Murphy v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2022] QIRC 264

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

PARTIES:

Murphy v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 264

Murphy, Conrad
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2019/32

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2022

HEARING DATE: 

22 June 2020

23 June 2020

24 June 2020

25 June 2020

1 December 2020

MEMBER

Hartigan IC

HEARD AT:

Bundaberg and Brisbane

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – appellant employed as a classroom teacher – appellant co taught a composite class with a teaching team consisting of two other teachers – where composite class the appellant co taught had varying learning and behavioural needs – where decision was made to restructure the teaching team so that another teacher would spend less time in the classroom on certain days ('the decision') – where decision was communicated to appellant in a meeting – where appellant suffered a psychiatric injury – where appellant claims injury arose due to the stressor of an excessive teaching workload arising out of the decision – whether appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, appellant's employment – whether the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury – whether the appellant's injury is excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where appellant sought to nominate an alternative stressor outside his Statement of Facts and Contentions – whether Commission can consider the appellant's alternative stressor – where appellant is restricted to arguing his case as put by his Statement of Facts and Contentions – where appellant has not successfully established that the sole stressor of 'excessive workload' was evident on the material before the Commission – where the sole stressor identified by the appellant was not causative of the injury – consideration of the appellant's alternative stressor in case the findings are not correct - whether the injury is excluded from being compensable because the injury was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – consideration of 'management action' and 'reasonableness of management action' – where decision and the communication of the decision to the appellant amounts to management action – where management action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way in the circumstances of the case – where appeal dismissed – review decision of the respondent confirmed – appellant to pay the costs of the respondent

LEGISLATION:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32

CASES:

APPEARANCES:

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009
Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit [2005] ICQ 007
Gilmour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 022
Kuenstner v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 083
Lawton v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 099
Prizeman v Q-COMP [2005] ICQ 043
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Adams [2015] ICQ 001
State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and…

Continue reading Murphy v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Murphy v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 264
Case
[2022] QIRC 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murphy v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved an appeal against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which denied the appellant, Mr Murphy, compensation for a psychiatric injury he claimed arose from the stressor of an excessive teaching workload. Mr Murphy, a teacher at Wallaville State School, alleged that a decision to restructure his teaching team and reduce another teacher's time in the classroom led to increased stress and ultimately his injury. The key legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment, whether his employment was a major significant contributing factor to the injury, and whether the injury was excluded by section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The court found that Mr Murphy had not established that the sole stressor of an 'excessive workload' was evident in the material before the Commission. The court concluded that the sole stressor identified by Mr Murphy was not causative of his injury. Furthermore, the court held that Mr Murphy was restricted to arguing his case as presented in his Statement of Facts and Contentions, and he could not introduce an alternative stressor outside this statement. The court found that the decision to alter the teaching team and the communication of this decision to Mr Murphy constituted reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Consequently, the court determined that the injury was excluded from being compensable under section 32(5) of the Act.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was confirmed. The court ordered that Mr Murphy pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal. This ruling underscores the importance of the onus of proof lying with the appellant to establish that the injury arose from work-related stress and that such stress was a significant contributing factor to the injury, within the framework provided by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. The court's decision also highlighted the limitations on the scope of stressors that can be considered in workers' compensation claims, reinforcing the need for claimants to clearly outline their case in their Statements of Facts and Contentions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

During the course of the hearing, there was no evidence led by Mr Murphy with respect to 'working up to 10 hours'. However, the evidence did address the class size and behavioural needs of the students. I will consider those matters further below. Relevant background Mr Murphy was, at the relevant time, 48 years old. At the age of 15 years, Mr Murphy was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident, which resulted in him becoming a paraplegic from the chest down. Mr Murphy is wheelchair bound and he mobilises with a manual wheelchair. At age 27, Mr Murphy graduated from teaching and travelled abroad. Mr Murphy taught variously in New Zealand, Brazil and Columbia. Upon returning to Australia, Mr Murphy commenced relief work until he was offered a full-time permanent position at Wallaville State School. He taught at Wallaville State School for approximately eight to nine years.[5][5] T1 – 12, l 32. Mr Murphy commenced employment as a teacher at the school in 2016. Initially, [6] T1 – 13, ll 23 – 24. Mr Murphy taught a year five and six composite class of approximately 27 or 28 students.[6] In 2017, Mr Murphy continued to teach a year five and six composite class. In that year, Mr Murphy also achieved a higher classification level of Senior Teacher. Ms Maureen Coleman commenced as the principal of the school in 2017. It was common ground that, at or around this time, Education Queensland encouraged schools to implement an existing inclusive education policy that required students who had previously been taught in the special education stream to be integrated to a general classroom environment. Ms Coleman's evidence was that, whilst there had been an inclusive education policy,[7] in or about 2016 or 2017, there 'was more of a push… to have students who have diverse learning needs in classrooms as opposed to being pulled out of classrooms.'[8][7] T3 – 6, ll 30 – 31. [8] T3 – 6, ll 32 – 33. Seemingly consistent with this policy, Mr Murphy was selected to teach a year four, five and six composite class in 2018. A number of students in this class had previously been in the special education stream. I will consider this class and the teachers allocated to teach this class in more detail further below. Term one and Term two, 2018 At the end of the 2017 school year, Mr Murphy was advised of the proposed class structure for 2018. Mr Murphy was advised that he would be team teaching a year four, five and six composite class with Ms Jane Stebhens, and Ms Kellee Hutchinson.[9][9] T1 – 14, ll 4 – 5. Ms Coleman's evidence was that she was the one who determined the class structure for the class that Mr Murphy was to team teach in 2018 on the basis that 'the students in the class were at a similar level that they could be put together…'.[10] [10] T3 – 7, l 42. Ms Coleman's evidence was that she chose Mr Murphy as one of the teachers for that class as he was 'an experienced teacher' and that he 'had experience with quite a number of those students in the previous year...'.[11][11] T3 – 8, l 4.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For these reasons, I consider that the injury is excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the Act, as it was a result of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Conclusion In this appeal, the onus was on Mr Murphy to establish that he suffered an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act. Mr Murphy has not discharged that onus. I did not accept that the injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment from the sole stressor of excessive workload nominated by Mr Murphy. Further, I do not accept that the sole stressor nominated by Mr Murphy was the major significant contributing factor to Mr Murphy's injury. For these reasons, I will dismiss the appeal. For the sake of completeness, I further concluded that Mr Murphy was excluded from arguing an alternative stressor that went beyond his nominated case as pleaded in his Statement of Facts and Contentions. However, if I am wrong with respect to this conclusion, I did consider the 'alternative stressor' of management action. I found that the decision to alter Ms Stehbens' time in the classroom and the effect that had on Mr Murphy's teaching time amounted to management action. I further find that the management action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. As such, the injury is excluded by operation of s 32(5) of the Act. Mr Murphy must pay the Regulator's costs of the appeal. Order Accordingly, I make the following orders:1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.