Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2024] ICQ 21

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] ICQ 021

PARTIES:

LEONARD JOHN ROOKE

(Appellant)

v

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

C/2024/25

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

20 November 2024

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2024

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Merrell DP

Brisbane

ORDER:

Pursuant to s 562(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, dated 22 April 2024 in Matter Number WC/2021/112, is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – APPEAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND FROM DECISION OF THE QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION – the worker, a firefighter, applied to WorkCover Queensland for an assessment of permanent impairment pursuant to s 132A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – WorkCover Queensland rejected the application on the basis that it was satisfied the worker had not sustained an injury – the Workers' Compensation Regulator, by a review decision,  confirmed the decision of WorkCover Queensland – worker then appealed against the review decision to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission – the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission confirmed the review decision –worker then appealed against the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to the Industrial Court of Queensland – various grounds of appeal alleging errors of law and fact were pursued including the contention that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission erred in law in deciding that the question of whether or not the worker suffered an injury was to be determined by way of the application of the civil standard of proof – none of the grounds of appeal alleging errors of law or of fact made out – decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission confirmed

LEGISLATION:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s 5

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 557 and s 565

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 5, s 9, s 10, s 32, s 131, s 132, s 132A, s 134, s 179, s 185, s 237, s 239, s 561, s 562 and s 563.

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2015, s 4

CASES:

AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission [2024] HCA 10

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321

  Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

  Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

  Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67

Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 001; (2017) 264 IR 414

Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031; (2015) 252 IR 461

Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd  [1996] HCA 36; (1996) 186 CLR 389

Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135

Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1

Doerr v Gardiner [2023] QCA 160

Hope v…

Continue reading Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] ICQ 21
Case
[2024] ICQ 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rooke v Workers' Compensation Regulator was heard in the Industrial Court of Queensland, where the worker, a firefighter, sought a review of a decision made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The worker had applied to WorkCover Queensland for an assessment of permanent impairment following an incident at work, but the application was rejected. The Workers' Compensation Regulator upheld the rejection, and the worker appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which upheld the Regulator's decision. The worker then appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland on various grounds, including the standard of proof applied by the Commission.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission erred in law by applying the civil standard of proof to determine whether the worker had sustained an injury, and whether any factual errors were made in the Commission's decision. The court examined the evidence provided by the worker, including his testimony about the incident, the pain he experienced, and the medical evidence presented. The court also considered the arguments made by the worker regarding the standard of proof and the sufficiency of the evidence.

The court found that none of the grounds of appeal alleging errors of law or fact were substantiated. The court confirmed that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission had not erred in applying the civil standard of proof, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the Commission's decision. The court concluded that the decision of the Commission should be upheld.

As a result, the Industrial Court of Queensland confirmed the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Pursuant to section 562(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the court's decision was to uphold the Commission's finding that the worker was not entitled to compensation. This outcome means that the worker's appeal was dismissed, and the original decision rejecting the impairment assessment application stands.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 562(1)(a) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, dated 22 April 2024 in Matter Number WC/2021/112, is confirmed.

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

The consequence is that, pursuant to s 562(1)(a) of the Act, I will confirm the Primary Decision.The Primary Decision Mr Rooke's impairment assessment application was made pursuant to s 132A of the Act. Section 132A of the Act relevantly provides:132A Applying for assessment of DPI if no application made for compensation(1) This section applies to a worker who has not made an application under section 132.(1A) However, this section does not apply to a worker who is, or may be, entitled to compensation under chapter 4A.(2) The worker may apply to the insurer to have the worker’s injury assessed under section 179 to decide if the worker’s injury has resulted in a DPI.(3) An application under subsection (2) must be– (a)lodged with the insurer; and(b) in the approved form; and(c) accompanied by– (i) a certificate in the approved form given by a doctor who attended the worker; and(ii) any other evidence or particulars prescribed under a regulation.(4) A registered dentist may issue the certificate mentioned in subsection (3)(c)(i) for an oral injury.(5) If the worker can not complete an application because of a physical or mental incapacity, someone else may complete it on the worker’s behalf.(6) The insurer must, within 40 business days after an application under subsection (2) is made, decide to allow or reject the application.(7) The insurer may reject the application only if satisfied the worker– (a) was not a worker when the injury was sustained; or(b) has not sustained an injury; or(c)is, or may be, entitled to compensation under chapter 4Abecause–(i) the worker has sustained a serious personal injury that meets the chapter 4A eligibility criteria; and(ii) section 116 does not apply to the injury.(8) The insurer must notify the worker of its decision on the application.(9) If the insurer rejects the application, the insurer must also, when giving the worker notice of its decision, give the worker written reasons for the decision and the information prescribed by regulation.(10) If the worker is aggrieved by the insurer’s decision on the application, the worker may have the decision reviewed under chapter 13.…(12) To remove any doubt, it is declared that a decision of the insurer to allow the application does not entitle the worker to compensation for the injury. Before the Commission Mr Rooke:·contended that his claimed neck and shoulder injuries arose out of the event that occurred on 14 September 2017 and that, as a consequence, his employment was a significant contributing factor to those injuries within the meaning of s 32 of the Act;[6][6] The Primary Decision (n 1) [6].·gave evidence himself about:- his recollection of experiencing pain in his neck and shoulders immediately following his fall on 14 September 2017;[7] - his complaint of symptoms, in his neck and shoulders, to his colleagues, including Mr Gregory Lobb and Mr Christof Gambin;[8]- his formal reporting of the fall, and the pain in his neck and shoulders, to his employer and how that was done;[9] and- his attendance on 29 September 2017 with his General Practitioner, Dr Andrew Korinihona;[10] and·led evidence from Mr Lobb and Mr Gambin;[11] ·led evidence from Dr Korinihona about his attendance on Dr Korinihona on 29 September 2017;[12] and·led evidence about his attendance on Dr Taha Asbaghinamini on 2 February 2019.[13][7] Ibid [15].[8] Ibid [15]-[17].[9] Ibid [18]-[19], [21], [23] and [24].[10] Ibid [25].[11] Ibid [17].[12] The Primary Decision (n 1) [26]-[28].[13] Ibid [32].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.