MacDonald v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 149

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	MacDonald v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 149
PARTIES:	MacDonald, Andrew (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2022/118
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	3 June 2025
HEARING DATES:	4 March 2024 to 6 March 2024
SUBMISSIONS:	Appellant's closing submissions: 21 May 2024 Respondent's closing submissions: 31 May 2024 Appellant's closing submissions in reply: 18 June 2024
MEMBER:	Power IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS:	The appeal is upheld in part. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is set aside. The Appellant sustained a right shoulder injury in accordance with s 32 of the Act. No other injuries outlined in the Application for Assessment of Permanent Impairment were sustained by the Appellant in accordance with s 32 of the Act. Failing agreement on costs, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission within 21 days.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – whether injury was suffered pursuant to s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – whether appellant suffered a personal injury which arose out of, or in the course of, his employment – whether employment was a significant contributing factor – appeal upheld in part.
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32
CASES:	Briffa v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 70 Burton v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 437 Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Petkoska [2000] HCA 45 McDonald v Q-COMP (No. 2) (2008) 188 QGIG 180 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Rossmuller v Q-COMP [2010] ICQ 4 Ward v Q-COMP [2011] ICQ 33 WorkCover Queensland v BHP (Qld) Workers' Compensation Unit [2002] ICQ 24
APPEARANCES:	Mr A. MacDonald, as self-represented Appellant. Mr C.J. Clark of Counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Mr Andrew MacDonald ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') to reject his application for assessment of permanent impairment in accordance with s 550(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act').
Section 132A of the Act provides for an application for an assessment of degree of permanent impairment in circumstances where the worker has not made an application for compensation under s 132 of the Act.
Section 132A(7) provides that the insurer may reject the application only if satisfied the worker was not a worker when the injury was sustained or has not sustained an injury.
In this matter, WorkCover rejected the Appellant's application on the basis that he did not sustain an injury within the meaning of the Act.

The issue to be determined is whether the Appellant suffered a personal injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act. Section 32 of the Act provides:

32 Meaning of injury

(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.

…
(3)Injury includes the following –
(a)a disease contracted in…

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 MacDonald v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: MacDonald v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 149
Case: [2025] QIRC 149
Decision Date: 3 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MacDonald v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, Mr Andrew MacDonald, appealed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to reject his application for an assessment of permanent impairment. The appeal centred around whether Mr MacDonald had sustained injuries that qualified under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr MacDonald's injuries arose from his employment and qualified as a compensable injury under section 32 of the Act.

The court meticulously examined the evidence provided, focusing on whether the appellant had indeed suffered a personal injury that was connected to his employment. The court concluded that while Mr MacDonald sustained an injury to his right shoulder during a work-related incident, he did not suffer any other injuries as claimed in his application. The court found that the Appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the other injuries outlined in his application. Therefore, the appeal was partially upheld, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was set aside regarding the other injuries, while affirming the Appellant's right shoulder injury as compensable.

In its ruling, the court determined that the Appellant had sustained a right shoulder injury in accordance with section 32 of the Act. However, the other injuries mentioned in the application were not sustained in a manner that qualified under the Act. Consequently, the court ordered that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator be set aside concerning these other injuries. Additionally, the court mandated that if the parties could not agree on the costs, a further application should be made to the Commission within 21 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld in part.

2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is set aside.

3. The Appellant sustained a right shoulder injury in accordance with s 32 of the Act.

4. No other injuries outlined in the Application for Assessment of Permanent Impairment were sustained by the Appellant in accordance with s 32 of the Act.

5. Failing agreement on costs, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission within 21 days.

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

The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is set aside. The Appellant sustained a right shoulder injury in accordance with s 32 of the Act. No other injuries outlined in the Application for Assessment of Permanent Impairment were sustained by the Appellant in accordance with s 32 of the Act. Failing agreement on costs, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission within 21 days. Mr Andrew MacDonald ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') to reject his application for assessment of permanent impairment in accordance with s 550(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act'). Section 132A of the Act provides for an application for an assessment of degree of permanent impairment in circumstances where the worker has not made an application for compensation under s 132 of the Act. Section 132A(7) provides that the insurer may reject the application only if satisfied the worker was not a worker when the injury was sustained or has not sustained an injury. In this matter, WorkCover rejected the Appellant's application on the basis that he did not sustain an injury within the meaning of the Act. The issue to be determined is whether the Appellant suffered a personal injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act. Section 32 of the Act provides: This appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo in which the onus of proof falls upon the Appellant.[1] The Commission must be satisfied that the worker has suffered an injury within the meaning of the Act.[2][1] Rossmuller v Q-COMP [2010] ICQ 4.[2] McDonald v Q-COMP (No. 2) (2008) 188 QGIG 180; Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 301. The Appellant must prove, on the balance of probabilities,[3] that the claim is one for acceptance.[3] Briffa v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 70. After careful consideration of all of the evidence, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Appellant did not suffer injuries within the meaning of the term pursuant to s 32 of the Act, with the exception of an injury to his right shoulder. My reasons follow. The Appellant was, at all times relevant to this appeal, employed as a tanker driver by Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd. The Appellant describes in his Statement of Facts and Contentions ('SOFC') an incident on Saturday, 13 July 2019, in which he descended from the top of his tanker at work, slipped off the ladder, and fell to the ground ('the work incident'). Following the incident, the Appellant finished the day at work and when he returned to work on Monday, 15 July 2019, reported the incident to the Boral Operations Manager, Mr Paul Volzke, and Mr Brent Stockwell. The Appellant states that he completed a written Incident Report for Mr Volzke and contends that this report subsequently disappeared. The Appellant attended upon Dr Joshua Scott on 17 July 2019 and contacted WorkCover on 30 July 2019 to report the incident, however, did not file a claim for workers' compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.