Newman v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2014] QIRC 182

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Newman

Simon

Blackwood

(Workers'

Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 182

PARTIES:

Newman, Karen

(Appellant)

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation
Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2012/334

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood

(Workers' Compensation Regulator)

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2014

HEARING DATES:

8, 9 and 10 May 2013

14 June 2013 (Appellant's submissions)
20 June 2013 (Respondent's submissions)
5 July 2013 (Appellant's submissions in reply)

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Knight

ORDERS :

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2.	The decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) is confirmed.
3.	The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - aggravation of generalised anxiety disorder and an initial adjustment disorder with anxiety and pathological gambling - burden of proof - arising out of or in the course of employment - whether employment a significant contributing factor - altercation with junior co-worker over mail responsibilities - where appellant resigned - where appellant paid herself entitlements and departed workplace - history of depression - unfair dismissal claim - stress in personal and family life - reported

history of altercation - found employment not a

significant contributing factor - management action
reasonable - appeal dismissed.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act

2003, s 550, s 32, s 31(1), s 32(3), s 32(4), s 32(5)
Lackey v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 65 QGIG
22
Davis v Blackwood (2014) ICQ 009
Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139

APPEARANCES:

Mr J. Morris, Counsel instructed by Everingham
Lawyers for the Appellant.
Mr C. Clark, Counsel directly instructed by Simon
Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the
Respondent.

Decision

[1] This is an appeal by Ms Karen Newman (the Appellant) pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against the decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers Compensation Regulator), formerly known as Q- COMP (the Respondent / the Regulator). The decision of the Regulator confirmed an earlier decision of WorkCover to reject Ms Newman's claim for compensation, contending the Appellant did not sustain a psychological injury in accordance with s 32 of the Act.
Grounds of Appeal
[2] The grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant are as follows:
"The decision of the Review Unit, Q-Comp dated 20 August 2012 in so far as management's actions are relevant to factors 1 and 2 are wrong in both fact and at law for the following reasons:
Factor 1

(a) The Appellant did report to Mr Hadwen her concerns regarding Ms Ricketts' conduct;
(b) Mr Hadwen did, despite actual knowledge of the Appellant's concerns fail to address them with the Appellant and/or Ms Ricketts;
(c) Dr Shea does say that the lack of support in the workplace is and
was a cause of the Appellant’s psychological injury / disorder;

As such, the decision is wrong as the Appellant's personal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newman v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QIRC 182
Decision Date: 6 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Newman has appealed against a decision of Simon Blackwood (the Respondent) relating to a claim for workers' compensation. The Appellant alleged that her employment with the Department of Treasury and Finance caused her to suffer from a generalised anxiety disorder and an initial adjustment disorder with anxiety and pathological gambling. The Appellant also alleged that she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment. The appeal was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The legal issues before the FWC were whether the Appellant's conditions arose out of or in the course of her employment and whether her employment was a significant contributing factor to those conditions. The Appellant submitted that the altercation with a junior co-worker, over mail responsibilities, triggered her anxiety and pathological gambling. The FWC found that the Appellant's conditions were not caused by the altercation, as the Appellant had previously experienced similar conditions, and the altercation was not a significant contributing factor to her conditions. The FWC found that the Appellant's conditions arose from a combination of work-related and non-work-related stressors. The appeal was dismissed. The FWC found that the Appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that her employment was a significant contributing factor to her conditions. The FWC found that the Appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that her employment was a significant contributing factor to her conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The 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.

(a)	The Appellant did report to Mr Hadwen her concerns regarding Ms Ricketts' conduct;
(b)	Mr Hadwen did, despite actual knowledge of the Appellant's concerns fail to address them with the Appellant and/or Ms Ricketts;
(c)	Dr Shea does say that the lack of support in the workplace is and