Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2025] QIRC 171

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 171

PARTIES:

Guandalini, Anthony Carlo
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

 WC/2022/73

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

 4 July 2025

HEARING DATES: 

13-15 November 2023 inclusive
24 January 2024

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Connor VP

Hervey Bay and Brisbane

ORDER:

1.      The appeal is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the review decision of the Respondent dated 25 March 2022 is confirmed.

3.      The parties shall exchange written submissions on the question of costs by 4.00 pm on 18 July 2025.

4.      Unless otherwise ordered, the question of costs shall be determined on any written submissions received and without further oral hearing.
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST REVIEW DECISION - where appellant was employed as a teacher at Urangan State High School - where appellant seeks compensation for a psychological injury - where appellant suffered an adjustment disorder with anxiety and low mood arising from two events occurring at his workplace - where WorkCover rejected appellant's claim for workers' compensation - where the Workers' Compensation Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover - whether appellant sustained a personal injury pursuant to s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - whether the injury arose out of or in the course of his employment - whether employment was the major significant factor contributing to any such injury - whether the injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss 11, 32, 35, 558

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41

Blackwood v Mana [2014] ICQ 27

Browne v Dunn [1893] 6R 67 (HL)

Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100.

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009

Fairley v Q-Comp (2008) 187 QGIG 150

Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626

Groos v WorkCover Queensland [2000] ICQ 44; (2000) 165 QGIG 106

Hansen v WorkCover Queensland (Unreported, Industrial Magistrates Court, IM Taylor, 15 November 2001)

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 519

Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246

Qantas Airways Ltd v Q-COMP (2009) 191 QGIG 115

Q-COMP v Green (2008) 189 QGIG 747

Q-COMP v Foote (No. 2)[2008] ICQ 42

Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 97

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Chapman [2016] ICQ 011

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

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-Comp and Beverley Coyne [2003] ICQ 9

Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 6

WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93
APPEARANCES:

Mr J.A.S. Ford, Counsel for the Appellant.

Dr M.J. Brooks, Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision

  1. From 2006 Mr…

Continue reading Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 171
Case
[2025] QIRC 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Guandalini v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, a former teacher at Urangan State High School, sought workers' compensation for a psychological injury sustained at his workplace. The injury in question was an adjustment disorder with anxiety and low mood, which the appellant claimed arose from two separate events at his workplace. The Workers' Compensation Regulator upheld the decision of WorkCover to reject the appellant's claim, leading to an appeal by the appellant to the Court of Appeal. The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had sustained a personal injury as defined under section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, whether the injury arose out of or in the course of his employment, and whether employment was the major significant factor contributing to the injury. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the injury arose from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the medical evidence provided by Dr Sanjay Nandam, the appellant's treating psychiatrist, who diagnosed the appellant with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Dr Nandam concluded that the stressor leading to the psychiatric symptoms was the management at Urangan State High School. However, the court also considered the general practice records and other medical documents that suggested the appellant had a pre-existing depressive disorder which resolved by May 2020, and that the symptoms began to deteriorate again in August 2021, post the relevant workplace events. The court held that the appellant's psychiatric symptoms were not solely attributable to the workplace events but were influenced by his pre-existing condition. Consequently, the court found that employment was not the major significant factor contributing to the appellant's condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the review decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 25 March 2022. The parties were directed to exchange written submissions on the question of costs by 4:00 pm on 18 July 2025, with the court reserving the right to determine costs based on the written submissions received without further oral hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the review decision of the Respondent dated 25 March 2022 is confirmed.

3. The parties shall exchange written submissions on the question of costs by 4.00 pm on 18 July 2025.

4. Unless otherwise ordered, the question of costs shall be determined on any written submissions received and without further oral hearing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On 17 February 2021 the incident in SR 4 occurred.Medical evidence for Appellant The Appellant relies on the evidence of Dr Sanjay Nandam, Consultant Psychiatrist. The Appellant attended a series of consultations with Dr Nandam, the first being on 30 August 2021. Dr Nandam diagnosed the Appellant as suffering from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. In his evidence-in-chief, Dr Sanjay Nandam, gave the following evidence:MR FORD:Dr Nandam, I wonder if you could briefly summarise for us your diagnosis of Mr Guandalini?DR NANDAM: ---Yeah. Mr Guandalini presents with an adjustment disorder with [indistinct] anxiety and depressed mood. Now, adjustment disorder is a DSM diagnosis where one - psychiatric assessment indicates depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms secondary to a specified stressor. And in my opinion, the stressor that caused his psychiatric symptomatology is the management [indistinct] high school.[35][35] TR2-52, LL16-22.MR FORD:Can you tell us, having reviewed that material, was there anything in there that was significant or might be significant to your opinionDR NANDAM: ---Yeah. So when I saw the material, I thought it was important that I go through it to determine whether Mr Guandalini had a pre-existing depressive disorder which might account for his current symptoms. And if it's okay, would you like me to elaborate on the reasoning to that? MR FORD:Yes, please. And perhaps you could tell us the documents you found to be significant as well?DR NANDAM: Yes. So I think the most significant documents were the [indistinct] general practice record, but in my experience in these situations, that's very important because it's contemporaneous. It's outside of a compensation environment for the most part and that perhaps lends some objectivity to that record. I also had access to his previous treating specialists and hospital records as well, which are clearly objective and contemporaneous and outside of the compensation environment [indistinct] document. So [indistinct] situation for the document, I mean, the medical evidence suggests from 2019, he had a significant depressive disorder, and that appears to have arisen in the context of marital breakdown. That depressive disorder was severe enough to require an inpatient psychiatric admission, psychology and antidepressant treatment. Significantly, though, his general practice records show that on the 20th of May 2020, he consulted with a GP saying that he was doing well and he was well enough to discuss coming off antidepressants and he wanted to do that. I think his GP, in an abundance of caution, suggested that he should remain on antidepressants [indistinct] feeling well, and he elected to do that. That's quite normal practice, I would suggest. So for me, seeing that 30th of May 2020 entry in the general practice record [indistinct] the preceding depressive illness had resolved by May 2020. Okay. Then if we keep going into the general practice record, it's the same surgery, he was asked to present [indistinct] August 2020 [indistinct] for his [indistinct] his new [indistinct] and [indistinct] discussion [indistinct] psychiatric [indistinct] In November 2020 he continued [indistinct] but the record changes, and then - and then by March 2021 [indistinct] Dr Farzin [indistinct] general practitioner that he [indistinct] difficulty in the [indistinct] report which then contributed to [indistinct] deterioration. And then in August 2021, Dr Farzin, his general practitioner, referred him to me for further psychiatric treatment, and that's when I become involved.[36][36] TR2-52, L47-TR2-53, L31.MR FORD:Yes. And the other - the acute psychiatric care to which you were referring in 2019, that's his admission to the Caloundra Private Clinic; is that right?---DR NANDAM: Yeah, yep.MR FORD:Okay. Thank you. With those additional documents and information in mind, does it affect at all your opinion that you set out in your report in February 2022?DR NANDAM: --- No, it doesn't change my opinion and I think, if anything, it reinforces that that opinion is - is correct.[37][37] TR2-54, LL1-7.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.