Parks v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] ICQ 15

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parks v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 15

PARTIES:

NORMA PARKS

(appellant)

v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2018/26

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

20 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2019

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – where the appellant contends that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission made an error of fact – where the application to amend the ground to an error of law was withdrawn – where the appellant did not seek leave in the Industrial Court of Queensland to appeal on the ground of an error of fact – whether the ground of appeal can be pursued

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – where the appellant contended in the Commission that she developed a pain disorder, secondary to a physical injury – where the appellant contends on appeal that the Commission failed to consider evidence relating to whether or not she was displaying symptoms of a pain disorder during a particular time – where the appellant further contends that the Commission erred in finding that MRI imaging was evidence that the appellant did not develop a pain disorder – where the critical issue before the Commission was whether or not the appellant’s employment was a major contributing factor to the pain disorder – whether the Commission considered certain evidence – whether the grounds of appeal assert errors of law or errors of fact – whether the grounds of appeal can be pursued

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 557

CASES:

Abbott v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 031, cited

Carlton v Blackwood (2017) 264 IR 414; [2017] ICQ 001, cited

Nutley v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 002, cited

Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110, cited

Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, cited

APPEARANCES:

G Carter instructed by Kare Lawyers on behalf of the appellant

S Grey instructed directly by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator

In October 2014, Ms Parks was employed as a Carton Meat Assessor by Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd. She suffered a lower back injury which was accepted by the self-insurer as an “episode of a soft tissue injury”.
Between that time and the end of February 2015 she was cleared to take part in a return to work program. The self-insurer ceased her workers’ compensation benefits upon determining that she no longer had an incapacity for work. Although she still had some symptoms, the self-insurer, on the basis of reports it had, decided that they were not consistent with the existing pathology. Ms Parks did not seek a review of that decision.
Notwithstanding the decision to end paying her benefits, Teys did not allow her to return to her position as she was…

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 Parks v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Parks v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 15
Case: [2019] ICQ 15
Decision Date: 20 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Parks v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved the appellant contesting the findings of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission regarding her eligibility for workers' compensation. The central issue was whether the appellant's employment was a major contributing factor to her alleged pain disorder. The appellant contended that the Commission had overlooked certain evidence and misinterpreted the significance of MRI imaging results in relation to her condition.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the grounds of appeal constituted errors of fact or errors of law, and whether the court could properly consider the appellant's complaints given the procedural steps taken. The appellant had initially sought to amend her grounds of appeal to include an error of fact but later withdrew this application. The court had to consider whether, despite this procedural misstep, the appeal could proceed on the merits. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the appellant's claims about the Commission's oversight of evidence and misinterpretation of MRI results amounted to reviewable errors.

The court held that the grounds of appeal needed to be carefully distinguished between errors of fact and errors of law. It emphasised the importance of not overzealously scrutinising the reasons provided by the Commission, noting that appellate courts should avoid turning their review into a reconsideration of the merits. The court found that the appellant's complaints about the Commission's consideration of evidence and interpretation of MRI results amounted to errors of fact. Given that the appellant did not seek leave to appeal on the basis of an error of fact in the Industrial Court of Queensland, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

Immediately following the summary of the effect of the decision of McColl JA, there is consideration of the application of those types of principles in the Commission. I repeat what is set out there:“[18]Of course, when considering whether or not a Tribunal has either overlooked some relevant evidence or misconstrued the issue to be determined, an appeal court must not be quick to apply a critical magnifying glass. I agree, with respect, with what Hall P said in Cameron v Q-Comp:‘[3] It is, however, important for an appeal court to refrain from undue ebullience in seeking-out error in decisions written under the pressure of other work and after lengthy trials. I adhere to the view expressed by this Court in Cunningham and Others (Flower and Hart) v William Hamilton Hart, viz:‘… However, I accept that the Court should not be overly enthusiastic to seek out error. Cases abound in which the need for caution and restraint have been emphasised. It is convenient to commence with the observations of Meagher JA in Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW: ‘It does not automatically follow that because the reasons for decision are inadequate then an appealable error has occurred. Examination of nearly any statement of reasons with a fine-tooth comb would throw up some inadequacies. Indeed, an appeal court will reserve any intervention to those situations in which it is left with no choice: where no reasons have been given in circumstances where a statement of reasons is so inadequate as to constitute a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the statement of reasons must be looked at as a whole and the material inadequacies identified and considered.’Over twenty years later, the nuances of meaning carried by the colourful phrase, ‘miscarriage of justice’, render the passage less helpful than it once was. However, the more moderate formulation in Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic, viz.:‘This translates to a practical as well as principled restraint. The Court will not be concerned with looseness in the language of the Tribunal nor with unhappy phrasing of the Tribunal’s thoughts: …The reasons for the decision under review are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error: Politis v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth).’,continues to be helpful. The observations of Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors, are to the same effect. Footnotes omitted, the passage is:‘These propositions are well settled. They recognise the reality that the reasons of an administrative decision-maker are meant to inform and not be scrutinised upon over zealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed. In the present context, any court reviewing a decision upon refugee status must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision.’.’ (citations omitted, emphasis added)”Ground 1

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Parks v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 15
PARTIES:	NORMA PARKS (appellant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent)
FILE NO:	C/2018/26
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	20 November 2019
HEARING DATE:	19 March 2019
MEMBER:	Martin J, President
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – where the appellant contends that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission made an error of fact – where the application to amend the ground to an error of law was withdrawn – where the appellant did not seek leave in the Industrial Court of Queensland to appeal on the ground of an error of fact – whether the ground of appeal can be pursued APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – where the appellant contended in the Commission that she developed a pain disorder, secondary to a physical injury – where the appellant contends on appeal that the Commission failed to consider evidence relating to whether or not she was displaying symptoms of a pain disorder during a particular time – where the appellant further contends that the Commission erred in finding that MRI imaging was evidence that the appellant did not develop a pain disorder – where the critical issue before the Commission was whether or not the appellant’s employment was a major contributing factor to the pain disorder – whether the Commission considered certain evidence – whether the grounds of appeal assert errors of law or errors of fact – whether the grounds of appeal can be pursued Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 557
CASES:	Abbott v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 031, cited Carlton v Blackwood (2017) 264 IR 414; [2017] ICQ 001, cited Nutley v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 002, cited Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110, cited Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, cited
APPEARANCES:	G Carter instructed by Kare Lawyers on behalf of the appellant S Grey instructed directly by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator