Roberts v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2016] QIRC 30

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:  

 Roberts v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 030

PARTIES:  

Roberts, David Grant
(Applicant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

 WC/2013/437

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

 7 March 2016

HEARING DATES: 

26 - 29 May 2014
17 July 2014 (Respondent's written submissions)
17 July 2014 (Respondent's amended written submissions)
29 July 2014 (Appellant's written submissions)
11 August 2014 (Respondent's written submissions in reply)

HEARD AT:

MEMBER:

Brisbane

Industrial Commissioner Neate

ORDERS:

1.      The appeal is dismissed.

2.      The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is confirmed.

3.      The Appellant is to pay the costs of, and incidental to, the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR - injury is a psychiatric or psychological disorder - events occurred on multiple occasions over a seven month period - appellant bears onus to establish that his condition falls within the definition of "injury" in the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - whether injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - appellant to establish that the elements of s 32(5) of the Act are not satisfied.
CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 s 207
Acquisition of Land Act 1967 s 36
Integrated Planning Act 1997 s 1.3.3
Alex Sabo v Q-COMP (C/2010/46) - decision v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 788
Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 324
Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001
Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1
Boyd v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 1129
Christine McHours v Q-COMP, C/2012/12
Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009
Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit (2005) 178 QGIG 197
Dickinson v The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500, 505
Hansen v WorkCover Queensland (Unreported, Industrial Magistrates Court, Industrial Magistrate Taylor, 15 November 2001)
Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 027
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473
Lackey v WorkCover Queensland (2000)165 QGIG 22
Mayo v Q-COMP (2004) 177 QGIG 667
Misevski v Q-COMP, C/2009/29, 6 November 2009
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance [2006] 1 Qd R 519
Parker v Q-COMP (2007) 185 QGIG 269
Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 18 QGIG 481
Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 301
Q-COMP v Foote (2008) 189 QGIG 539
Q-COMP v Foote (No 2) (2008) 189 QGIG 802
Q-COMP v Glen Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67
Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139
Q-Comp v Parsons (2007) 185 QGIG 1
Q-COMP v Queensland Rail, Decision C/2011/26
Q-COMP v Riggs [2005] 179 QGIG 251
Q-COMP v Whyte C/2009/32
Re Yu and Comcare [2010] AATA 960
Rossmuller v Q-COMP (C/2009/36) - decision v Q-COMP (2009) 191 QGIG 13
State Government…

Continue reading Roberts v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Roberts v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 30
Case
[2016] QIRC 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roberts v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the dispute arose from the refusal of the Workers' Compensation Regulator to compensate the appellant for a psychiatric injury he claimed to have sustained during his employment. The matter was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland, and the appellant subsequently appealed to a higher court. The appeal was centred on whether the appellant's psychiatric condition qualified as an "injury" under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, and whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

The court was required to decide whether the appellant had discharged the onus of proving that his psychiatric condition was an injury within the meaning of the Act, and that it arose from his employment. The court also needed to determine whether the elements of section 32(5) of the Act were satisfied, which pertains to the circumstances under which psychiatric injuries may be compensable. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the appellant's condition was a direct result of an event or series of events that occurred in the course of his employment and whether the employer's actions were reasonable.

The court found that the appellant had not established that his psychiatric condition met the criteria for an injury under the Act. The court concluded that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his condition was a direct result of his employment or that the employer's actions were unreasonable. The court further determined that the elements of section 32(5) were not satisfied. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the costs of, and incidental to, the appeal to be agreed 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.