Katsambis v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2020] QIRC 107

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Katsambis v Workers' Compensation Regulator

QIRC [2020] 107

PARTIES:

Katsambis, Patricia

(Appellant)

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2018/57

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2020

HEARING DATES:

27 August 2019

28 August 2019
9 October 2019 (Appellant's submissions)
18 November 2019 (Respondent's submissions)

MEMBER:

Knight IC

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS:

1.	The appeal is upheld in part.
2.	The decision of the Regulator dated 14 February 2018 is set aside.
3.	The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of, and incidental to, this appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL

AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION

REGULATOR

–

PHYSICAL INJURY – where Appellant

suffered injuries to lower back and right

shoulder after lifting event – where WorkCover accepted injuries as work related – where

Appellant lodges a further claim for workers'

compensation – whether claimed physical injuries arose directly out of lifting event –

whether, in the alternative, subsequent injuries arose out of an antalgic or altered gait resulting

from lifting event – whether injuries arose out of, or in the course of, employment – whether

employment the significant contributing factor

– appeal upheld in part.

LEGISLATION:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation

Act 2003 (Qld)

CASES:

Carman v Q-COMP (2007) 186 QGIG 512

Cowen v Bunnings Group Limited [2014] QSC
301

Girlock Sales Pty Ltd v Hurrell (1982) 149 CLR
155

Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470.

Mater Miscercordiae Health Services Brisbane

Limited AND Q-COMP (2005) 179 QGIG 144

Q-COMP AND Darren Bruce Parsons (2007)
185 QGIG 1

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation

Regulator) v Civeo Pty Ltd and Anor [2016]
ICQ 001

Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator

[2017] QIRC 006

APPEARANCES:

Dr G J Cross of Counsel, instructed by Patinos
Lawyers for the Appellant

Mr J S Miles of Counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Ms Patricia Katsambis was employed as a Retail Store Manager at TV Direct 2U. She suffered an injury to her lower back and right shoulder while lifting vibration plates at her workplace in late May 2017.
WorkCover accepted two claims for compensation related to Ms Katsambis' lower back and right shoulder but rejected a further claim for several other injuries which she says were also suffered as a consequence of the lifting activities.
The stated injuries in the rejected claim included trochanteric bursitis of the left hip, a tear of the gluteal minimus muscle (buttock) and an injury to the sacroiliac joint. On review, the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Regulator") confirmed WorkCover's decision not to accept Ms Katsambis' claim. It is against this decision that Ms Katsambis now appeals.
Ms Katsambis argues the injuries complained of arose directly out of the May lifting event; in the alternative, they are secondary injuries suffered because of an antalgic or altered gait that arose in the wake of the original injuries she suffered after lifting 56 vibration plates which weighed in the vicinity of 15kg to 18kg each.
The Regulator submits Ms Katsambis does not suffer…

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 Katsambis v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Katsambis v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 107
Case: [2020] QIRC 107
Decision Date: 21 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Katsambis v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator which had rejected his claim for workers' compensation. The appellant had suffered injuries to his lower back and right shoulder following a lifting incident at work. While the Regulator had accepted that the injuries were work-related, it found that the appellant's subsequent claim for compensation was not substantiated. The appellant contended that the claimed physical injuries arose directly out of the lifting event or, alternatively, that they resulted from an antalgic or altered gait caused by the initial injuries. The appeal centred on whether the injuries arose out of or in the course of employment and whether the employment was a significant contributing factor.

The court was required to determine the precise nature and extent of the appellant's injuries and their connection to the employment incident. It needed to consider whether the injuries sustained in the initial event were sufficiently severe to give rise to subsequent claims or if the later injuries were the result of an altered gait caused by the initial injuries. The court had to assess whether the employment was a significant contributing factor in the appellant's condition. This involved examining the medical evidence, the nature of the employment, and the sequence of events leading to the appellant's condition.

The court found that the Regulator's decision did not adequately address the appellant's claims regarding the direct causation of the injuries or the impact of an altered gait. The court held that the appeal was upheld in part, meaning that while the Regulator's acceptance of the initial injuries was correct, its rejection of the subsequent claims was flawed. Consequently, the decision of the Regulator dated 14 February 2018 was set aside, and the Regulator was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of, and incidental to, the appeal. This ruling underscores the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence and the legal principles in workers' compensation claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is upheld in part.

The decision of the Regulator dated 14 February 2018 is set aside.

The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of, and incidental to, this 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.