepted, and the respondent was to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be agreed, or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed

2. The decision of the respondent is set aside

3. The application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 is accepted

4. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be agreed, or failing agreement to be the subject of a further application to the Commission

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.