Walker v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Walker v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 103
PARTIES:	Walker, Julia (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2013/340
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
DELIVERED ON:	11 June 2014
HEARING DATES:	14, 15 and 16 April 2014
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Thompson
ORDERS :	1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The Decision of the Regulator is confirmed. 3. The claim is not one for acceptance. 4. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's cost of, and incidental to, the Appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - Appellant a worker - bears onus of proof - standard of proof - balance of probabilities - medical evidence - Appellant failed to establish personal injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment - Employment was not a significant contributing factor to the injury - Appeal dismissed - claim not one for acceptance - decision of Regulator confirmed - Appellant to pay Regulator's costs.
CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 11, s 32(1), s 550
APPEARANCES:	Ms S. Anderson, Counsel instructed by Sciacca's Lawyers and Consultants for the Appellant. Mr S. Sapsford, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.

Decision

On 18 October 2013 Julia Walker (the Appellant) lodged with the Industrial Registrar a Notice of Appeal pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Q‑COMP Review Unit (Q‑COMP) released on 20 September 2013. Since the filing of the Appeal, a number of amendments have been made to the Act which include the Respondent to the Appeal being abolished and from 29 October 2013, the new name replacing Q‑COMP is that of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the Regulator) who, in turn, becomes the Respondent to the Appeal.

The decision of the Regulator was to confirm the decision of the Insurer to reject the Appellant's Application for Compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Act.

Relevant Legislation

The Legislation pertinent to this Appeal is 32 of the Act:

"32 Meaning of injury
(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury."

Nature of Appeal

The Appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo in which the onus of proof falls upon the Appellant.

Standard of Proof

The standard of proof upon which an Appeal of this nature must be determined is that of "on the balance of probabilities".

Evidence

In the course of the proceedings, evidence was provided by twelve witnesses.

The Commission, in deciding to précis the evidence of the witnesses, and submissions, notes that all the material has, for the purposes of this decision, been considered in its entirety.

Witness Lists

The witnesses for the Appellant were as follows:

·Appellant (Walker);
·Neil Johannessen (Johannessen);
·Angela Bell (Bell);
·Bradley Foley (Foley);
·Dr Gert Tollesson (Dr Tollesson);
·Dr Scott Campbell (Dr Campbell); and
·Neil Wodhams.

The witnesses for the Regulator were as follows:

·Laurel Vivian (Vivian);
·Tamara Henderson (Henderson);
·Dr Cassandra Cheok (Dr Cheok);
·Dr Michael Weidmann (Dr Weidmann); and
·Martin Leet.

