Nutley v Workers' Compensation Regulator

[2019] ICQ 2

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nutley v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 002 

PARTIES:

DAVID JAY NUTLEY

(appellant)

v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

C/2017/20

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

14 January 2019

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2018

JUDGE:

Martin J, President

ORDER:

1.    The Appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISEASE OR DISABILITY – ARISING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT – where the appellant claims to have developed an injury as a result of conduct towards him by co-workers – where the Regulator refused claim for compensation – where the Commission held that the employment had not been the major contributing factor to his injury – where the appellant appeals that decision – whether the appellant must demonstrate an error of law or a finding in excess of jurisdiction - whether the commission erred by not concluding that the appellant’s injury arose out of or in the course of the appellant’s employment with employment being the major significant contributing factor to his injury – whether there was evidence that any management action caused or contributed to the appellant’s injury – whether the Commission erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision 

CASES & LEGISLATION: 

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32

Abbott v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 031

Blackwood v Ziebarth [2016] ICQ 005

Cameron v Q-Comp [2011] ICQ 027

COUNSEL:

R Myers for the appellant

J Merrell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hall Payne Lawyers for the appellant

Workers’ Compensation Regulator (direct instruction)

Introduction

1. David Nutley was employed by Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd from 9 November 2011. He was first engaged as a truck operator and then as a pit controller. Mr Nutley claims to have developed an injury, namely an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, as a result of the conduct towards him of some of his co-workers. His claim for compensation was refused.

2. On appeal to the Commission, Deputy President Swan held that Mr Nutley’s employment had not been the major contributing factor to his injury. Her Honour also held that, had it been the case, contrary to her finding, that his employment was the major contributing factor, then the exclusionary provisions in s 32(5)(a) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) would have applied.

   The legislation

3. So far as is relevant, s 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—

   (a)      for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder—the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; or

   (b)      for a psychiatric or psychological disorder—the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the injury.

   (2)      However, employment need not be a contributing factor to the injury if section 34(2) or 35(2) applies.

   (3)      Injury includes the following—

   (a)a disease contracted in the course of employment, whether at or away from the place of employment, if the employment is a significant contributing factor…