Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2017] QIRC 72

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 072
PARTIES:	Patricia Mary Read (appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/189
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	1 August 2017
HEARING:	28 and 29 June 2017
MEMBER:	Deputy President D L O'Connor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the respondent dated 9 September 2016 is affirmed. 3. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this appeal, including reserved costs, to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – Where injury exists – Whether injury excluded under s32(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – Where injury arises from management action – Where injury arises from perception – Appeal dismissed
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32 Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437 Commonwealth Bank v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009 O'Brien v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 383 Q-COMP v Foote (2008) 189 QGIG 539 WorkCover Corp (SA) v Summers (1995) 65 SASR 243
APPEARANCES:	Mr B J Carman, solicitor, instructed directly by the appellant Mr P O’Neill of Counsel, instructed directly by the respondent

Reasons for Decision

Patricia Mary Read was employed by the Cairns Regional Council as a Town Planner. The appellant seeks to set aside the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator dated 9 September 2016. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator confirmed the decision of Local Government Workcare to reject Ms Read’s application for compensation as a result of s32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.
The appellant bears the onus of establishing her entitlement to compensation. That is, it is for the appellant to demonstrate to the Commission that the Regulators decision was wrongly made. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

The parties have agreed on the facts of this matter and they are as follows:
"The Appellant commenced employment with the Cairns Council ('the Council') on 22 September 2005 as a Planning Officer.
The Appellant up until 9 March 2016 worked in the Planning Approvals section of the Council.
The Appellant’s immediate supervisor is Mr Gary Warner who has been in that role since the de-amalgamation of the Cairns Regional Council.
On 30 April 2015 at a team meeting of the Planning Approvals Team Mr Warner provided a direction to the team about professional email correspondence and the use of the correct Council signature block.
In or about August 2015 the Appellant, as a Planning Officer, had conduct of File 8/7/3341 which involved an application for a significant retaining wall at 18-19 Temora Place.
On 14 August 2015 the Appellant sent a site inspection email with photographs showing 17 Temora Place.
The Appellant sent a further email on 28 August 2015 attaching the correct photographs, labelled 'Correct site inspection photos for 18-19 Temora…

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 Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 72
Case: [2017] QIRC 72
Decision Date: 1 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Read appealed against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which found that the injury he sustained was excluded from coverage under section 32(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The appeal was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. The primary dispute was whether the injury Read suffered, which arose from a management action and his perception of that action, was excluded from workers' compensation coverage.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of section 32(5) of the Act, specifically whether the exclusion applied to injuries that arose from management actions and the perception of such actions. The court needed to determine if the exclusion was applicable in this case, given that Read's injury was a result of a management decision and his perception of that decision. This required an analysis of the statutory language, the context in which the injury occurred, and the relevance of the perception of the management action.

The court found that the injury sustained by Read was indeed excluded from compensation under section 32(5). The injury arose from a management action and Read's perception of that action, which were explicitly excluded under the statutory provision. The court held that the exclusion was clear and applicable to the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator was affirmed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including reserved costs, to be agreed upon or, if not agreed upon, to be the subject of an application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the respondent dated 9 September 2016 is affirmed.

3. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this appeal, including reserved costs, to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an 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.