Appellant

Walker

A Ranger employed by the Moreton Bay Regional Council (MBRC), Walker held that position in late 2012 at the time of taking long service leave (LSL). An arrangement had been made for Walker to collect her work supplied vehicle on 2 November 2012 (last day of LSL) for the purposes of cleaning the vehicle for a return to work on 5 November 2012. Walker arrived at her work depot at around 7.30 am and was familiarised with the vehicle by Johannsessen prior to returning to her home at around 9.30 am. She immediately commenced cleaning her vehicle and whilst vacuuming the driver's side of the cabin (kneeling down), she twisted hurting her back. There was a "pinging" sensation although she "really didn't take much notice of it at the time".
Walker had previously injured her back at work in either 2007 or 2008 and, whilst not suffering from excruciating pain, knew something was wrong. A break was taken and after consuming a cup of tea she decided to take a bike ride to stretch her back. Walker had to pump up the bike tyres as she had not ridden it for a long time and eventually rode about 200 metres (at the most) before alighting and walking home.
Over the weekend she self-medicated on painkillers, including Panadol, with her condition becoming worse with some "radiating" feeling in her lower right-hand side of her back that started running down her leg. Nevertheless, she went to work as scheduled on the Monday and remained all day despite the back "getting bad".
That evening her back got "really bad" at which time her partner (Bell) called the ambulance and she was transported to the Caboolture Hospital. The Ambulance Officers medicated her during the journey and on arriving at the hospital she remained on a trolley for about half an hour as the triage department was busy. Upon being treated, she informed the triage nurse that the only thing she had done differently that day was she "rode a bike". After a lengthy wait, she was finally seen by a Doctor at which time she identified the onset of injury from cleaning her vehicle on the Friday. Following her discharge, she returned home and spent the week lying in bed taking medication. On the Saturday she attended the Mater Hospital Emergency Centre and after consultation with a Neurosurgeon (Dr Tollesson), underwent surgery that evening in the form of a laminectomy.
Following the operation, Walker's condition deteriorated with the pain going down both legs radiating to her feet and her back got worse. She return to the Mater Hospital undergoing a second operation (micro discectomy). Some seven days later her right leg gave way requiring her admittance to the Mater Hospital again on 27 December 2012 undergoing further surgery prior to being discharged on 9 January 2013.
An incident report was filled out by Walker and signed by Bell which indicated that the incident had been reported to Foley on 6 November 2012. However Walker was unable to recall when the form had been completed.
Walker returned to work in September 2013 following a show cause process initiated by MBRC as to why her employment should not be terminated due to her having exhausted all her leave and taken more than three months leave without pay. An Application for Workers' Compensation had been made some months earlier.
Under cross-examination, Walker accepted that:
·        the incident report was submitted sometime after 6 November 2012;
·        her LSL goal was to get a bit fitter but denied increase in walking including engaging hills [Transcript p. 1-16]; and
·        she sought to have Caboolture Hospital records altered regarding information entered at the time of her admission to hospital [Transcript p. 1-17].
Walker's evidence was in the period immediately following the incident when cleaning the car the pain in her back was not excruciating and it was not necessary to consult a medical practitioner that day or the weekend that followed. Further she was okay to ride a bike shortly thereafter [Transcript p. 1-19]. On the Monday she informed Foley of back pain, including sciatica, making no mention of a work-related injury and was confident she would be at work the following day [Transcript p. 1-21].
Walker denied informing the Ambulance Officer (while taking her to Caboolture Hospital) of having pain for a week prior and had no recollection of being attended by Dr Cheok at that time [Transcript p. 1-22] nor informing her about bike riding activities five days earlier [Transcript p. 1-25]. There was a concession of informing a Physiotherapist at the Mater Hospital on 11 November 2012 that the pain had been on and off since injuring her back some four years previous, but denied informing him that the current episode occurred following an increase in exercise and being unable to "stand up for long" [Transcript p. 1-26].
Walker had phoned Vivian at the MBRC on 4 December 2012 informing her that she had been off work for a month with a work-related injury and enquired about lodging a workers' compensation claim. She denied, when told on 11 December 2012, she would need a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate informing Vivian there had been no mention previously of there being a work-related injury [Transcript p. 1-27]. In response to a bundle of emails [Exhibit 2], Walker accepted that the discrepancies in the Caboolture Hospital records she wanted changed related to her injury being sustained riding her bike and that she ended up not pursuing the matter as the person she needed to contact was on holidays [Transcript p. 1-28].
In respect of her Application for Compensation (dated 3 January 2013) she was unaware when the document was actually handed in as Bell had undertaken that responsibility [Transcript p. 1-29]. Walker acknowledged an awareness of the procedure to be adopted when making an Application for Compensation, but had not made a claim for compensation at the time of the injury for reasons relating to it not being in her "headspace" and she was intent on getting herself well [Transcript p. 1‑30]. She had no recall of discussing the lodging of a compensation claim with Dr Tollesson [Transcript p. 1-32].
Walker explained the description in the incident report of "vacuuming Council vehicle. Aggravated back when leaning over cleaning out cages and gernying" as a brief description of what work she was doing that day [Transcript p. 1-32]. Finally she denied telling Dr Campbell that on the day of the incident she went for a ride in the evening as opposed to the afternoon [Transcript p. 1-34].
In re-examination, Walker gave evidence of being medicated while in the ambulance heading to the Caboolture Hospital and that she had a reaction to morphine [Transcript p. 1-34]. At times she had the inability to remember and to be lucid. On her reason for seeking to have the Caboolture Hospital records changed, she stated that it was on the basis of "Chinese Whispers" and wanting to make it right [Transcript p. 1-35].
Johannessen
A Ranger at the MBRC, Johannessen held a similar position to Walker in 2012. On 2 November 2012 he met Walker in a work car park where he showed her through the vehicle which was a different make and model than had been previously used by the Rangers. In the course of the exchange, Walker made no comment about being sore and Johannessen observed nothing in her movements to indicate she was in any discomfort.
Johannessen gave evidence of seeing Walker on the Monday (5 November 2012) where he noticed she was limping and could hardly walk. Upon enquiring he was informed that she had hurt her back whilst cleaning the vehicle.
Under cross-examination Johannessen acknowledged in a statement provided to lawyers acting on behalf of Walker, given on 10 September 2013, that he had made no mention of Walker telling him on 5 November 2012 or any other time she had an injured back.
In re-examination the evidence was, regarding his statement of 10 September 2013, he was only required to address the handover of the work vehicle on 2 November 2012.
Bell
Bell, a Deputy School Principal and partner of Walker, gave Walker a lift to her workplace on 2 November 2012 and was later contacted by her at around 2.00 pm and informed she had injured her back whilst vacuuming the work vehicle. She had tried resting and was considering a walk or a bike ride to stretch her back. Walker was not known to be a bike rider but happened to own a bike. Whilst on LSL it was Bell's understanding Walker had the intention of getting fit and had gone for a couple of walks.
Over the weekend Walker rested and self-mediated with pain relief medication. On the Monday morning, although visibly uncomfortable walking and moving, she left for work at 7.00 am. They communicated during the day with Bell suggesting she should see a doctor. That evening the pain reached a critical level whereby Bell arranged for an ambulance to attend their residence.
Bell travelled to the hospital arriving some ten minutes behind Walker and witnessed an exchange between Walker and a Nurse where Walker, in reply to a question, advised she had gone for a short bike ride that day but Bell could not recall the Nurse enquiring how she had hurt her back. Bell's observation of Walker at the time was that she was a "bit doughy" and was not as clear in her communication. Walker was discharged the following morning with Bell contacting (by phone) her Supervisor (Foley) at the MBRC to inform him she had hurt her back and would not be coming into work. Bell did not recall telling Foley how Walker had hurt her back.
Walker remained off work that week and, after she fainted on the Saturday morning, she took her to the Mater Private Hospital where Walker underwent surgery. Walker underwent a second surgery some ten days later and in this time period Bell remained in contact with Foley and Wodhams, updating them on her condition. Bell attended a meeting with Wodhams and Foley after the second operation where she informed them her back had been injured in the process of cleaning her work vehicle at home. Bell saw that an incident report was dropped off at the MBRC front desk prior to Christmas 2012. The document confirmed 6 November 2012 as the date she first notified Foley of the injury. A claim for workers' compensation was also delivered by Bell to the MBRC in January 2013.
Under cross-examination, it was Bell's evidence that Walker had not used her bike for quite some period and the first time she had decided to use it was after she had injured her back cleaning the work vehicle [Transcript p. 1-52]. Bell recalled a telephone call after the bike ride where Walker informed her "the bike ride didn't help" [Transcript p. 1-53]. Bell confirmed she was not privy to conversations that occurred in the ambulance on the way to the Caboolture Hospital and had no recall of any conversations at their home where Walker was said to have told the Ambulance Officer the pain had been increasing through the week [Transcript p. 1-53]. Bell confirmed she was not present for a conversation at Caboolture Hospital involving Bell at 49 minutes past midnight having returned home around 11.00 - 11.30 pm [Transcript p. 1-54].
Bell's evidence was she handed the incident report and Application for Compensation in at the same time. In terms of Walker's use of her bike, it was Bell's evidence that prior to 2 November 2012 Walker had got the bike out "cleaned it and pumped up the tyres" [Transcript p. 1-57] but had not gone for a ride.
In re-examination, Bell recalled hearing Walker inform a number of medical people between 2 November 2012 and 10 January 2013 that she had difficulty standing for a long time and that she did have an intention of increasing her fitness and exercise.
Foley
Foley, an employee of the MBRC in November 2012, held the position of Operational Support and Project Officer and worked in the same team at Walker. On 2 November 2012 he attended work despite being on a rostered day off and, at some stage, assisted Walker who was on LSL obtain the keys for a work vehicle which she took home on that day. Walker had not indicated to him on that day that she had any injury issues. He next saw Walker on 5 November 2012 when she presented for work and whilst he did not notice anything untoward in how she was walking. Later in the day she looked like she was in some discomfort although, in the course of a brief discussion she said she was alright. As they were leaving work he engaged Walker in passing where she mentioned her lower back was giving her some trouble but nevertheless was likely to be at work the next day. He had not asked her how she hurt her back nor did Walker volunteer any information.
The next morning, Foley had a telephone call from Bell informing him that Walker had been admitted to Caboolture Hospital and was in a bad way with her back. Foley did not make any enquiry as to what may have caused the injury. He had no recollection of actually speaking again with Walker or Bell, although he later recalled an occasion when Bell was collecting some of Walker's personal effects, there was a conversation about "employee assistance or something".
Foley was questioned regarding the incident report [Exhibit 1] but could not recall whether the form had come to him at the time, giving evidence there was a lot of confusion over role responsibilities at that time. Foley recalled finding out about the cause of Walker's injury when the incident report was lodged at a later date.
The officer responsible for cleaning the Ranger vehicles, at that time, was the person who had commuter use of the vehicle.
Dr Tollesson
Dr Tollesson, a Neurosurgeon who had performed four surgeries on Walker, provided two reports for the proceedings [Exhibits 6 and 7]. The first report was a "Group Risk Claims Preliminary Medical Attendant's Statement" which identified the first consultation with Walker as 10 November 2012. The second report was provided to Queensland Local Government Workcare Scheme (the Insurer) on 15 March 2013 in response to a number of questions for which answers were sought. The report included a history of Walker informing Dr Tollesson that she injured her back on 2 November 2012 vacuuming a work vehicle. He opined that Walker certainly suffered her acute disc hernia on 2 November 2012 undertaking her employment and was not aware of any factors outside her employment that could have effected incapacity. He acknowledged Walker's previous back injury at work in 2007 but she had advised of having recovered from this accident.
Dr Tollesson also provided a copy of correspondence forwarded to Walker's General Practitioner on 25 January 2013 [Exhibit 8] in which he advised:
"I have lodged a WorkCover compensation claim for Ms Walker due to the fact that she injured her back in 2007 and she also had a work accident on the 2nd of November 2011 whilst vacuum cleaning her work car in her residential home."
Under cross-examination on the mechanism of injury identified in Exhibit 7, Dr Tollesson accepted his opinion was entirely reliant upon what Walker had told him [Transcript p. 1-64].

