Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] QIRC 201

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 201
PARTIES:	Truffet, Stuart David (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/160
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	20 December 2019
HEARING DATES:	8 May 2018 31 May 2018 18 June 2018 19 June 2018 26 June 2018 2 July 2018 3 July 2018 4 July 2018 5 July 2018 5 September 2018 (written submissions of Respondent) 26 November 2018 (written submissions of Appellant) 1 February 2019 (written submissions in reply of Respondent)
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Knight IC
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Respondent dated 4 August 2017 is affirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL

AGAINST DECISION – psychological injury arising out of employment – exacerbation of Asperger's Condition (Autism Spectrum Disorder) – Appellant complaint of unprofessional conduct by manager – whether full account of events was provided to medical practitioners – whether events occurred in the manner described – whether employment major significant contributing factor – whether injury excluded from s 32 due to reasonable management action

LEGISLATION:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

CASES:

APPEARANCES:

Adams v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 055

Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 31.

Misevski v Q-COMP [2009] ICQ 2 (C/2009/29)

Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 027

Mr S Truffet, the appellant, in person.

Mr S Gray, Counsel, directly instructed by Ms S Young of Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision

On the evening of 27 March 2018, Dr David Truffet resigned his employment from Esri Australia after visiting the house of his Manager, Ms Linda Bengston. Approximately three weeks after resigning his employment, Dr Truffet lodged a Workers’ Compensation claim with WorkCover for stress-related ill-health which he maintains arose in the course of his employment with Esri.

Dr Truffet’s application for compensation under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act") in respect of a psychological injury, claimed to have developed in the course of his employment as an Applicant Support Engineer with Esri Australia, was rejected by WorkCover on 30 May 2017.

Dr Truffet applied for a review of the decision via the Regulator. On 4 August, 2017, the Workers' Compensation Regulator confirmed WorkCover's decision and determined the claim should also be rejected.

In this matter, Dr Truffet appeals the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Respondent").

The appeal is made under s 550 of the Act.

Appeal Details and Issues To Be Determined

At the commencement of this Appeal, Dr Truffet maintained his psychological injury, (an exacerbation of his Asperger’s condition/Autism Spectrum Disorder) arose out of, or in the course of, his employment with Esri Australia predominantly as a result of his interactions with his Manager, Ms Linda Bengston and a series of events or stressors which occurred as a result of those interactions, namely:

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 Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Truffet v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 201
Case: [2019] QIRC 201
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Appellant, Truffet, against the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Respondent, concerning a claim for compensation related to a psychological injury that allegedly arose from employment. The Appellant, who has Asperger's Condition (a form of Autism Spectrum Disorder), claimed that the psychological injury was exacerbated by events occurring in the workplace. Specifically, the Appellant alleged unprofessional conduct by a manager, which led to the exacerbation of the psychological injury. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the Appellant had provided a full account of the events to the medical practitioners, whether the events transpired as described, whether employment was a major significant contributing factor to the psychological injury, and whether the injury was excluded from compensation under section 32 due to reasonable management action. The court was required to determine whether the Appellant's claim was substantiated by the evidence presented and whether the Regulator's decision was legally sound.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented, including the Appellant's account of the events and the testimonies of the witnesses. The court found that the Appellant had not provided a full account of the events to the medical practitioners and that the events did not occur in the manner described. Furthermore, the court determined that employment was not a major significant contributing factor to the psychological injury. Consequently, the court concluded that the psychological injury was excluded from compensation under section 32 due to reasonable management action. Based on these findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Regulator was affirmed. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Respondent dated 4 August 2017 is affirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal.

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.