Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] QIRC 32

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 032
PARTIES:	Robinson, Saul (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2014/56
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2016
HEARING DATES:	26 March 2015 17-19 August 2015 2 November 2015 (Appellant Submissions) 30 November 2015 (Respondent Submissions) 7 December 2015 (Submissions in Reply)
HEARD AT:	Sarina - March 2015 Mackay - August 2015
MEMBER:	Deputy President Swan
ORDERS	1. The Application is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed. 3. The Appellant to pay costs of, and incidental to the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment - whether employment was a significant contributing factor - medical evidence concerning Appellant's mental health - Appellant's evidence not accepted - events described by Appellant had not occurred -Appellant has not discharged the onus of proof.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Mary Adams [2015] ICQ 001 Cyonara Snowfox Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2012] FCAFC 177 at [117], per Greenwood, Collier and Middleton JJ Waugh v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 028 Groos v WorkCover Qld [2000] 165 QGIG 106 Prizeman v Q‑Comp [2005] QIC 53 Cowen v Bunnings Group Ltd [2014] QSC 301 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8
APPEARANCES:	Mr P. Moore, Counsel instructed by Eureka Legal for the Appellant. Mr S. McLeod, Counsel directly instructed by Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Decision

This appeal is made by Mr Saul Robinson (the Appellant/Mr Robinson), pursuant to s 550(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator (the Regulator) to confirm a decision to reject Mr Robinson's application for compensation.

This Appeal is conducted as a hearing de novo and the onus rests with the Appellant on the balance of probabilities.

In accordance with s 32 of the Act, to succeed the Appellant must demonstrate the following:

· That he was a worker (as defined by section 11 of the Act);
· that he suffered a personal injury (as defined by sub-section 32(3) of the Act), which includes an exacerbation;
· that the injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment and that his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.

The date of Mr Robinson's alleged decompensation was 27 October 2011 and the nominated Stressors occurred "in or about June 2011 to 27 October 2011."
At the material time the Appellant's decompensation occurred, namely on 27 October 2011, s 32 of the Act relevantly provided:
"32 Meaning of injury
(1)An injury is a personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employer is a significant contributing factor to the injury."

It is not contested that Mr Robinson was a 'worker' for the purposes of the Act.

Mr Robinson had worked for Aurizon…

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 Robinson v 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: [2016] QIRC 32
Decision Date: 15 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robinson appealed against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, asserting that his mental health condition arose from or in the course of his employment, and that his employment was a significant contributing factor. The dispute hinged on whether the Appellant had successfully discharged the onus of proof regarding the causation of his mental health condition. The court had to determine if the Appellant's condition was related to his employment or if it stemmed from other causes, such as personal or domestic issues.

The court considered the Appellant's evidence and the medical records from the Mackay Base Hospital. The Regulator argued that the medical records indicated the Appellant's condition was not work-related, pointing to an argument with neighbours as a potential trigger. The Appellant's evidence was not accepted as credible, particularly regarding the events he described as work-related stressors. The court found that the Appellant had not substantiated his claims with sufficient evidence, leading to the conclusion that his employment was not a significant contributing factor to his mental health condition.

Consequently, the court dismissed the Appellant's application, confirming the Regulator's decision. The Appellant was ordered to pay the costs of and incidental to the appeal. The decision underscored the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence, particularly in workers' compensation cases where causation is a pivotal issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The Regulator adds that the responses given by Mr Davidson and Mr Ellul were reasonable in all of the circumstances particularly when Mr Robinson had only referred to Mr Giddy calling him names. This, when considered with Mr Robinson's desire not to see Mr Giddy lose his job, justified, in its view, the response from Mr Davidson.Evidence of Mr Enge Concerning the evidence of Mr Enge, I have accepted the Regulator's view that his evidence does not in fact relate to any nominated stressors. The evidence given by Mr Enge went primarily to a particular comment he says he had heard about Mr Robinson which he then repeated to Mr Robinson. The words complained of (which were specific) have not formed part of Mr Robinson's stressors. I have accepted that it is not open to the Commission to proceed to make findings that are outside of the stated stressors[3]. Mr Robinson's evidence was that after the incident with Mr Murchie, he attended his General Practitioner, Dr Hodgens on 12 October 2011. Mr Robinson said he asked Dr Hodgens to obtain his medical records from the Hospital where his neck operation had been performed. At that time Mr Robinson said he was concerned that people were calling him a homosexual and he wished to know if something had happened after his neck operation. Mr Robinson's evidence was that Dr Hodgens referred him to the mental health unit at the Mackay Base Hospital and that was where he said he had suffered his first Tourette's attack. The Regulator called Dr Susan Hodgens, General Practitioner, to give evidence. That evidence was: Mr Robinson said that shortly after his neck operation in May 2010:a. He had thoughts that he was interrogated by the Police;b. he wanted to know what happened - i.e. did it happen or not;c. he suspected the interrogation related to the murder of a "Ms R A". The Regulator submits that Mr Robinson's visit to Dr Hodgens in October 2011 was not due to any work related problems. After this consultation, Dr Hodgens referred Mr Robinson to the Emergency Department of the Mackay Base Hospital and she agreed that he had been presenting "unusually" and appeared to have a disorder of the mind [T4-36]. Dr Hodgens had been treating Mr Robinson for about 13 years and she was asked by Counsel for the Appellant whether Mr Robinson was behaving "completely out of left field" on that day and she agreed [T4-38]. The local Council had told Mr Robinson, prior to his consulting Dr Hodgens that he had to get rid of his dog. He then said that, prior to attending the Mackay Base Hospital, he repetitively said "fuck, fuck, fuck…" and that he had begun growling like a dog [T2‑27]. Before going to hospital, Mr Robinson's wife phoned Mr Ellul saying that Mr Robinson was just screaming "fuck" continually. The only other words said by Mr Robinson and heard by Mr Ellul on the phone were "fucking Moulie" and "fucking Giddy" [T3-65]. The Regulator says that the medical records from the Mackay Base Hospital clearly demonstrate that Mr Robinson's presentation was not work related. The hospital records of 27 October 2011, state that Mr Robinson had an argument with his neighbours either on that day or the day before [see Exhibits 4 & 5].

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.