QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Serco Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 114 |
PARTIES: | Serco Australia Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
| WC/2017/159 | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for an Order that the Worker submit to a personal examination by a registered medical specialist |
DELIVERED ON: HEARING DATES: | 21 December 2017 6 December 2017 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
MEMBER: | Industrial Commissioner Black |
ORDER: | 1. The application is granted; 2. Orders issued dealing with the conduct of an independent medical examination; and 3. Costs are reserved. |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION - Application for order for medical examination - whether the factors in s 556 are satisfied - whether an acceptable reason for the order has been established. |
| CASES: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 556. |
| APPEARANCES: | Ms D Callaghan, Counsel, instructed by McCullough Robertson on behalf of Serco Australia Pty Ltd; Mr P B O’Neill, Counsel, directly instructed, for the Workers’ Compensation Regulator. |
Decision
Introduction
Ms Sharon Barrass lodged an application for workers’ compensation with WorkCover on 10 May 2017 in respect to a right shoulder injury which she said was caused by an incident at work on 14 April 2017. Ms Barrass was employed by Serco Australia Pty Ltd as a Custodial Officer at the Southern Queensland Correctional Centre.
On 8 June 2017, WorkCover rejected Ms Barrass’ application on the basis that it was not satisfied that her employment was a significant contributing factor in the development of her shoulder condition. However, on review, the Workers’ Compensation Regulator (the regulator) review unit held that the injury was compensable.
Serco Australia Pty Ltd lodged an appeal against the regulator’s decision on 1 September 2017.
On 3 November 2017, Serco made an application pursuant to s 556 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the WCR Act) that Ms Barrass be ordered by the Commission to submit to a personal medical examination.
The regulator opposes such an order being made.
The Commission heard the application on 6 December 2017.
It is not in dispute that Ms Barrass has sustained a right shoulder injury and that the determination to be made in the substantive hearing of Serco’s appeal is whether the injury satisfies the test of association with employment as prescribed by s 32(1) of the WCR Act.
Background
It is expected that in the substantive hearing a significant question to be answered will be whether CCTV footage of both the 14 April 2017 incident in which Mr Barrass claims to have sustained her shoulder injury, and also of work activities completed by Ms Barrass in the days following 14 April 2017, raises material doubts about whether the shoulder injury could have been caused by events at work on 14 April 2017.
The relevance and weight assigned in the decision making process to the CCTV footage is expected to be significantly informed by expert medical evidence adduced during the hearing of the appeal.
Legislation
Section 556 of the WCR Act provides:
556 Additional…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Serco Australia Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QIRC 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Regulator had properly applied the statutory criteria in section 556 when deciding against the applicant's request for an IME. The court was required to determine whether the Regulator had established an acceptable reason for refusing the application, which includes factors such as the availability of other evidence, the potential for the examination to cause harm, and the likely benefit of the examination to the proceedings.
The court found that the Regulator had failed to properly consider the necessity and potential benefits of an IME. The evidence presented by Serco Australia demonstrated that an IME was essential to resolve disputed issues about Mr. Smith's medical condition and the extent of his injuries. The court held that the Regulator's refusal was not supported by the statutory criteria and that an acceptable reason for the order had not been established. Consequently, the court granted the application, ordered the conduct of an independent medical examination, and reserved costs for later determination.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is granted;
2. Orders issued dealing with the conduct of an independent medical examination; and
3. Costs are reserved.
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.