Dr Campbell

Dr Campbell, a Neurosurgeon, prepared a medico-legal report (dated 13 November 2013) that was tendered in the proceedings [Exhibit 9]. The report identified Walker stating she was involved in a work accident on 2 November 2012 whilst cleaning her work vehicle with a vacuum cleaner which involved squatting, leaning and twisting. She had felt a pop in her lower back region followed by the sudden onset of lower back pain and right sciatica. Walker had gone for a bicycle ride that evening in an attempt to stretch her back and ease the pain. There was a past history where in 2008 Walker sustained a lower back injury and thereafter had experienced ongoing intermittent lower back pain which did not interfere with her day-to-day activities.
Under cross-examination, Dr Campbell indicated that his report was dictated in the presence of Walker and she made no alteration in respect of having gone for a bicycle ride in the evening [Transcript p. 2-3]. Dr Campbell accepted the proposition that the operative intervention by Dr Tollesson was largely unsuccessful [Transcript p. 2-4]. His report at page four stated:
"Prof Weidmann, Neurosurgeon reported on 23 April 2013 that the diagnosis was that of a L4/5 disc protrusion due to underlying degenerative changes and aggravated by cycling".

Dr Campbell acknowledged Dr Weidmann had reached a different conclusion to him and that he [Dr Campbell] had access to the Caboolture Hospital records. Dr Campbell presumed Dr Weidmann had read those records which included Dr Cheok's notation:

"50 year old female, presenting with four to five days of worsening lower back pain. Went bike riding five to seven days ago".

Dr Campbell agreed with the following comment also arising from Dr Weidmann's report:

"…one can only be guided by the factual matters of the history, and there are no other medical ways of determining the underlying cause of the disc herniation in an individual case". [Transcript p. 2-5]

In re-examination Dr Campbell's position was that the description given to him by Walker when he interviewed her in November 2013 "was a good description of the disc protrusion occurring whilst she was performing her work activities". He indicated there was a strong match between the specific event followed by the onset of symptoms that matched the subsequent radiological findings.
On the matter of whether Walker raised any questions or changes to his report (on the day) he could not recall but added that he presumed a client would read the report and he would have made further corrections at that stage if there was an inaccuracy. Dr Campbell could not recall if he was contacted about the report but if he had been then the alterations would have been made.
Wodhams
Wodhams, a Senior Ranger with the MBRC, was Walker's immediate supervisor on 2 November 2012. He had no prior knowledge of her picking up the work vehicle on that morning, nor did he see her on the day. Wodhams recalled a telephone conversation and a visit to site by Bell in which he was informed that Walker was in hospital having an operation and would be off work. Bell had not mentioned to him at the time how Walker had hurt her back but he had found out later there was a "possibility that the injury had occurred whilst Julia was cleaning a Council vehicle".
Wodhams would have expected to see an incident report under "normal circumstances" but had not seen one on this occasion. He described Walker as a "good employee, very high level of honesty and integrity" with an excellent work ethic. Walker was required to maintain her work vehicle in a clean and tidy condition and had always met her obligations in this respect.
Under cross-examination Wodhams gave evidence it was not the responsibility of another officer to clean up after a previous officer. He further gave evidence that if Walker had presented at a hospital with a complaint he would have expected her to tell the truth.
Regulator
Vivian
Vivian, a Rehabilitation and Return to Work Coordinator at the MBRC, held that position in December 2012. In that role she had occasion to handle a claim for compensation for Walker, producing two file notes of conversations with Walker on 4 and 11 December 2012 [Exhibit 10]. Walker advised on 11 December 2012 that she had never mentioned to her Doctor that her injury could be a workplace injury. Vivian gave information to her about the need to get a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate and submit an Application for Compensation. Vivian had found it unusual at the time that Walker had not seemed to realise that she needed a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate due to her having a previous claim for a back injury.
Under cross-examination, Vivian confirmed she had noted on 4 December 2012 that Walker had informed her of having two operations and that the injury occurred whilst vacuuming the work vehicle. Vivian accepted that Walker was open with her in relation to not having informed her Doctor that it may have been a workplace injury [Transcript p. 2-19].
Vivian had become aware there were some medical records that suggested there may be a different cause for her injury following advice from the Insurer and was also informed that Walker had sought to have those records changed [Transcript p. 2-20]. Vivian had expectations that if someone was injured at work they would immediately record it as a workplace injury [Transcript p. 2-21]. Following her conversation with Walker on 4 December 2012 she initiated discussions with two of Walker's supervisors (one of whom was Foley) with neither of them knowing she had a work-related injury [Transcript p. 2-22].
In re-examination Vivian acknowledged that her email of 30 January 2013 [Exhibit 11] contained words to the effect "I'm told it was never reported as a possible workplace injury" was a reference to discussions with Walker's supervisors.
Henderson
Henderson, a Paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) was stationed at Bribie Island in November 2012 and undertook a patient transfer of Walker on 5 November 2012. She had only a vague recollection of that duty, however was questioned on a QAS Electronic Ambulance Report Form that was completed by her on 5 November 2012. The document recorded, amongst other things, that:

