Ludwig v Workers' Compensation Regulator

[2025] QIRC 239

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Ludwig v Workers' Compensation Regulator 2025 QIRC 239

PARTIES:

Ludwig, Trevor
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2024/136

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2025

HEARING DATE: 

5 August 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Connor VP

Brisbane

ORDERS:

1.     That the appeal (WC/2024/136) is dismissed

2.     That the Respondent's Review Decision dated 26 June 2024 be confirmed

3.     The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the hearing to be agreed or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – where appellant sustained injury to lower back – where appellant claims he was physically assaulted at work – where WorkCover rejected appellant's claim for compensation – where there was a verbal altercation – where appellant has significant prior injuries – where respondent conceded appellant has suffered an injury – whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment – whether employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury – where the appellant is bound by the case as expressed in their statement of facts and contentions – where tribunal of fact must be persuaded of the occurrence of a fact

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act s 32

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Carlton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2017] ICQ 1

Chattin v WorkCover Queensland (1999) 161 QGIG 531

Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691

Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246

APPEARANCES:

Mr Trevor Ludwig, the Appellant, on his own behalf

Ms M. Stone of counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision
Ex Tempore

1. Trevor Glenny Ludwig appeals the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 26th of June 2024 that rejected his application for compensation in accordance with section 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ('WCR Act').

2. The Appellant claimed that he suffered a lower back injury after he was allegedly assaulted on the 27th of February 2024 whilst he was employed as a farmhand with Seth Investments Proprietary Limited. The Appellant commenced employment with Seth Investments in or about October of 2023 and remained in employment until the incident on 27 February 2024. The Appellant ordinarily commenced his work day at 6 am and

   finished around 2 pm.

3. On the day in question, he was asked by Mr Terry Tang to do some slashing of long grass. The Appellant said that the area was difficult to slash because the grass was thick, there were ruts and the ground was uneven. The Appellant undertook the slashing work. Mr Tang approached the Appellant whilst the Appellant was on his break. Mr Tang was agitated. Mr Tang said that he told the Appellant there was water leaking on the field and showed him where it was.

4. The Appellant had damaged the risers or starters whilst he was undertaking the slashing work. Mr…