Langerak v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] QIRC 35

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Langerak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 035
PARTIES:	Langerak, Jade Erin (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/12
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	22 February 2019
HEARING DATES:	20 to 24 August 2018 9 to 11 October 2018 28 November 2018 (Appellant's Submissions) 9 January 2019 (Respondent's Submissions)
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Thompson IC Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The Appeal is upheld. 2. The decision of the Regulator of 22 December 2016 is set aside. The claim for workers' compensation is one for acceptance. 3. The Regulator is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION ‑ APPEAL AGAINST DECISION ‑ Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator ‑ Appellant bears onus of proof ‑ Standard of proof ‑ Balance of probabilities ‑ Witness evidence ‑ Appellant was a "worker" - Appellant sustained a personal psychiatric injury - Injury arose out of or in the course of employment - Employment the major significant contributing factor - Management action neither reasonable or taken in a reasonable way - Appeal upheld.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 548A, s 549 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl [2002] 170 QGIG 93
APPEARANCES:	Mr D. Atkinson of Counsel, instructed by Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the Appellant. Mr C. Clark of Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

A notice of appeal was lodged by Jade Langerak (appellant) with the Industrial Registrar on 23 January 2017 pursuant to ss 548A(1) and 549 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator (Regulator) dated 22 December 2016.
The decision of the Regulator was to confirm the decision of the Insurer (WorkCover) to reject the appellant's application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act.
Relevant Legislation
The legislation pertinent to this appeal is as follows:
32 Meaning of injury
(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if ‑
(a)for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder ‑ the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; or
(b)for a psychiatric or psychological disorder ‑ the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the injury.
…
(5)Despite subsections (1) and (3), injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances ‑
(a)reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment;
(b)the worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker;
(c)action by the Regulator or an insurer in connection with the worker's application for compensation.
Examples of actions that may be reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way ‑
•action taken to transfer, demote, discipline, redeploy, retrench or dismiss the worker
•a decision not to award or provide promotion, reclassification or transfer of,…

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 Langerak v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Langerak v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 35
Case: [2019] QIRC 35
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Langerak v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the court was asked to consider an appeal against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The appellant, Langerak, was a Senior Constable of Police who sought workers' compensation for a personal psychiatric injury she sustained while employed. The central legal issues before the court were whether Langerak was a "worker" under the relevant legislation, if the psychiatric injury arose out of or in the course of her employment, and if her employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the management's actions were reasonable and conducted in a reasonable manner.

The court found that Langerak was indeed a "worker" as defined by the legislation. The tribunal also concluded that the appellant sustained a personal psychiatric injury and that the injury arose out of or in the course of her employment. The court further held that her employment was a major significant contributing factor to her psychiatric injury. The management's actions were neither reasonable nor taken in a reasonable way, contributing to the appellant's condition. Given these findings, the appeal was upheld, and the decision of the Regulator was set aside. The claim for workers' compensation was accepted, and the Regulator was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is upheld.

2. The decision of the Regulator of 22 December 2016 is set aside. The claim for workers' compensation is one for acceptance.

3. The Regulator is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The standard of proof upon which appeals of this nature must be determined is that of "on the balance of probabilities".Evidence In the course of the proceedings, evidence was provided by 11 witnesses. The Commission, in deciding to précis the evidence of the witnesses, and submissions, notes that all the material has, for the purposes of this decision, been considered in its entirety. Witness Lists The witnesses for the appellant were:·Jade Langerak (Langerak);·Dr Brad Matthews (Dr Matthews); and·Associate Professor Bruce Kahn (Dr Kahn). The witnesses for the Regulator were:·Superintendent Glenn Horton (Horton);·Belinda Casey (Casey);·Senior Sergeant Allan Hussey (Hussey);·Inspector John Kranenburg (Kranenburg);·Dr Anand Gundabawady (Dr Gundabawady);·Acting Inspector Shane Bourke (Bourke);·Inspector Denis Fitzpatrick (Fitzpatrick); and·Sergeant Kaz Doyle (Doyle). Note: In 2014 Doyle's surname was Hutchinson.AppellantLangerak Langerak, a Senior Constable of Police stationed at Petrie Police Station, graduated from the police academy on 12 December 2007, gave evidence initially relating to two setbacks of some significance in her career as a police officer. In 2009 whilst stationed at Emerald she, in the early hours of the morning, arrested a woman who was intoxicated and urinating on the front step of the Emerald Police Station. The woman had been in the company of a number of off duty police officers who were also intoxicated and sought to prevent the arrest from going ahead. As a result of Langerak's actions she had been excluded from a particular friendship circle at the station including not being invited to the Christmas party and labelled a "dog". In 2011 some two years after that incident whilst at the Toowoomba Police Station she recalled hearing a group of male officers talking about the Emerald incident. The second setback occurred whilst she was stationed at the Mt Isa Police Station and her husband (at the time) was stationed at the Camooweal Police Station. Her husband had engaged in a relationship in mid‑2013 and despite attempts to reconcile with her husband and work through those issues she eventually left their house in August 2013 "with a couple of pillows, some uniforms and my dog". There was a period where she had nowhere to reside due to being evicted from police accommodation and rent prices in Mt Isa being high. The financial arrangements with her husband were "extremely complicated" due to three rental properties and vehicles that had been purchased. Her husband had been treating her "very badly", she was stressed about finances and not knowing how she would be able to manage the situation. Langerak requested a transfer to Rockhampton, being that she had family and friend support however ended up being transferred to the Townsville Police Communication Centre (TPCC) officially starting work on 3 January 2014. Langerak was excited to commence in the TPCC even though her preferred option was that of general duties officer. From the outset she found the work challenging and compounding matters was that two particular sergeants in the room started to bully and ostracise her, particularly if she made a mistake. Socially the TPCC was isolating for Langerak as she did not really fit in due to the age demographic of the other staff and she had difficulties in maintaining relationships with other people.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.