Kerr v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 190

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Kerr v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 190
PARTIES:	Kerr, Laniia (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2021/107
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	25 July 2025
HEARING DATE:	5 September 2022 6 September 2022 7 September 2022 8 September 2022 9 September 2022 14 February 2023 15 February 2023
MEMBER:	Dwyer IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDER:	1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of the hearing in an amount agreed by the parties or, failing agreement, such amount ordered by the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR –psychological or psychiatric injury – where appellant employed as a Store Person for a retail company – where appellant nominated fifteen stressors – where regulator conceded appellant was a worker who suffered an injury and her employment was the significant contributing factor to the injury – whether Appellant's injury was excluded pursuant to s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – whether Appellant's personal injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – where each of the stressors considered – where management action found to be reasonable and taken in a reasonable way - where the injury found to arise out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – appeal dismissed.
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32
CASES:	Allwood v Workers Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 88. Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001 Bowers v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QIC 18 Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9, 47. Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit [2005] QIC 11 Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010. Qantas Airways Limited v Q-Comp (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Q-COMP v Craig John Hohn [2008] QIC 56 State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 097.
APPEARANCES:	L. Kerr, the Appellant S. Sapsford of Counsel, instructed by A. Schultz of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

Background to Appeal

On 15 December 2020, the Appellant, Ms Laniia Kerr applied for compensation for psychiatric injury. The injury was described in a workers’ compensation medical certificate from Dr Stephanie Clapham accompanying the claim as ‘mental distress'.[1] The medical certificate states that the injury occurred on 10 December 2020 after Ms Kerr was allegedly reprimanded in a public setting.
[1] Exhibit 1, page 8.
Ms Kerr’s application for compensation dated 15 December 2020 nominates the date of injury as 10 December 2020. The mechanism of injury is described as follows:
Manager (Tim) handed me allegations letter and revealed private sensitive information in the middle of the workplace in front of many people after specifically being asked not to do so in July 2020.
On 15 January 2021, WorkCover…

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 Kerr v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Kerr v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 190
Case: [2025] QIRC 190
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kerr v Workers' Compensation Regulator involves an appeal by Ms Kerr against a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. Ms Kerr sought compensation for a psychological injury she claimed was caused by her employment as a Store Person for a retail company. The central dispute was whether Ms Kerr's injury was excluded from compensation under section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, which pertains to injuries arising from reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way.

The court had to determine whether Ms Kerr's psychiatric injury was a result of reasonable management actions that were implemented in a reasonable manner, as defined by the relevant legislation. This required a careful examination of the fifteen stressors Ms Kerr nominated as contributing factors to her injury, and whether these stressors arose from reasonable management actions. The Regulator conceded that Ms Kerr had an injury and that her employment was a significant contributing factor, but contested that the injury arose from reasonable management actions.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed each nominated stressor, finding that the management actions were reasonable and implemented in a reasonable way. Consequently, the court concluded that Ms Kerr's injury was excluded under section 32(5) of the Act. The court observed that despite Ms Kerr's subjective perception of being unfairly treated, the facts demonstrated that the management actions were reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that Ms Kerr pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of the hearing in an amount agreed by the parties or, failing agreement, such amount ordered by the Commission.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Having regard to the case presented by Ms Kerr, the singular issue for my determination is whether Ms Kerr's injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.[11]Witnesses and medical evidence[11] Mahaffey at [55]. Evidence was given by a total of 4 witnesses in the proceedings over a period of 7 days. Despite filing a witness list comprising names of 10 witnesses on 10 March 2022, the Appellant ultimately did not call evidence from anyone, other than herself. The Regulator called evidence from the following witnesses:· Mr Tim Windisch, the Fulfillment Centre Manager ('Mr Windisch');· Ms Melinda Pinchien, People and Culture Business Partner ('Ms Pinchien'); and Ms Kerr had previously named both her general practitioner and a psychologist as witnesses in her case. On the morning of the second day of the hearing, Ms Kerr advised the Commission and the Regulator that neither of her witnesses were available. Ms Kerr was cautioned as to the peril her appeal was in given no medical evidence could be produced.[12] [12] T 2-2, ll 35-40. The matter was stood down briefly (twice) while Ms Kerr tried to secure alternative medical evidence. At one point Ms Kerr proposed to secure evidence from a psychiatrist but was going to require the matter to be part-heard so that she could get a referral from her general practitioner.[13][13] T 2-1 to T 2-7. Despite growing uncertainty as to when (or if) alternative medical evidence could be produced (and what it might be) the Regulator revised their position and quite astutely conceded the elements of ‘personal injury’ and ‘significant contributing factor’ for the purposes of s 32(1) of the WCR Act. In making those concessions the matters now in issue in this appeal were reduced to a consideration of the stressors within the context of s 32(5) of the WCR Act.[14] [14] T 2-7 to T 2-9. While this concession meant Ms Kerr was no longer required to present medical evidence, the Commission still requires independent evidence of personal injury to fully consider an appeal. That evidence was received by the Commission (with consent of the parties) within the contents of Exhibit 1 which was comprised of a collation of documents relied on by both parties. This included inter alia a workers’ compensation medical certificate authored by Dr Stephanie Clapham, dated 15 December 2020.[15] [15] Exhibit 1, page 8. The medical certificate of Dr Clapham serves in these proceedings as evidence of a personal injury (described as ‘mental distress’). It is trite to note that a broad concession as to the existence of a personal injury does not give the Commission the advantage of a more detailed insight in the way that can be achieved from viva voce evidence from a medical expert as to the type of contribution (if any) each individual nominated stressor might have had on any diagnosis. While this might place the Commission at a disadvantage in some appeals, the reasons that follow demonstrate no such disadvantage in this appeal. The Stressors

Decision

Reasons for decision

To whatever extent this stressor might have been causative of any injury to Ms Kerr, it is excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the WCR Act. Conclusion Having had the opportunity to observe and listen to Ms Kerr over the seven days of the hearing of this matter I am in no doubt that she is affected by some form of psychiatric condition. In my view that conclusion would be open to any reasonably experienced lay observer, even in the absence of a diagnosis from a medically qualified person. But I am equally confident that the condition she displays is entirely unrelated (in any compensable way) to her employment. Having heard the evidence of all witnesses and considered the submissions made by Ms Kerr I am confident that each of the stressors nominated by Ms Kerr, to the extent that they give rise to the requisite causal connection to her medical condition, are each excluded by the operation of s 32(5) of the WCR Act. Determining how or why Ms Kerr’s evidence was so consistently at odds with the facts goes beyond what I am required to do in these reasons. But in fairness to Ms Kerr, it ought to be stated that I do not consider her to be a deliberately dishonest witness. On the contrary, I accept that she truly perceived the nominated events to be distressing for the reasons that she has stated. I accept that was her firmly held, but subjective perception of those events. While I can make no finding to this effect, I consider it possible that the operation of some underlying psychiatric illness has the effect of distorting Ms Kerr’s perceptions of the words and actions of others, including her managers. In this impaired state, Ms Kerr has felt set upon and unreasonably treated when, on the facts of this matter, the reality was very much to the contrary. Having heard extensively from relevant witnesses to the nominated stressors I am entirely satisfied that the management action complained of was in every respect reasonable and was reasonably implemented. In those circumstances, despite those stressors occurring in the workplace, they are excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the WCR Act. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed. I make the following orders:1.The appeal is dismissed;2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the hearing in an amount agreed by the parties or, failing agreement, such amount ordered by the Commission.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.