QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | King v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 180 | |
PARTIES: | Deanne Maree King v Workers' Compensation Regulator | |
CASE NO: | WC/2018/221 | |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal | |
DELIVERED ON: | 21 October 2020 | |
HEARING DATE: | 24, 25, 26, 27 February 2020 | |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | Power IC Brisbane | |
ORDER: | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the Regulator dated 26 November 2018 is set aside. 3. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission. | |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL – Psychiatric or psychological injury – whether injury excluded under s 32(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 | |
LEGISLATION: CASES: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32 Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 41 Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 88 Blackwood v Mahaffey [ 2016] ICQ 10 Byrnes v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] ICQ 004 Deanne Maree King v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 134 Dickinson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 68 Keunster v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016[ QIRC 83 Mahaffey v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 166 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-Comp (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 72 Robinson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2016] ICQ 16 State of Queensland v Coyne [2003] QIC 118 Whipps v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 29 WorkCover Corp (SA) v Summers (1995) 65 SASR 243 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 70 QGIG 93 | |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr M Horvath of Counsel instructed by Compensation Partners Lawyers for the appellant. Ms H Blattman of Counsel, instructed directly by the respondent | |
Reasons for Decision
Ms Deanne Maree King ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 26 November 2018, confirming the rejection of her application for compensation in accordance with section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('the Act'). The appellant claims that she has suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury whilst employed by Coles Group.
The appellant claims that she was bullied by her supervisor Ms Sarah Hawker in a series of incidents between 8 December 2017 and March 2018. Four specific stressors alleged in the appellant’s amended statement of facts and contentions are described as follows:
| Number | Date | Title | Description |
| 4 | About 20 November 2017 | Hospital Incident | Appellant taken to hospital with symptoms of concussion after bumping her head at work and SH demeaner, and comments to the appellant about missing dinner with her partner. |
| 1 | 20/11/17 – 10/4/18 | Bullying and Harassment by Ms Sarah Hawker (SH) | After the hospital incident, SH conduct towards the appellant including but not limited to excluding the appellant from work discussions, avoiding contact, ignoring the appellant in circumstances where the appellant queried work tasks, says 'good morning', not… |
Continue reading King v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- King v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 180
- Case
- [2020] QIRC 180
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the exclusion under section 32(5) of the Act applied to King's claim. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether King's psychiatric injury was caused by a gradual process or a single event that was not work-related, thereby excluding it from compensation under the Act. The court also considered whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Regulator's decision.
The court found that the exclusion under section 32(5) did not apply to King's case. It determined that King's psychiatric injury arose from a series of events that were work-related and not a gradual process or a single event outside the scope of employment. The court emphasised that the injury resulted from the cumulative effect of work-related stressors and incidents, which were directly linked to King's employment. The evidence presented did not support the Regulator's conclusion that the injury was excluded under the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Regulator's decision was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The decision of the Regulator dated 26 November 2018 is set aside.
3. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an 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.