Prior v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] QIRC 104

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Prior v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 104
PARTIES:	Prior, Claire Appellant v Workers' Compensation Regulator Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2021/187
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2023
HEARING DATE:	16 December 2022
DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Appellant's submissions, 31 January 2023 Respondent's submissions, 14 February 2023 Appellant's reply submissions, 28 February 2023 McLennan IC Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The Appellant has sustained an aggravation of a personal injury. 2. The Appellant sustained the aggravation on 28 November 2019.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – where appellant was employed as a Nurse Practitioner – where appellant sustained a psychiatric condition – whether appellant suffered an aggravation of a personal injury – consideration of the date any such aggravation occurred
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32 Carman v Q-COMP [2007] ICQ 43 Church v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031 CS Energy Limited v Q-Comp [2008] QIC 57 JBS Australia Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2013] ICQ 13 Karipa v Q-COMP [2013] QIRC 161 Omanski v Q-COMP [2013] ICQ 7 Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1996) 152 QGIG 1181 Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 033 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Guymer [2017] QIRC 080
APPEARANCES:	Ms C Prior, the Appellant in person. Mr P B O'Neill of counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Ms Claire Prior and her family moved from regional Victoria to Toowoomba in June 2018, so she could take up a position of Nurse Practitioner at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ).
For most of her time there, Ms Prior worked from the medical centre at USQ's Toowoomba campus.

The medical centre employed three General Practitioners, together with other clinical and administrative staff. Clients were mainly staff and students of the university.

While it was different to Ms Prior's previous work experience in a regional hospital and in private general practices, "all went smoothly"[1] apparently in the first six months of the probation period.
[1] T 1-14, line 32.

The Prior family sold their residence in Victoria and purchased a home in Toowoomba in April 2019.

But by that time, things had started to sour.

Ms Prior was teary during a feedback session and had a difficult meeting with her manager, Ms Georgina Hawker.[2] She sought counselling support through EAP[3] with Mr Peter Collins, Psychologist.
[2] Manager, Health Services.
[3] Employee Assistance Program.

Concerns about Ms Prior's clinical practice were raised with Dr Christie White, Director, Student Success and Wellbeing Department.

Ms Prior also made several complaints about Ms Hawker.
Ms Prior was informed that "USQ had become aware of a number of concerns raised in relation to her conduct, which if established, could amount…

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 Prior v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Prior v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 104
Case: [2023] QIRC 104
Decision Date: 5 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prior v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved an appeal by the Workers' Compensation Regulator against a decision regarding a claim for workers' compensation by Ms Claire Prior, who was employed as a Nurse Practitioner. Ms Prior alleged that she had sustained a psychiatric condition, and further claimed an aggravation of this condition, which occurred after she returned to work following an extended period of absence. The central legal issues were whether Ms Prior had indeed suffered an aggravation of her personal injury and, if so, the date on which this aggravation took place.

The court examined the evidence provided by Ms Prior and Dr Mark Bennett, her former General Practitioner, as well as the arguments presented in the written submissions. Ms Prior argued that her condition worsened upon her return to work, attributing this to workplace stressors that arose after September 2019. She posited that the date of the aggravation should be considered as 28 November 2019, the day she became incapable of working. Conversely, the Regulator contended that there was no aggravation of Ms Prior's pre-existing psychiatric injury.

The court deliberated on the medical evidence and the testimonies provided, applying the principles from CS Energy Limited v Q-Comp to determine whether there was a marked deterioration in Ms Prior's condition post a specific event. After careful consideration, the court found that there was indeed an aggravation of Ms Prior's personal injury, which occurred on 28 November 2019.

The final orders of the court were that Ms Prior had sustained an aggravation of a personal injury, and this aggravation took place on 28 November 2019. This decision upheld Ms Prior's claim regarding the aggravation of her psychiatric condition, providing her with the recognition and compensation she sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant has sustained an aggravation of a personal injury.

