Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2021] QIRC 71

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 071
PARTIES:	Maureen Tuesley (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2018/50
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	17 February 2021
HEARING DATE:	15 February 2021 16 February 2021 17 February 2021
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Hartigan IC Brisbane
ORDER:	1. The date of injury is determined to be 14 May 2012.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – psychological/ psychiatric injury – claimed injury over a period of time without nominating date of injury – whether date of injury able to be determined
LEGISLATION:	Worker's Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32

CASESDickinson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 068
Dixon v Australian Meating Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 267

Kiesouw v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 064

Nichols v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 111

WorkerCover Queensland v Padua [2016] QDC 115

APPEARANCES: Mr A. Stobie of Counsel, instructed by McNamara Law for the Appellant.

Mr P.B. O'Neill of Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)

The appellant, Ms Maureen Tuesley ("the appellant"), appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Regulator") upholding a decision of WorkCover Queensland to reject the appellant's notice of claim for damages.
The hearing of this appeal recommenced on Monday, 15th of February 2021. On the second day of the recommenced hearing, following the evidence of Dr Estensen, the Regulator sought that I make a finding that the date of injury, relevant to the appellant's appeal, be determined to be 14 May 2012. It was agreed that following the evidence of Dr Haines, I would hear the parties further with respect to the Regulator’s application, that I make a finding that the date of injury, relevant to appeal, be determined to be 14 May 2012.
Following Dr Haines’ evidence, counsel for the Regulator submitted that the Commission determine that the date of the injury be 14 May 2012 or, in the alternative, 15 November 2012. Both the appellant and the Regulator provided written submissions with respect to the Regulator’s application.[1]
[1] See Exhibit 24 and Exhibit 25 respectively.
The appellant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions was filed in the Industrial Registry on 29 May 2018. The appellant contends,[2] that over the period of March 2012 to September 2014, she "developed a psychiatric or psychological condition arising from her employment as a significant contributing factor to the injury (s 32 of Act[3])". The appellant contends[4] that the injury arose out of the course of conduct described in paragraphs 5 and 29 of the appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions.
[2] At paragraph [30] of the Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions.
[3] The reference to "the Act" is a reference to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
[4] At paragraph [31] of the Appellant's Statement of Facts and Contentions.

The appellant does not nominate a date of injury in the Statement of Facts and…

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 Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 71
Case: [2021] QIRC 71
Decision Date: 17 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant sought to challenge the respondent's determination that there was no compensable injury. The dispute centred on whether a psychological injury sustained by the appellant was work-related, and if so, the date on which it was sustained. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central legal issues revolved around the identification of the date of the psychological injury, which was crucial for determining the compensability of the claim. The appellant argued that the psychological injury was a result of cumulative stress over a period of time, without a specific date being pinpointed. The respondent contended that without a specific date of injury, the claim was not compensable.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence provided and the legislative framework governing workers' compensation claims. The Court held that although the appellant had not nominated a specific date of injury, the evidence indicated a clear progression of stress-related symptoms that culminated on a particular day. The Court determined that the date of injury could be ascertained by identifying the day when the psychological injury became recognisable and compensable. The Court found that the appellant's symptoms had reached a point of no return on 14 May 2012, making this the date of injury.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the appellant, determining the date of injury to be 14 May 2012. This decision allowed for the appellant's claim to proceed on the basis of the identified date of injury. The Court underscored the importance of identifying a specific date of injury for the purposes of workers' compensation claims, even when the injury is the result of cumulative stress. The Court's decision provided clarity on the application of the legislative provisions in cases involving psychological injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The date of injury is determined to be 14 May 2012.

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.