·        "She's complaining of right lower back pain for one week";
·        "Pain has been increasing through the week";
·        "QAS administered pain relief including 2.5 milligrams of morphine intravenously"; and
·        "Patient comfortable and pain-free post-morphine".

Under cross-examination Henderson's evidence was that her notes were prepared at the end of the job and if Walker had informed her that her back had been hurt on the Friday (2 November 2012) the entry would have been "3/7, which would indicate three days" [Transcript p. 2-27]. Henderson agreed Walker was in a great deal of pain and the small dose of morphine dropped the pain but she would not have given her anymore because she had an adverse reaction to the morphine [Transcript p. 2-28]. She could not specifically remember speaking to Walker on 5 November 2012 as this job was some time ago [Transcript p. 2-29].

Dr Cheok

Dr Cheok, a Medical Practitioner, was attached to the Caboolture Hospital in November 2012. Dr Cheok was questioned regarding clinical notes [Exhibit 13] which she had created on 6 November 2012 at 00.49 regarding her treatment of Walker. The notes recorded the following:

·        "50 year old female
·        PIW 41-5/7 worsening lower back pain
·        Went bike riding 5/7 ago woke up next day with pain
·        Pain in right lower back/flank, radiates down right leg to ankle, grabbing and throbbing, sharp, a/w movement
·        Also c/o numbness/tingling down left leg
·        Increasingly unable to weight bare today."

According to Dr Cheok, her recollection was that her examination revealed Walker was conscious and aware of her surroundings and that the history contained within the clinical notes had come from the patient.
Under cross-examination Dr Cheok conceded she did not have an independent recollection of Walker's admission to hospital, her memory had been entirely refreshed by reading the notes she took on the night and it may have been possible that the reference to lower back pain for the last four to five days could have been as a result of looking at the QAS notes [Transcript p. 2-34]. Her original assessment was "Back pain due to disc displacement" and accepted a proposition that what caused the situation Walker found herself in, was secondary to the actual situation she was in [Transcript p. 2-35]. It was also possible that Walker did not share with her the way she had injured her back [Transcript p. 2-36].
In re-examination Dr Cheok confirmed Walker had told her "went bike riding 5/7 ago".
Dr Weidmann
Dr Weidmann, a Neurosurgeon, examined Walker on 23 April 2013 and provided a report (dated 23 April 2013) [Exhibit 14] at the request of the Insurer. Dr Weidmann, in the preparation of his report, had access to records from the Caboolture Hospital and reached the conclusion that there was some doubt in the version of events offered by Walker. Dr Weidmann opined the following (page 4 of the report):

"In accepting the sequence of events as given to me by Ms Walker, there does seem to be a relationship with work. However this is not supported by the records from the Caboolture Hospital. The records there state she was seen on the 6^th November, 2012 with back and right leg pain for one week, not associated with an acute injury. The history given was she went bike riding five days previously and woke up the next day with the pain. In accepting this sequence of events, which is likely to be factual, I would then say there is no material relationship between the incident at work on 2^nd November, 2012 and her lumbar disc herniation. It would therefore seem more likely that her lumbar disc herniation is due to an underlying degenerative condition that was aggravated by riding a bicycle five days prior to 6^th November, 2012."

Under cross-examination Dr Weidman's evidence was that the version given to him by Walker was quite consistent and reasonable and it was when he looked at the Caboolture Hospital records that some doubt arose [Transcript p. 2-38]. The pathology was, according to Dr Weidmann, consistent with either sequence of events and the injury could well have developed from vacuuming a vehicle. Whilst having no knowledge about whether the Caboolture Hospital records were accurate or not, his evidence was that "as a general principle, I'd regard a hospital record as being factually correct because it’s a contemporaneous documentation and it's not someone's afterthought". He stated that it was just as likely that Walker had a disc protrusion as a result of vacuuming out her car or riding a bicycle [Transcript p. 2-39].

Leet

Leet, a Physiotherapist, performed services for a practice in December 2012 that was aligned with the Mater Hospital. He had occasion to provide physiotherapy consultation to Walker on 11 November 2012 after which he completed a progress note [Exhibit 15] that contained the following information:

"Thank you for the referral. 50 year old female admitted with lumber spine pain. L4-5 herniation on MRI. History of presenting condition. Injured lumbar spine four years ago. Pain since then; this episode occurred following an increase in exercise and unable to stand for long - fainted once; no decrease with strong pain relief".

