Henderson v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2015] QIRC 216

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Henderson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 216
PARTIES:	Henderson, Lynley Jan (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2013/216
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2015
HEARING DATES:	24-28 March 2014 24-25 June 2014 7 August 2014 (Respondent's submissions) 27 August 2014 (Appellant's submissions) 3 September 2014 (Respondent's submissions in reply)
HEARD AT:	Caloundra
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Neate
ORDERS:	1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is confirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR - psychiatric injury - allegation of bullying, intimidation, harassment, victimisation and humiliation in workplace - appellant bears onus to establish that her condition falls within the definition of "injury" in the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - evidence in relation to 26 stressors - whether injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - appellant to establish that the elements of s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 are not satisfied
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ss 11, 32 Abby Emma Holt (Westpac Bank) v Q-Comp (WC/2012/44) - decision < Sabo v Q-Comp (C2010/46) < v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 788 Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001 Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1 Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 (HL) Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437 Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009 Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit (2005) 178 QGIG 197 Dickinson v The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500 Hansen v WorkCover Queensland (Unreported, Industrial Magistrates Court, Industrial Magistrate Taylor, 15 November 2001) 16 Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 027 Lackey v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 22 Mayo v Q-COMP (2004) 177 QGIG 667 O'Brien v Q-COMP (2007) 185 QGIG 383 Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 481 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Q-COMP v Foote (2008) 189 QGIG 539 Q-COMP v Glen Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67 Q-COMP v Hetherington [2004] 176 QGIG 493 Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139 Re Yu and Comcare [2010] AATA 960 Sheridan v Q-COMP (2009) 191 QGIG 13 State Government Insurance Commission v Stevens Brothers Pty Ltd & Anor (1984) 154 CLR 552 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 Svenson v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 629 Versace v Braun (2005) 178 QGIG 315 WorkCover Queensland v Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (2003) 172 QGIG 6 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93
APPEARANCES:	Mr T. Nielsen, counsel instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers Ms…

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 Henderson v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Henderson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 216
Case: [2015] QIRC 216
Decision Date: 22 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Henderson v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the dispute centred on whether the appellant's psychiatric injury, which she claimed arose from workplace bullying, intimidation, harassment, victimisation, and humiliation, qualified for workers' compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The appellant argued that her condition met the statutory definition of "injury." The respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, had dismissed the claim, finding that the appellant had not established that her injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The appellant appealed this decision to the court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's psychiatric injury fell within the definition of "injury" under the Act and if the injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The appellant bore the onus of proving that her condition was a result of workplace stressors, and the court had to determine whether these stressors were outside the scope of reasonable management actions. The court had to consider the evidence of the 26 stressors and assess whether they met the criteria set out in section 32(5) of the Act.

The court found that the appellant did not meet the onus of establishing that her injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The evidence indicated that the stressors were not exceptional but were part of the ordinary risks inherent in employment. The court concluded that the appellant had not satisfied the elements of section 32(5) of the Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was confirmed. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of 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.