Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] ICQ 16

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robinson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2016] ICQ 016

PARTIES:

SAUL JOHN ROBINSON

(appellant)

v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

C/2016/4

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2016

HEARING DATE:

8 August 2016

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER/S:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES – GENERALLY – where the appellant, a train driver, sought workers’ compensation for a psychiatric or psychological injury said to be brought about by the conduct of his fellow workers – where that conduct was said to include co-workers calling him by certain nicknames and making imputations about his sexuality – where the Regulator rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation – where the Deputy President confirmed that decision and rejected the appellant’s appeal against it – where the Deputy President found that the events did not occur as described by the appellant – whether the Deputy President misunderstood certain evidence – whether the Deputy President of the Commission ‘misused her advantage’ – whether the Deputy President failed to give adequate reasons to explain its decision – whether the Deputy President’s findings were glaringly improbable

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32(1)

CASES:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167, cited

APPEARANCES:

P W Moore for the appellant instructed by Eureka Legal

S A McLeod for the respondent instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator

Saul Robinson was, for 21 years, a train driver employed by Aurizon. He sought workers’ compensation for a psychiatric or psychological injury brought about, he claimed, by the conduct of fellow workers.
The issues at the hearing before the Commission were:
(a)whether the events said to have caused his injury occurred, and
(b)the nature of his injury.
The Deputy President determined that the relevant events, as described by Mr Robinson, did not occur. Further, her Honour also held that if the events had occurred as described they did not give rise to a compensable injury.
Mr Robinson identified 10 stressors as the events which led to his injury. At the hearing, he identified 27 October 2011 as the date of decompensation for the purposes of identifying his claim, abandoned two of the stressors, and amended another. The final list of stressors was identified by the Deputy President in her reasons:

No

Date

Event

1.

Various dates commencing in or about June 2011

In the presence of, and hearing of, the appellant and various of his co-workers, Mr Giddy called the appellant “cocksucker”, “homo” and “knob jockey” and made imputations about his sexuality.

2.

Various dates from June 2011 to February 2013

Various of the appellant’s co-workers took to using the nicknames created by Mr Giddy and also started using the terms in reference to the appellant.

3.

One day in late August 2011

On a handover at Hail Creek from the appellant and Mr Chris Fulton to relief crew of Mr White and Mr Giddy, Mr Giddy yelled “Hey…

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 Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] ICQ 16
Case: [2016] ICQ 16
Decision Date: 7 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved the appellant, a train driver, seeking workers' compensation for a psychological injury allegedly caused by the conduct of his fellow workers, including being called by certain nicknames and facing imputations about his sexuality. The Workers' Compensation Regulator rejected the claim, and the Deputy President of the Commission upheld the decision, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the Deputy President misunderstood certain evidence, misused her advantage, and failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision, which was found to be glaringly improbable. The court was tasked with determining whether these claims had merit.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Deputy President misunderstood the evidence, misused her authority, or failed to provide sufficient reasoning for her decision, and whether her findings were so improbable that they warranted intervention. The court needed to assess the Deputy President's findings in light of the evidence presented and determine if there were any errors in her decision-making process. The appellant's arguments were scrutinized to see if they demonstrated a basis for overturning the Deputy President's decision.

The court found that the appellant's complaints about the Deputy President's findings were essentially objections to the conclusions reached and ignored evidence that contradicted the appellant's account. The court noted that prior consistent statements and common sense arguments were not sufficient grounds for overturning the Deputy President's decision. The court held that the Deputy President was entitled to accept the evidence that was contrary to the appellant's case and that the appellant had not demonstrated any relevant errors in the Deputy President's decision-making process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Deputy President was upheld.

The final order of the court was that the appeal brought by the appellant was dismissed. The court upheld the decision of the Deputy President, finding no errors in her assessment of the evidence or reasoning. The appellant's claims of misunderstanding, misuse of authority, and improbable findings were rejected, affirming the original determination by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

This ground is almost incomprehensible. It is nothing more than a complaint about the findings which were made and it ignores the evidence which was contrary to the appellant’s case – evidence which the Deputy President was entitled to accept. As to (a), the reference to the appellant having told management about homosexual taunts is a prior consistent statement and, thus, not relevant. As to (b), that has been dealt with above. As to (c), the argument for the appellant was that it was “common sense” to form a view contrary to that formed by the Deputy President. Unfortunately for the appellant, it falls upon him to demonstrate error and not to offer opinions as to what might be common sense and what might not be. Conclusion The appellant has not established any relevant errors. The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Robinson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2016] ICQ 016
PARTIES:	SAUL JOHN ROBINSON (appellant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	C/2016/4
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	7 September 2016
HEARING DATE:	8 August 2016
MEMBER:	Martin J, President
ORDER/S:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES – GENERALLY – where the appellant, a train driver, sought workers’ compensation for a psychiatric or psychological injury said to be brought about by the conduct of his fellow workers – where that conduct was said to include co-workers calling him by certain nicknames and making imputations about his sexuality – where the Regulator rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation – where the Deputy President confirmed that decision and rejected the appellant’s appeal against it – where the Deputy President found that the events did not occur as described by the appellant – whether the Deputy President misunderstood certain evidence – whether the Deputy President of the Commission ‘misused her advantage’ – whether the Deputy President failed to give adequate reasons to explain its decision – whether the Deputy President’s findings were glaringly improbable Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32(1)
CASES:	Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167, cited
APPEARANCES:	P W Moore for the appellant instructed by Eureka Legal S A McLeod for the respondent instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator

No	Date	Event
1.	Various dates commencing in or about June 2011	In the presence of, and hearing of, the appellant and various of his co-workers, Mr Giddy called the appellant “cocksucker”, “homo” and “knob jockey” and made imputations about his sexuality.
2.	Various dates from June 2011 to February 2013	Various of the appellant’s co-workers took to using the nicknames created by Mr Giddy and also started using the terms in reference to the appellant.
3.	One day in late August 2011	On a handover at Hail Creek from the appellant and Mr Chris Fulton to relief crew of Mr White and Mr Giddy, Mr Giddy yelled “Hey…