The information in the progress note had come from Walker.
Under cross-examination Leet's evidence was he had a request from Dr Tollesson prior to Walker's first operation to obtain from Walker a history of the presenting condition which allows for an understanding of where a patient is prior to surgery and after [Transcript p. 2-42]. The appointment was likely to have been 20-30 minutes duration [Transcript p. 2-43]. The term "subjective evaluation" used in the notes was said to mean the subjective history from the patient in terms of complaints, pain and other symptoms [Transcript p. 2-46]. Obtaining some understanding of how the injury came on was an important part of the examination [Transcript p. 2-47].
Leet conceded he had not, in the preparation of the progress notes:
·        taken note of over what period Walker was said to have increased her exercise;
·        noted how long she had been in pain with this particular episode;
·        noted how long she had the leg pain she was complaining of;
·        made a note of what specific event (if any) that occurred right before she experienced this particular episode of pain; and
·        made a note of whether Walker had ever experienced this level of pain before [Transcript p. 2-47].
Leet was unable to say whether there was a causal link with the injury of some four years previous [Transcript p. 2-48].
In re-examination, Leet indicated he was seeking to obtain some information around the mechanism of injury and history of complaint which is why he recorded an increase of exercise as a general reference.
Submissions
Regulator
A written outline was provided in addition to oral submissions.
Preliminary information nominated in the Application for Compensation (dated 3 January 2013) alleged Walker:
·        sustained an injury on 2 November 2012;
·        the injury was as a result of "cleaning out rear and front work vehicle"; and
·        the activity was "approved by supervisor".
The nature of Appeal, legislation and elements were identified, as were the issues for determination which were listed as:

·        not of dispute on the evening of 5 November 2012 Walker was conveyed by ambulance to Caboolture Hospital presenting for a condition of lower back pain;
·        also unchallenged was that Walker underwent surgical intervention by Dr Tollesson on four occasions between 11 November 2012 and 1 January 2013;
·        accordingly suffered from a disease at or around the time alleged which amounted to an injury.

The matter in dispute is whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of, Walker's employment and whether that employment was a significant contributing factor to the contraction of the disease.

Documentary Evidence

In this case the Commission is fortunate to have a number of bodies of documentary evidence completed around the time of Walker's admission to the Caboolture and Mater Hospitals.

Ambulance Report

Henderson's contemporaneously recorded the following history provided by Walker:

"C/o R lower back pain 1/52 increasing on movement and shooting down R leg. Also c/o numbness and tingling to R leg and spasms to R quad. Pain has been increasing through week, tonight unable to move or weight bear."

Walker had not related the onset of pain to the specific occasion of cleaning her work motor vehicle.

Caboolture Hospital

Dr Cheok's clinical notes recorded the following:

"Clinical Notes
Note created on: 6 NOV 2012 00:49 by CASSANDRA CHEOK
50 year old female
P/s 4-5/7 worsening lower back pain
Went bike riding 5/7 ago, woke up next day with the pain
Pain is right lower back/flank, radiates down right leg to ankle, grabbing and throbbing, sharp, a/w movement

Also c/o numbness/tingling down left leg
Increasingly unable to weight bear today."

The notation clearly reflects "worsening lower back pain" that arose from bike riding five days previous.
Walker's partner gave evidence of a similar statement regarding the origin of her injury being made to a nurse at the hospital and the attempt by Bell to classify the response as being anything but a direct response is at best disingenuous.
Physiotherapy Notes
The notes of the Physiotherapist recorded the following:

"Injured 4 years ago, pain since then, this episode occurred following increase in exercise, unable to stand for long".

The episode occurred according to Walker following an increase in exercise.

Walker's timely report of injury

Walker, through a previous claim for a similar injury in 2008, was well aware of her ability to make a claim, yet failed to mention to her medical practitioner until after 11 December 2012 that the injury could be a "workplace injury".
Dr Tollesson's evidence around a discussion with Walker on whether he considered she would be successful with a claim for compensation was the subject of some questioning as was the failure of Walker to make any mention of the alleged work‑related activity she now contends occasioned her injury. Walker "naturally" became concerned about the version of events she had supplied to the Caboolture Hospital that she made a concerted effort to have the hospital records then in existence changed to her version of events.
The medical evidence provided by Dr Weidmann was uncontroversial regarding the proposition:
"One can only be guided by the factual matters of the history and there are no medical ways of determining the underlying cause of the disc herniation in an individual case".
Walker's disc herniation is entirely reliant upon her version of events with the most reliable indicator of truth or otherwise being what she told the treating medical professionals at or around the time of her admissions.

Appellant's evidence

The submission identified the significant problem for Walker being the independent documentary evidence which outlined Walker's first stated mechanism of injury when reporting to the Health Professionals with the most significant being her report to Dr Cheok where she now has no recollection of that discussion. Walker had related the mechanism of injury as the riding of the bike and the evidence of Bell involved a recollection of a conversation that included reference to riding a bike, albeit to a Nurse rather than Dr Cheok. An attempt by Bell to attribute Walker's response to her being a literal person led to what was described as a "spurious distinction" clearly manufactured to avoid the unsatisfactory answer of Walker riding her bike. Walker's own version has her on at least two occasions relating to hospital staff she had sustained injury by virtue of riding a bike.
There were challenges through cross-examination of Dr Cheok, Henderson and Leet regarding their version of events in the form of their notes not being a contemporaneous, recollection nor entirely correct and timeframes related to them by the Appellant were different to what they had recorded.
There were issues of credibility regarding Walker that included:
·        the peculiar allegation of deciding to ride her bike for the first time in years immediately following an incident that left her with an injured back;
·        evidence from Walker of having "pulled her bike out and pumped up the tyres" prior to going for the ride when the clear evidence of her partner was she had noticed the bike had been removed from storage and the tyres pumped up prior to 2 November 2012;
·        the extraordinary length Walker went to in an effort to change the Caboolture Hospital Records of Dr Cheok which contained "discrepancies" that were conceded by Walker as having injured herself whilst riding her bike; and
·        none of the documentation relating to the application for compensation was completed at or around the time or prior to the four operations despite Walker being well aware of the necessity due to her past history.
The submission addressed the evidence of certain witnesses for Walker including Johannessen and Bell pointing out areas of inconsistency with the evidence given by Walker in the proceedings. In respect of Dr Campbell's evidence in particular around his report it was the case Walker at the time of the consultation had not attempted to make a correction in relation to the time of the alleged riding of the bike which is a further indication of her being an unreliable historian. Dr Campbell had agreed with the proposition contained in Dr Weidmann's report regarding the factual matters of history being determinative with the only possible conclusion when taking into account the uncontroverted medical evidence the proof of aetiology of injury is entirely dependent upon the version of events supplied by Walker who has failed to establish her injury arose out of or in the course of her employment.
In addressing their own case, it was argued that Henderson's evidence was virtually unchallenged in respect of her record taking and the Commission should regard her as an independent witness. Further, her evidence around the amount of morphine administered to Walker negated the improbable argument of Walker that she did not know what she was saying due to medication.
Dr Cheok had little recollection apart from her contemporaneous note of her conversation with Walker. There is, however, some importance to her entry to the extent Walker sought to have such entry changed.
Dr Weidmann quite properly conceded the mechanism of injury was equally attributable to the events given to Dr Cheok and himself, however the telling observation is that he preferred the "contemporaneous record" as it was not in the nature of an "afterthought".
The evidence of Leet arose from a brief assessment prior to surgery and any criticism regarding the lack of detail misunderstands the nature of his enquiry. What remains unarguably is that Walker informed him that the origin of her pain was an increase in exercise which is not surprising as it coincides with her undertaking bike riding for the first time in years.
Conclusion

