Mahaffey v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:        

Mahaffey v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 116

PARTIES:  

Mahaffey, Samantha
(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2014/250

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2015

HEARING DATE: 

12 - 14 May 2015

MEMBER:

Deputy President Kaufman

ORDERS   :

1.      The appeal is allowed.

2.      The decision of the Regulator is set aside.

3.      The claim is one for acceptance.

4.      The Respondent is to pay the Appellants' cost of, and incidental to, the appeal in an amount to be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, on application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment - reasonable management action - abuse - yelling - interrelationship between s 32(1) and s 32(5)

CASES:

Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1
Davis v Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] ICQ 9
WorkCover Queensland v Heit [2000] QIRC 22
Q-Comp v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139

APPEARANCES:

Mr M Hovarth, of Counsel, instructed by Ms C Heisler, Quinn & Scattini Lawyers, for the Appellant.

Mr S Gray, of Counsel, directly instructed by K Bednarek, Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Respondent.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Mahaffey, the appellant, was employed at Mount Cotton Constructions from 28 February 2012 to early September 2012.  She alleges that during the period of her employment she was exposed to multiple stressors at work that led to her suffering severe psychological injuries which, in September 2012, were diagnosed as severe anxiety and depression.  She resigned from her employment on 12 September 2012 and on the same day made an application for workers' compensation which was accepted by WorkCover Queensland but set aside by the regulator.  It is against this decision that she appeals.

Issues for Determination

1. It is not in contention that Ms Mahaffey was a worker and suffered a personal injury, which is a psychiatric or psychological disorder.

2. The regulator also accepted in its submissions that there was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing to lead to a finding that the appellant's injury is one arising out of, or in the course of, her employment and that her employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.  I agree.

3. Dr Karen Chau, a psychiatrist, provided a report on 13 April 2015 wherein she concluded that the appellant was suffering from a psychiatric condition being adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and an aggravation of social phobia as a result of feeling harassed by her employer at work and, additionally, because the appellant believed she had not received adequate support or training during the course of her employment.  The doctor opined that the cause of the psychiatric disorder was a combination of the bullying, intimidatory and aggressive behaviour of her employer, Mr Chris Scroopes as well as the stress caused by dealing with hostile telephone calls from creditors and the lack of support…