Grace v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2021] QIRC 285

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Grace v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 285
PARTIES:	Grace, Julie Elizabeth (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	WC/2018/229
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	20 August 2021
HEARING DATES: SUBMISSIONS:	13 and 14 October 2020 Respondent's closing submissions: 24 February 2021 Appellant's closing submissions: 12 March 2021 Respondent's closing submissions in reply: 26 March 2021
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Power IC Gympie
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the Regulator dated 6 November 2018 is set aside. 3. The application for compensation made by the Appellant is one for acceptance. 4. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – appeal against decision of workers' compensation regulator – psychiatric or psychological injury – whether injury excluded under s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where injury arises from management action – whether reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – reasonable management action not taken in a reasonable way – appeal allowed
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32
CASES:	Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 41 Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 88 Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1 Cronin v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009 Delaney v Q-Comp Review Unit (2005) 178 QGIG 197 Department of Education & Training v Sinclair [2005] NSWCA 465 Kuenstner v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 83 Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104 Prizeman v Q-Comp (2005) 180 QGIG 481 Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 72 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93 Yousif v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 4
APPEARANCES:	Mr M.D. White of Counsel, instructed by CMB Lawyers, for the Appellant Ms M.J. Brooks of Counsel directly instructed by the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Ms Julie Elizabeth Grace ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') dated 6 November 2018, confirming the decision of WorkCover Queensland to reject the Appellant's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act').

The Appellant claims that she suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury on 13 April 2018 whilst employed as a Young Women's Support Worker at Community Action Inc. ('Community Action'), a not for profit organisation.

The primary question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Appellant suffered a personal injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act. At the date of injury, s 32 defined the meaning of an 'injury' in the following terms:

32 Meaning of injury
(1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if—
…
(b)for a psychiatric or psychological disorder—the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the injury.

…
(5) Despite subsections (1)…, injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder…

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 Grace v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Grace v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 285
Case: [2021] QIRC 285
Decision Date: 20 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grace, the appellant, brought an appeal against the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to refuse her claim for workers' compensation for a psychological injury she sustained at work. The injury arose from a meeting she attended with her supervisor and another employee. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The appellant contended that she suffered a psychiatric injury, an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, as a result of the meeting. Medical evidence supported this claim, with Dr Cadzow, a psychiatrist, and Ms Fitzpatrick, a psychologist, both reporting that the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to her psychological injury.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's injury was excluded from compensation under section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The court had to determine whether the injury arose from management action and whether that action was taken in a reasonable way. The appellant argued that the meeting was not handled in a reasonable way and that she was not given an opportunity to discuss the incident before being reprimanded. The Regulator argued that the meeting was a reasonable management action.

The court found that the Regulator's decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider the evidence that the meeting was not handled in a reasonable way. The court found that the appellant was not given an opportunity to discuss the incident before being reprimanded, which contributed to her psychological injury. The court also found that the Regulator's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the legislation. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Regulator was set aside. The appellant's application for compensation was accepted, and the parties were directed to discuss costs.

This decision highlights the importance of handling workplace incidents in a reasonable way to avoid contributing to an employee's psychological injury. Employers must provide a safe workplace, which includes providing a supportive environment for employees to discuss incidents and resolve issues. Failure to do so can result in the employer being liable for workers' compensation claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Regulator dated 6 November 2018 is set aside.

3. The application for compensation made by the Appellant is one for acceptance.

4. I will hear the parties as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The Appellant contends that as a consequence of the meeting on 13 April 2018, the Appellant sustained a workplace injury in the course of her employment, namely, a psychological injury diagnosed initially by her treating General Practitioner, Dr Anthony Kirk, and confirmed by Dr Paul Cadzow, Psychiatrist, in a medical certificate/report to be an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. Medical evidence The Appellant first saw Dr Kirk in relation to her injury on 18 April 2018, who subsequently referred the Appellant to Dr Cadzow. Dr Cadzow provided a written report and gave oral evidence to the Commission. In his report, Dr Cadzow states:Ms Grace's employment is the major significant contributing factor to her psychological injury.[1][1] Exhibit 6 – Medical Report of Dr Cadzow, page 4. Further, Dr Cadzow states the cause of the Appellant's psychological injury was as follows: In cross-examination, Dr Cadzow accepted that the narrative of events as outlined in his expert report in which the Appellant described the police officers as 'appearing to stand over' the young man at the bus stop, and Constable Odette Reid being 'puffed up aggressive and indignant' and interacting with the Appellant 'in an authoritarian way and attempting to dominate' the Appellant, was based on the reporting of the Appellant.[3] Dr Cadzow also accepted that the Appellant understood Ms Brauer was not happy with what happened in her interaction with the police officer, but he did not think that particular realisation could trigger similar symptoms in the Appellant. Dr Cadzow's evidence was that what was so unsettling for the Appellant was that she did not receive a 'collegiate' response to the situation from Ms Brauer, such as if Ms Brauer had called her by phone to ask what had occurred, rather than a meeting held where she felt she was being reprimanded.[4] Dr Cadzow's evidence was that it was not the reaction to the interaction with the police officer, but rather what occurred afterwards which was a feeling that the Appellant would not be able to work autonomously anymore with disadvantaged people in complex situations 'because she wouldn't be backed up if she made a difficult call'.[5] Dr Cadzow gave evidence that the Appellant had acknowledged to him that if she had been given a chance to talk about what had happened, she would have accepted a reprimand, but because she received a reprimand without any chance to talk about it, it was unsettling for her. The Appellant was examined by Ms Kate Fitzpatrick, Psychologist, on 11 May 2018, with Ms Fitzpatrick reporting on 9 June 2018 that the Appellant reported multiple stress reaction symptoms including cognitive, physical and emotional symptoms. The report provided by Ms Fitzpatrick, dated 7 August 2019, states the following in answer to a question posed by the Appellant:In your opinion, was Ms. Grace's employment the major significant contributing factor to her psychological injury?Absolutely. There is no other reason.[6][6] Exhibit 7 – Report of Ms Fitzpatrick, page 2.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.