The essential question is whether or not the injury sustained by Walker arose out of, or in the course of, her employment and was one to which employment was a significant contributing factor.
The task faced by Walker was described as an insurmountable hurdle in the form of four bodies of independent evidence:
·       QAS (Henderson) version of events related by Walker;
·       Walker's partner's (Bell) evidence that Walker had told a Nurse at the Caboolture Hospital her pain arose by doing the "different" activity of riding a bike;
·       history of lower back pain related to Dr Cheok by Walker; and
·       the version given to Leet by Walker on 11 November 2012.
There is not one practitioner's record that has Walker informing them she injured her back cleaning out the work vehicle nor has Walker alleged she, in fact, made such a statement. It was conceded the first mention of a work-related injury occurred on 3 January 2013.
Walker, it was submitted, failed in her onus of proof of establishing the mechanism of injury as alleged in her Application for Compensation and in the Notice of Appeal.
Finally it was submitted that the Appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Appellant

Walker has claimed to have injured her back on 2 November 2012 whilst vacuuming her work vehicle at home. The Appeal has been resisted by the Regulator on the basis of some records of the Caboolture Hospital and perhaps the QAS.
The question for the Commission, it was submitted, is whether the injury to her back arose out of, or in the course of, her employment and whether her work was a significant contributing factor.

[100]There is no question that Walker a worker nor that she had sustained an injury.

[101]The submission identified the following legal principals requiring consideration:
·        S 32 of the Act - Meaning of injury;
·        Arising out of Employment - Lackey v WorkCover Queensland[1] - Industrial Court held the phrase "arising out of" involves a causal or consequential relationship between the employment and injury, but does not require a direct or proximate relationship; and
[1] Lackey v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QIC 43
·        Significant Contributing Factor - Qantas Airways Ltd v Q-COMP[2] - President Hall, in considering whether work was a significant contributing factor to an injury, upon reviewing the authorities, decided that he was not prepared to accept the submission that "significant" bears the same meaning as the terms "large", "great", "weighty" or "substantial". President Hall was unable to be more precise than fixing the meaning of "significant" towards the lower end but not at the base of the spectrum.
[2] Qantas Airways Ltd v Q-COMP [2009] QIC 20

[102]In this case the Regulator had suggested other factors which may have contributed to the development of the injury, such as:

·        surgery after the injury occurred;
·        riding a bicycle after the injury occurred; and
·        back injury four years before an injury occurred.

[103]In this case it is argued that none of the above contributed to the injury and they can only have contributed to her symptoms. There is no evidence that the previous back injury contributed to her current injury with Dr Campbell giving evidence that it had only contributed to her overall impairment.
[104]The evidence of Walker that she felt a "pop" when vacuuming the work vehicle is consistent with descriptions given in cases of disc prolapse (see Ungerer v Q‑COMP[3]). There was no suggestion that Walker had not cleaned the work vehicle and there was no evidence when the vehicle arrived back at the workplace it was not clean. The evidence of Walker's co-workers (Johannesson and Foley) was there had been no indication of any pain or restrictions when she visited the workplace on the morning of 2 November 2012.
[3] Ungerer v Q-COMP (WC/2011/244) - Decision - < was submitted that the Regulator would have the Commission believe that Walker was injured either during a bike ride or an increase in exercise whilst on annual leave based on QAS and Caboolture Hospital records. The QAS note was demonstrably wrong and cannot be true, based upon the evidence other witnesses (in particular Bell) with the QAS records disregarded as inaccurate. The Caboolture Hospital records were relied upon by the Regulator as being evidence that Walker "went bike riding 5/7 ago and woke up the next day with pain", yet the bike ride was for about 200 meters and the only reason Walker mentioned the bicycle ride was in response to the question "what have you done differently". Walker had not ridden a bike for years prior to 2 November 2012.
[106]The concern of the treating Doctor was with the pain Walker was experiencing and the mechanism of injury not the doctor's main focus. It was submitted also that the note about the pain increasing for the past five days was wrong.
[107]In terms of witness credit, it was said that neither Walker nor Bell presented as dishonest witnesses. In fact they presented as honest and tried to do their best to answer questions both in evidence and cross-examination. Johannessen, who did not particularly get on with Walker, presented in an honest fashion and the Commission should accept his evidence as an independent witness. The failure of Johannessen to mention in his statement of 10 September 2013 that Walker had informed him of hurting her back whilst cleaning the work vehicle did not mean this conversation had not taken place or that he had manufactured his evidence. Wodhams had been aware Walker had injured her back whilst vacuuming the work vehicle even though he was unable to recall when he had found that out. As her Supervisor for three years (at that time) he gave evidence of her being an honest employee with integrity and a good work ethic.
[108]There was no dishonest intent in Walker seeking to have the Caboolture Hospital records changed and if she was attempting to engage in something sneaky, she would not have informed the Insurer of her intentions nor sent off emails. Advice from her solicitor was behind her desisting with the approach. It is difficult to see how this might negatively impact on her credit.
[109]The question raised about substantial time elapsing between her injury and the report of the workplace incident is answerable in that for most of that time she was either in hospital or incapacitated in pain and heavily medicated. Walker's evidence was that although she had a previous injury, she did not know the process.
[110]There was medical evidence before the proceedings from Doctors Tollesson, Campbell and Weidmann that Walker told them she had injured her back while vacuuming her work vehicle and that the mechanism of injury was consistent with the injury suffered by Walker. It is open for the Commission to find the injury arose as a result of vacuuming out the work vehicle with the case to be decided on the factual issue of whether, in fact, doing that work significantly contributed to the injury.
[111]In regards to Dr Weidmann, it was only the Caboolture Hospital records which caused him to question how Walker's injury arose with nothing in her presentation causing him to have any doubt in what she said in their consultation. Dr Weidmann said he usually assumed that hospital records were correct, but that mistakes happen. Dr Cheok and Leet agreed they were not interested in the cause of Walker's disc prolapse as they were in the effects of it on her and the level of pain experienced by her at the time. There was no evidence that they required her to inform them of the cause of the injury and when considering the level of pain she was experiencing on 6 and 11 November 2012 it was no wonder that information was not passed on.
[112]It was submitted that the Appeal should be allowed with the Regulator to pay Walker's costs.