2. The Appellant sustained the aggravation on 28 November 2019.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

My reasons follow.Evidence and submissions Written closing submissions were directed in the order Appellant – Respondent – Appellant (in reply, on issues of law only). The Appellant's written closing submissions were filed on 31 January 2023. The Respondent's written closing submissions were filed on 14 February 2023. The Appellant's written submissions in reply were filed on 28 February 2023. The evidence of the witnesses and nine exhibits tendered at the Hearing, together with the written closing submissions, the Statements of Facts and Contentions, the Workers' Compensation Regulator notice of appeal and other materials filed in this matter were considered in this Decision. I have determined not to approach the writing of this Decision by summarising the entirety of the evidence provided and submissions made, but will instead refer to the parties' positions in my consideration of each question to be decided. The witnesses for the Appellant's case were:·Ms Claire Prior, the Appellant herself;·Dr Mark Bennett, formerly the Appellant's General Practitioner; and The Respondent called no witnesses.Did Ms Prior sustain a personal injury or aggravation? If so, what date did that occur? It is not disputed that Ms Prior sustained one psychiatric injury, in the relevant period.[41] [41] Ibid [134]; Appellant's closing submissions, filed 31 January 2023, 2 [xiv]. However, that does not settle the question of whether or not there was an "aggravation" of that condition. Neither is it disputed that Ms Prior knew that events occurring after July 2019 could not be taken into account for her first workers' compensation claim,[42] when she made the subsequent claim for 'aggravation' of personal injury on 7 July 2020[43] (subject of this appeal).[42] Ibid [xv]; Respondent's closing submissions, filed 14 February 2023, 2 [7].[43] Chronology prepared by Mr P O'Neill, counsel for the Regulator, Marked for Identification at the Hearing.Appellant's position Ms Prior stated she had an adjustment disorder that "got worse" after she returned from a long absence from work whilst being investigated.[44][44] T 1-14, lines 25 – 26. Ms Prior submitted that the aggravation was caused by the alleged stressors, said to have occurred after September 2019.[45] She explained (emphasis added):What I was not expecting on my return to work was an exacerbation of the symptoms of depression and anxiety, further workplace stressors involving the same supervisor, ostracism, and eventual decompensation to the point of not wanting or being capable of working at all on 28 November 2019.[46][45] T 1-15, lines 15 – 20; Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 23 March 2022.[46] Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 23 March 2022, 3. At the Hearing, Ms Prior contended that "the date of the exacerbation should be the date I became the most worse and incapable of working at all, which was the 28th of November 2019."[47][47] T 1-15, lines 20 – 22. The Respondent contended that Ms Prior did not sustain an aggravation or exacerbation of a pre-existing psychiatric injury.[48] [48] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 21 April 2022, 11 [131].

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In CS Energy Limited v Q-Comp,[37] President Hall held (emphasis added):On the medical evidence, the Industrial Magistrate's analysis that on or about 18 July 2006, Mr Gupta suffered an aggravation of an underlying condition seems to me to be entirely correct. The witnesses were Dr Vanessa Johnson (the treating psychiatrist) and a Ms Lynda Troy (a psychologist from whom Workcover had sought an opinion). The experts were ad idem that there were some symptoms before the meeting of 18 July 2006 and as far back as October of 2005. However, to quote Dr Johnson, there was a "marked deterioration in Mr Gupta's mental state following his meeting."[37] [2008] QIC 57. I will take into consideration the authorities referred to above in determining whether Ms Prior has suffered an aggravation of a psychiatric / psychological disorder or personal injury. This preliminary Hearing was only to determine the questions of:1.Did Ms Prior sustain a personal injury or aggravation? and There is no dispute between the parties that: ·Ms Prior was a worker for the purposes of s 11 of the Act;[39] and·Ms Prior has sustained a psychiatric injury.[40] [39] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed 21 April 2022, 11 [129] – [130].[40] Ibid. Summary of Findings In my view:·There was an aggravation of Ms Prior's personal injury; and·The date the aggravation occurred was 28 November 2019. My reasons follow.Evidence and submissions Written closing submissions were directed in the order Appellant – Respondent – Appellant (in reply, on issues of law only). The Appellant's written closing submissions were filed on 31 January 2023. The Respondent's written closing submissions were filed on 14 February 2023. The Appellant's written submissions in reply were filed on 28 February 2023. The evidence of the witnesses and nine exhibits tendered at the Hearing, together with the written closing submissions, the Statements of Facts and Contentions, the Workers' Compensation Regulator notice of appeal and other materials filed in this matter were considered in this Decision. I have determined not to approach the writing of this Decision by summarising the entirety of the evidence provided and submissions made, but will instead refer to the parties' positions in my consideration of each question to be decided. The witnesses for the Appellant's case were:·Ms Claire Prior, the Appellant herself;·Dr Mark Bennett, formerly the Appellant's General Practitioner; and The Respondent called no witnesses.Did Ms Prior sustain a personal injury or aggravation? If so, what date did that occur? It is not disputed that Ms Prior sustained one psychiatric injury, in the relevant period.[41] [41] Ibid [134]; Appellant's closing submissions, filed 31 January 2023, 2 [xiv]. However, that does not settle the question of whether or not there was an "aggravation" of that condition. Neither is it disputed that Ms Prior knew that events occurring after July 2019 could not be taken into account for her first workers' compensation claim,[42] when she made the subsequent claim for 'aggravation' of personal injury on 7 July 2020[43] (subject of this appeal).[42] Ibid [xv]; Respondent's closing submissions, filed 14 February 2023, 2 [7].[43] Chronology prepared by Mr P O'Neill, counsel for the Regulator, Marked for Identification at the Hearing.Appellant's position