Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2019] QIRC 203

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203

PARTIES:        

Ribeiro, Israel

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2018/53

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2019

HEARING DATES:

DATES OF WRITTEN

SUBMISSIONS:

18 March 2019 and 19 March 2019

Respondent's submissions, 16 May 2019

Appellant's submissions, 6 June 2019

Respondent's submissions in reply, 12 June 2019

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Merrell DP

Brisbane

ORDERS:

1.           The decision appealed against is confirmed.

2.           The Appellant pays the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR - PHYSICAL INJURY - worker employed as a slicer at an abattoir - suffered from umbilical and para-umbilical hernias - whether umbilical hernia arose out of or in the course of employment - whether work performed as a slicer aggravated umbilical hernia and whether employment a significant contributing  factor to the aggravation

LEGISLATION:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 191

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 49(2)

Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth), s 196B(2)

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 11 and s 32

CASES:

Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst [1940] HCA 45; (1940) 64 CLR 538

Alsco Pty Ltd v VICA Mircevic [2013] VSCA 229

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 247 CLR 345

Avis v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QIC 67; (2000) 165 QGIG 788

Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales [2010] FCAFC 133; (2010) 189 FCR 356

Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63, 65; (1774) 98 ER 969

Church v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031

Commissioner of Police v David Rea [2008] NSWCA 199

Damberg v Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492

Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 008

Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 106

Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 190

Heald v Q-Comp [2004] QIC 74; (2004) 177 QGIG 769

Holtman v Sampson [1985] Qd. R 472

JBS Australia Pty Ltd (C2012/35) v Dunkel [1959] HCA8; (1959) 109 CLR 298

Kavanagh v Commonwealth [1960] HCA 25; (1960) CLR 547

Monroe Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell [1995] 65 SASR 16

Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts v PGP Developments Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 58; (2010) 183 FCR 10

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48; (2006) 1 Qd.R 519

Nilsson v Q-Comp [2008] QIC 74; (2008) 189 QGIG 523

Nutley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 002

Omanski v Q-Comp (C/2012/24) v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 643

Rossmuller AND Q-COMP (C/2009/36) Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262

Theiss Pty Ltd v Q-Comp (C/2010/11) Holdings Limited v Q-COMP (WC/2010/96) v Lovering and WorkCover Corporation [1992] 59 SASR 203

Yousif v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 004

APPEARANCES:

Mr H. Trotter instructed by Mr Jonathan Whiting of Jonathan C Whiting & Associates…

Continue reading Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203
Case
[2019] QIRC 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Appellant, Mr Ribeiro, appealed against the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Respondent, to refuse his claim for workers' compensation for physical injuries sustained during his employment. Mr Ribeiro had worked as a slicer at an abattoir, where he developed umbilical and para-umbilical hernias. The central issue in the appeal was whether the umbilical hernia arose out of or in the course of his employment and whether his employment had significantly contributed to the aggravation of the hernia.

The court examined whether the Appellant's work as a slicer constituted employment that involved a risk of the Appellant suffering from umbilical and para-umbilical hernias. The court considered the inherent risks associated with the duties performed by the Appellant, such as repetitive and strenuous physical activity, and whether these activities could have contributed to the development or aggravation of the hernias. The Appellant argued that his work aggravated the pre-existing umbilical hernia, and that his employment was a significant contributing factor. The court, however, found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Appellant's claims.

The court confirmed that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was correct and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant's argument that his employment significantly contributed to the aggravation of his umbilical hernia was not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court determined that the work performed by the Appellant did not inherently involve a risk of developing or aggravating umbilical and para-umbilical hernias. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision appealed against is confirmed.

2. The Appellant pays the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

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.