Raineri v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2014] QIRC 124

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Raineri

Simon

Blackwood

(Workers'

Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 124

PARTIES:

Raineri, Guiseppe (Joe)

(Appellant)

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation
Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2013/68

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood

(Workers' Compensation Regulator)

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2014

HEARING DATES:

29 and 30 April 2014

1 and 2 May 2014
4 June 2014 (Respondent's submissions)
17 June 2014 (Appellant's submissions)

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Thompson

ORDERS :

1.	The Appeal is allowed.
2.	The Commission sets aside the decision of the Regulator and substitutes a new decision that the claim is one for acceptance.
3.	The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to this Appeal 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) - Appellant a worker - bears onus of proof - standard of proof - balance of probabilities - medical evidence - Appellant established the personal injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment - employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury - psychiatric/psychological injury - unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way

- in connection with employment - decision of

Regulator set aside - Appeal allowed - Regulator to pay Appellant's costs.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act

2003 s 11, s 32(1), s 32(5), s 550

Evidence Act 1977
State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983
Invasion of Privacy Act 1971

Theresa

Helen

Ward

AND

Q-COMP

(C/2011/39)

Decision

Susan Forden v Q-COMP [2009] Magistrate Lee
(MAG 31405/07, 28706/08 & 36307/08)
D Byrne and JD Heydon, Cross on Evidence,
fourth Australian Edition, Butterworths 1991,
page 1029
Montfory v Rhodes Corporation [2005] VSC 320
RPS v The Queen [2000] 199 CLR 620
Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] 77 CLR
39

Flinders Operating Services Pty Ltd (formally NRG Flinders Operating Services Pty Ltd) v

Amato [2007] SAWCT 33

Rea Georges v Telstra Corporation Limited

[2009] AATA 731
Bowers v WorkCover Queensland [2003] 170
QGIG 1
Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP [2006] 181
QGIG 301
Catholic Education Services v Q-COMP [2007]
185 QGIG 248
Q-COMP v Department of Education [2005] 179
QGIG 491
Prizeman v Q-COMP [2005] 180 QGIG 481
Q-COMP v Hohn [2008] 187 QGIG 139

APPEARANCES:

Mr B. Munro, Counsel instructed by Turner
Freeman Lawyers for the Appellant.
Mr N. Jarro, Counsel directly instructed by
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation

Regulator), the Respondent.

[2]    The decision of the Regulator was to confirm the decision of WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) to reject the Appellant's Application for Compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act.
[3]     On 16 July 2013 the Appellant lodged with the Industrial Registrar an Amended Notice of Appeal which reflected an Amended Statement of Stressors.
Relevant Legislation
[4]     The Legislation pertinent to this Appeal is 32 of the Act:
"32 Meaning of injury

(1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of,…

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 Raineri 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 124
Decision Date: 8 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Raineri v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the dispute arose from an appeal against the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The appellant, a worker, sought to establish that a personal injury arose from and in the course of employment, specifically a psychiatric or psychological injury, due to an unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way. The case was heard in the Australian Workers' Compensation Commission.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the standard of proof required for the appellant to establish that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and whether the appellant had met this standard. The court also needed to determine if the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury and whether the management action was unreasonable in the context of the employment relationship.

The court found that the appellant successfully established, on the balance of probabilities, that the personal injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The court concluded that the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury, and the management action was unreasonable. The court accepted the medical evidence provided, which supported the appellant's claim. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Regulator was set aside, substituting a new decision that the claim was one for acceptance. The Regulator was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal, or, in the event of a failure to agree, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Appeal is allowed.

The Commission sets aside the decision of the Regulator and substitutes a new decision that the claim is one for acceptance.

The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to this Appeal or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

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.