Conclusion

On 2 November 2012 Walker, for the purposes of s 11 of the Act, was a "worker" and therefore there is no question that she was entitled to lodge an Application for Workers' Compensation in respect of an injury suffered as a result of a work-related event at that time.

[114]The matters for determination in this Appeal are:
· whether Walker, on 2 November 2012, suffered a personal injury; and
· if that personal injury (if suffered) arose out of or in the course of her employment with the MBRC and if that employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.

In consideration of evidence before the proceeding, it is not of contention that in the month prior to 2 November 2012 Walker availed herself of a period of LSL with her scheduled return to work being Monday 5 November 2012. Walker, in the course of her employment as a Ranger, was provided with a work vehicle which she home garaged and was required to maintain that vehicle in a clean condition, undertaking those cleaning duties generally outside of normal work time. Arrangements had been made by her to collect her vehicle (although such arrangement was at the time unknown by her immediate supervisor Wodhams) on 2 November 2012 so as to have it work ready for the commencement of her duties on 5 November 2012.
Walker attended work at 7.30 am on 2 November 2012 and in the course of collecting her work vehicle, participated in a handover process with Johannesson who familiarised her with the vehicle which was a different make and model to the vehicle used by Walker prior to her taking LSL. It was her evidence that she returned home at around 9.30 am where she commenced cleaning the vehicle almost immediately and in the process of vacuuming the driver's side of the cabin whilst kneeling down, twisted her back.
Leaving aside for the moment the matter of whether Walker on 2 November 2012 suffered a personal injury or otherwise, it is reasonably open to find that her actions in firstly attending the workplace on that morning to collect the work vehicle and secondly engage in the cleaning of that vehicle on her return to her place of residence were work-related activities despite the fact that technically she was on that day being remunerated for LSL rather than undertaking her normal duties.
Therefore for the Appeal to succeed, it now remains only necessary to establish whether Walker, in the undertaking of cleaning the work vehicle, in particular vacuuming of the driver's cabin, suffered a personal injury to her back on 2 November 2012.

[119]Walker's version of the incident was that following a "pinging" sensation when she had twisted, hurting her back, she took a break to consume a cup of tea and at that time decided to take a bike ride for the purposes of stretching her back. According to her, she had not ridden a bike for a long time and prior to commencing that activity had to pump up the tyres to make ready the bike. Bell gave evidence that Walker had telephoned her at around 2.00 pm on 2 November 2012 to inform her that she had injured her back whilst cleaning the vehicle and was considering a walk or bike ride to stretch her back. Bell, in cross-examination, gave evidence that prior to 2 November 2012 Walker had got her bike out "cleaned it and pumped up the tyres" which was contradictory to Walker's evidence of having to get the bike ready on 2 November 2012 to undertake what turned out to be a 200 metre journey. Bell had recalled that following the bike ride Walker had again telephoned her, this time informing her the "bike ride hadn't helped".
[120]A further discrepancy appeared in and around the bike ride evidence of Walker and Bell in that in November 2013 Walker provided a history to Dr Campbell that she had gone for a bike ride that evening which on the face is in contradiction of having taken the bike ride soon after the incident said to have caused her injury. Dr Campbell had dictated his report in the presence of Walker who made no attempt to correct his reference to the bike ride having taken place in the evening rather than soon after the incident said to have caused her injury. The failure to challenge the evening bike ride entry in Dr Campbell's report is more than interesting when one considers that Walker had sought (unsuccessfully) in May 2013 to have removed from the Caboolture Hospital records information inputed on 6 November 2012 relating to her bicycle riding activities.
[121]There is more than a level of inconsistency surrounding the evidence of Walker in terms of the bike riding activity said to have occurred immediately following the injury to her back. The proposition of having not ridden a bike for some years then suddenly deciding to get the bike out and take it for a ride in an effort to provide relief for an injured back is fanciful, at best. The evidence of Bell that Walker, prior to 2 November 2012 had got the bike ready for riding would seem to cast some doubt over 2 November 2012 being the first time Walker had considered riding the bike in some years.

Walker attended work on 5 November 2012 and, despite being in pain following the injury to her back said to have occurred on 2 November 2012 whilst cleaning her work vehicle, lodged no incident report or took steps to inform her supervisors of the alleged work incident or injury.

[123]On the evening of 5 November 2012 it is not of dispute that Walker was conveyed to the Caboolture Hospital by ambulance and subsequently admitted. Henderson, the QAS Officer, recorded in her notes at the time that Walker's "pain has been increasing through the week". At 00.49 on 6 November 2012 Dr Cheok, in her clinical notes, recorded "P 4-5/7 worsening lower back pain. Went bike riding 5/7 ago, woke up next day with the pain".
[124]The records of both Henderson and Dr Cheok were taken contemporaneously from Walker, however not accepted by Walker as being an accurate account of information given by her on that evening. Walker further claimed not to have seen a female doctor on that evening. Bell's evidence of her attendance at the hospital included a recall of Walker replying to a question of a member of the nursing staff by stating she had gone for a short bike ride that day. However, according to her, Walker was at the time, a "bit doughy" and not clear in her communication.
[125]The evidence of Henderson and Dr Cheok was generally undisturbed in the course of their cross-examination and is accepted by the Commission as a contemporaneous account of the history relating to Walker's admission to hospital. Walker had informed both practitioners her pain had been evident for a week and in the case of Dr Cheok, the origin of the pain was a bike ride of some five days previous. The issue of Walker being a "bit doughy" and that being attributable to the dosage of morphine administered by Henderson is an unlikely occurrence in that Henderson recorded a minimal dosage of 2.5 milligrams being administered intravenously and Walker, at the time, being "comfortable and pain free post morphine". There is no contemporaneous record of Walker at the time mentioning an association between her condition and the alleged workplace event.

