Neale v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] ICQ 17

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Neale v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 017
PARTIES:	Neale, Ian (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	C/2023/6
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	10 August 2023
HEARING DATE:	15 May 2023
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	O'Connor, VP Townsville
ORDER:	Appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR - where appellant filed appeal against review decision of the Respondent - where Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) confirmed decision of the Respondent - where appellant appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland (ICQ) - where appellant sustained an injury within s 32(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act 2003 - where the Commissioner found that the management action taken was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way - where Commissioner found injury excluded by virtue of operation of s 32(5)(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act 2003 - whether Commissioner erred in finding management action reasonable - where relevant stressors relied upon by the appellant to contend management action was unreasonable in the way his workplace stressors were dealt with - where appellant challenging Commissioner's findings and the evidence relevant to each stressor - whether alleged errors of law - whether alleged errors of fact - appellant has not identified any error in Commissioner's reasoning process - determined appeal be dismissed.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 561 Alex Sabo AND Q-COMP (C2010/46) - Decision Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gambaro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 5 Mater Misericordiae Health Service Brisbane Ltd v Q-Comp (2005) 179 QGIG 144 Neale v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 009 Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 024 Turay v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 013
APPEARANCES:	Mr I. Neale, the Appellant in person. Mr S.A. McLeod, KC directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision

On 6 February 2023 Mr Ian Neale ('the Appellant') filed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission').[1] The Appellant appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') dated 22 June 2021, which confirms a decision of WorkCover Queensland on 7 October 2020 to reject his application for compensation for a personal injury in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WCR Act').
[1] Neale v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 009.

On appeal to the Commission, it was not in dispute that the Appellant suffered a personal injury within the meaning of s 32(1) of the WCR Act. The controversy between the parties was whether the injury was removed from the operation of s 32(1) by virtue of the provisions of s 32(5) of the WCR Act.

The Grounds of appeal are as follows:

I believe that the Commissioner has erred on various findings. I feel that evidence was not looked…

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 Neale v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Neale v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 17
Case: [2023] ICQ 17
Decision Date: 10 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Neale brought an appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which was subsequently confirmed by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC). The dispute arose from the Regulator's refusal to compensate Neale for an injury sustained in the workplace. The Industrial Court of Queensland (ICQ) was tasked with reviewing the Regulator's decision, and assessing whether the Commissioner had erred in finding that the management action taken by Neale's employer was reasonable, and in concluding that Neale's injury was excluded under section 32(5)(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act 2003.

The key legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Commissioner had erred in finding the management action reasonable, and if there were any errors of law or fact in the Commissioner's assessment of the evidence. Neale argued that the management action was unreasonable in the way his workplace stressors were dealt with, and sought to challenge the Commissioner's findings and the evidence relevant to each stressor. The court needed to assess whether Neale had identified any errors in the Commissioner's reasoning process.

The ICQ found that Neale had not identified any error in the Commissioner's reasoning process, and that the Commissioner's findings were supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the Commissioner had not erred in finding the management action reasonable, and that Neale's injury was excluded by virtue of section 32(5)(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act 2003. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

ORDERS:
The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal is dismissed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.