Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Chapman - [2016] ICQ 11

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Chapman [2016] ICQ 011

PARTIES:

SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR)

(appellant)

v
GEOFFREY JOHN CHAPMAN

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

C/2015/36

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2016

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2015

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 Commission found that the respondent was a worker, had suffered a psychological injury, and that the major significant contributing factor in that regard was his employment such as to bring his injury within the meaning of s 32(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where the Commission considered whether s 32(5) operated to exclude Mr Chapman’s injury from the definition in s 32(1) – where the Commission found that s 32(5) applied in relation to some, but not others, of the alleged stressors said to have caused the respondent’s injury – where the appellant contends that the Commission erred in coming to that finding – whether the Commission erred in finding that certain stressors could not be causative of the respondent’s injury because the respondent had not proved that they fell outside the exclusion in s 32(5) – whether the Commission erred in finding that the respondent suffered a compensable injury because, despite some of the stressors falling within the exclusion in s 32(5), there remained other stressors not falling within that exclusion which otherwise met the requirements of s 32(1)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32(1), s 32(5)

CASES:

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mana [2014] ICQ 27

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010

APPEARANCES:

S Gray directly instructed for the appellant

S Sapsford instructed by Romans & Romans Solicitors for the respondent

Geoffrey Chapman was the General Manager – Electrical Group of Scholz Industries Pty Ltd. He was employed pursuant to a five year contract entered into after he sold the business he had built up over 38 years to Scholz Industries. As General Manager his immediate reports were the five State Managers. The primary function of his role was to create relationships and to ensure that the State Managers understood the policies and procedures with respect to sales. The Managing Director of Scholz Industries was Erik Scholz. It is the conduct of Mr Scholz and his business relationship with Mr Chapman which is at the heart of the allegations made by Mr Chapman.
In September 2014 Mr Scholz told Mr Chapman that his employment contract would not be renewed when it expired in November 2014.
Mr Chapman’s application to WorkCover was made in July 2014. He identified the nature of the injury as “psychiatric” and that it had occurred as a result of “workplace abuse and harassment” at various locations. His application was successful but the Regulator has contested that determination. In accordance with the usual directions given, Mr Chapman provided a Statement of…

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 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Chapman 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] ICQ 11
Decision Date: 7 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Chapman was brought before the court to determine whether the respondent, Mr Chapman, was entitled to workers’ compensation for a psychological injury sustained during the course of his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Regulator challenged the Commission’s decision that Mr Chapman’s injury was compensable under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, specifically whether certain stressors fell within the exclusions of section 32(5) of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commission had erred in determining that some stressors did not fall within the exclusion of section 32(5) and whether Mr Chapman’s injury was compensable despite some stressors falling within that exclusion. The court needed to assess the application of section 32(5) to the identified stressors and determine if the exclusion applied to those stressors. Additionally, the court had to consider if Mr Chapman could still be compensated for his injury despite the exclusion of some stressors.

The court reviewed the Commission’s findings and noted that the Commission had correctly identified which stressors were unreasonable management actions taken in an unreasonable way. The court found that the Commission had properly excluded certain stressors from consideration under section 32(5) because they did not establish a causal link to Mr Chapman’s injury. The court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that other stressors were significant contributing factors to Mr Chapman’s injury and directly linked to his psychiatric condition. Consequently, the court determined that the Commission did not err in finding that Mr Chapman was entitled to compensation for his injury despite some stressors falling within the exclusion of section 32(5).

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commission’s decision that Mr Chapman was entitled to workers’ compensation for his psychological injury. The court held that the exclusions in section 32(5) did not preclude Mr Chapman from receiving compensation for his compensable injury.

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

With respect to Stressor 8 the Commissioner said that the conduct referred to took place and was unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way.The Commissioner’s conclusions The Commissioner expressed his conclusions in this way:“[257] The Commission having considered the stressors contained within the Statement of Stressors is satisfied based on the requisite standard of proof [that] Chapman had [sic: has] not established that Stressors 1, 2, 4 and 7 fitted within the category of unreasonable management taken in an unreasonable way in connection with his employment and accordingly could not be considered as causative of the psychiatric injury. However in terms of Stressors 3, 5, 6 and 8 the evidence before the proceedings based upon the requisite standard of proof was sufficient to establish the management action of the employer had been unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way in connection with Chapman's employment. [258] Whilst it has been determined that there was unreasonable management action at play in respect of Stressors 3 and 5, I have been unable to find that a temporal link existed between the conduct engaged upon and Chapman's diagnosed psychiatric injury. However in the case of Stressors 6 and 8 it is the opinion of the Commission that each of those particular stressors by the fact of their potential to have a detrimental impact on Chapman's immediate and long-term employment circumstances and the manner in which they were raised by the employer were major significant contributing factors to his psychiatric injury and more importantly directly proximate to the first medical intervention on 14 February 2014. [259] The factual outcome that four of the stressors were not found to be unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way and that two were found to be unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way without a temporal link to Chapman's psychiatric injury does not preclude him from receiving compensation for a personal injury if the remaining two stressors were found to be major significant contributing factors.” The application of s 32(5) In Blackwood v Mana[1] it was held that: “[23] A worker who claims an entitlement under the Act carries the onus of satisfying the relevant authority that s 32(1) applies and s 32(5) does not apply. These tests are to be considered separately. Clearly, if an alleged workplace injury is not covered by s 32(1), then no further inquiry is made. If the injury comes within s 32(1)(b), then s 32(5) must be considered.”[1] [2014] ICQ 27. The manner in which s 32(5) is expressed leads to some unfortunate consequences. In particular, it leads to the use of the “double negative” such as “the applicant has not established that there was unreasonable action taken in an unreasonable way.” That can lead to confusion. As was said in Mana, s 32(5) need only be considered if s 32(1)(b) has been satisfied. In other words, the Commission must be satisfied that the psychiatric or psychological disorder has arisen out of, or in the course of, employment, and that the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the injury. In reaching a conclusion on that point, the Commission will take into account the stressors nominated by the applicant. If, during that process, the Commission decides that one or more of the stressors either cannot be established as a matter of fact or, if established, that there is no causal link, then such a stressor cannot be taken into account when considering s 32(5). It is only those stressors which are held to have had the necessary causal link which can, as a matter of logic, be the subject of consideration as to whether or not they fall within s 32(5). It is, of course, open to the Regulator to nominate some other action or event which is said to have caused the disorder and comes within s 32(5).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Chapman [2016] ICQ 011
PARTIES:	SIMON BLACKWOOD (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR) (appellant) v GEOFFREY JOHN CHAPMAN (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	C/2015/36
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	7 April 2016
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2015
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 Commission found that the respondent was a worker, had suffered a psychological injury, and that the major significant contributing factor in that regard was his employment such as to bring his injury within the meaning of s 32(1) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where the Commission considered whether s 32(5) operated to exclude Mr Chapman’s injury from the definition in s 32(1) – where the Commission found that s 32(5) applied in relation to some, but not others, of the alleged stressors said to have caused the respondent’s injury – where the appellant contends that the Commission erred in coming to that finding – whether the Commission erred in finding that certain stressors could not be causative of the respondent’s injury because the respondent had not proved that they fell outside the exclusion in s 32(5) – whether the Commission erred in finding that the respondent suffered a compensable injury because, despite some of the stressors falling within the exclusion in s 32(5), there remained other stressors not falling within that exclusion which otherwise met the requirements of s 32(1) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32(1), s 32(5)
CASES:	Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mana [2014] ICQ 27 Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010
APPEARANCES:	S Gray directly instructed for the appellant S Sapsford instructed by Romans & Romans Solicitors for the respondent