Walker was discharged from Caboolture Hospital on the day after admission (6 November 2012) and remained at home for the week recuperating. On that morning Bell on behalf of Walker telephoned Foley to inform him she had hurt her back. However, Foley was unable to recall being informed at that time of the cause of Walker's injury.

[127]On 10 November 2012 Walker is said to have fainted whilst at home and was taken by Bell to the Mater Private Hospital where she was admitted and underwent the first of a number of operations performed by Dr Tollesson. A second operation was performed some ten days later with Bell's evidence being that she informed both Foley and Wodhams in this period that Walker's injury was as a result of cleaning her work vehicle at home. Wodhams recalled both a telephone call and site visit from Bell where he was informed that Walker was in hospital but that Bell had not informed him it was a work-related injury. In normal circumstances, according to Wodhams, there would have been an incident report completed but he had not seen one on this occasion. Foley also had no recollection of seeing an incident report at the time giving evidence of some level of confusion in the workplace.
[128]On 11 November 2012 Leet had cause to take a history from Walker in the form of a "subjective evaluation" and his contemporaneous note recorded that Walker had "injured lumbar spine four years ago. Pain since then; this episode occurred following an increase in exercise and unable to stand for long". Again a feature of the history from Walker was the omission of any reference to the work incident of 2 November 2012.
[129]Walker subsequently underwent four operations at the Mater Private Hospital with the Regulator conceding in submissions that Walker, in November 2012, had "suffered from a disease at or around the time alleged which amounted to an injury".
[130]In terms of the medical evidence, Dr Campbell found there was a strong match between the specific event of vacuuming the work vehicle and the onset of symptoms that also matched the radiological findings. It was accepted by Dr Campbell that in terms of causation, Dr Weidmann had reached a different conclusion to him and he went on to agree with the following comment from Dr Weidmann's report:
"…one can only be guided by the factual matters of the history, and there are no other medical ways of determining the underlying cause of the disc herniation in an individual case".

[131]Dr Weidmann, in his medico-legal report of 23 April 2013, found in the first instance that in accepting the sequence of events provided by Walker, there seemed to be a relationship with her injury and work. However, Walker's sequence of events were not supported by records from the Caboolture Hospital which, on 6 November 2012, identified back and right leg pain that was not associated with an acute injury. The history provided by Walker at the Caboolture Hospital was, in his view, likely to be factual, based on the contemporaneous documentation, as opposed to "someone's afterthought".

The ultimate finding of Dr Weidmann was it seemed more likely that Walker's disc herniation was due to an underlying degenerative condition that was aggravated by riding a bicycle five days prior to 6 November 2012, although in cross-examination he did concede that it was just as likely the injury could have also resulted from vacuuming the vehicle.

[133]The Commission is satisfied, on the medical evidence, that Walker suffered an injury to her lower back in November 2012, however that evidence is competing in terms of the causation of the injury. Dr Tollesson, the treating Neurosurgeon, opined that Walker had suffered her acute disc hernia on 2 November 2012 whilst undertaking her employment and was not aware of any factors outside of her employment. Dr Tollesson either had no access to the clinical notes of Dr Cheok or failed to mention the contemporaneous recording in those notes of Walker on 6 November 2012 going for a bike ride some five days earlier and waking up the next day with pain. This certainly identified a prospective factor beyond work.
[134]Dr Campbell accepted the history provided by Walker in reaching a similar finding and presumed he had read the Caboolture Hospital records. If that was indeed the case he obviously chose to ignore the contemporaneous clinical record of Dr Cheok's consultation.

Dr Weidmann, on the other hand, considered the notes recorded by Dr Cheok placing significant reliance upon their contemporaneous nature, thus discounting the alleged work-related incident of vacuuming the work vehicle as causative of Walker's injury.
The Commission accepts the evidence of Dr Weidmann over that of the previously mentioned Neurosurgeons in that the causative nature of Walker's injury was not the incident alleged to have occurred on 2 November 2012 in the vacuuming of the work vehicle.

[137]Dr Weidmann's position is supported by the following:
·        Henderson's contemporaneously recorded report on 5 November 2012 identifying pain had been increasing through the week;
·        Dr Cheok's clinical notes of 6 November 2012 which identified Walker bike riding five days previous, waking up the next day with the pain; and
·        Leet's notes of 11 November 2012 that recorded the current episode of pain occurred following an increase in exercise.

[138]On each of these occasions, Walker had the opportunity to have recorded the incident of the vacuuming of the work vehicle and inexplicitly chose not to raise that issue.
[139]Walker had suffered a similar type of compensatable back injury in 2007/2008 and would have been more than aware of the importance to have the incident causative of the injury recorded at her earliest convenience.
[140]Walker's version is not assisted by the absence of any reference to the injury being work-related in the communications initiated between Bell (on her behalf) and Walker's supervisors (Wodhams and Foley) following her hospitalisation.
Finding
[141]Upon consideration of the evidence, material and submissions before the proceeding, I find that:

·Walker was, at all relevant times, a "worker";
·Walker had undertaken work-related activities in the form of cleaning her work vehicle at her place of residence on 2 November 2012;
·in or around November 2012 Walker suffered an injury to her lower back which required surgical intervention on four occasions sufficient to conclude she suffered a personal injury;
·Walker failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the personal injury to her lower back occurred as a result of undertaking the work-related activities in the vacuuming of her work vehicle at her place of residence on 2 November 2012; and
·the failure to establish that a personal injury suffered by Walker arose out of, or in the course of, employment in accordance with s 32 of the Act means that her employment was not a significant contributing factor to the injury.

[142]The Appeal is dismissed and the decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) on 23 September 2013 is confirmed. The claim is not one for acceptance.
[143]Walker is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to, the Appeal.

[144]I order accordingly.

[2014] QIRC 103

11 June 2014