Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 298

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 298
PARTIES:	Samantha Warren Appellant v Workers' Compensation Regulator Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2024/22
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2025
HEARING DATE:	3–4 April 2025
DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:	Respondent's amended closing submissions (6 August 2025) Appellant's closing submissions (15 August 2025) Respondent's closing submissions in reply (27 August 2025)
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Pidgeon IC Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Review Decision dated 29 June 2023 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation, the subject of this appeal, is one for acceptance. 3. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – where the Appellant's neck injury was not accepted – where there are conflicting expert medical opinions – consideration of expert's credibility – where the Appellant's appeal is upheld
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 32(1), 558(1)(c)
CASES:	Austin v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 110 Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 6
APPEARANCES:	Mr M O'Sullivan of Counsel, instructed by Shine Lawyers, for the Appellant. Mr S P Gray of Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Reasons for Decision

Ms Warren ('the Appellant') worked as a Sandwich Artist at a Subway store in Hervey Bay.[1] On 4 January 2022, Ms Warren was working during a busy shift and noticed that there was no mozzarella in the display cabinet where the sandwiches were made. She went to get some mozzarella from the cool room at the back of the store.
[1] Ms Warren is employed by Parry Developments Pty Ltd trading as Subway Hervey Bay.
The cool room door opens by sliding it from left to right. Ms Warren went to slide the door open with her right hand. As she was pulling the door, both of her feet slipped out from underneath her and she fell backwards. Ms Warren's right hand remained on the door as she fell, and this caused a strong pulling sensation and pain in her right shoulder and the right side of her chest.

On 6 January 2022, Ms Warren lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') for an injury she described as being a 'right shoulder dislocation'. WorkCover accepted Ms Warren's claim and weekly benefits are/were paid to Ms Warren from 6 January 2022.

On 11 March 2023, Ms Warren says she woke with severe pain and stiffness in her neck. On 3 April 2023, Ms Warren advised WorkCover that she had sustained a neck injury.[2] WorkCover commenced investigations. WorkCover requested that two doctors undertake an independent medical examination of Ms Warren's neck. Ms Warren saw Dr Tamba-Lebbie on 4 May 2023 and Dr Coroneos on 15 May 2023.

[2] Described in the…

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 Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Warren v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 298
Case: [2025] QIRC 298
Decision Date: 3 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the Appellant, Mr Warren, against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The central issue was whether the Appellant's claim for workers' compensation for a neck injury sustained during the course of his employment was valid. The Appellant contended that his injury was caused by a workplace incident, while the Regulator rejected the claim, asserting that the Appellant's medical evidence was not credible. The case was heard and determined in the Industrial Commission of Queensland.

The legal issues for the court's determination included assessing the credibility of conflicting expert medical opinions and whether the Regulator's decision was reasonable and justifiable. The court had to consider the weight of the medical evidence presented, the consistency of the Appellant's account, and the principles governing workers' compensation claims. The Appellant argued that the Regulator erred in failing to accept his claim, while the Regulator maintained that the Appellant's evidence was insufficient to establish the causal link between the injury and the workplace incident.

In assessing the arguments, the court noted the conflicting expert opinions on the Appellant's injury. The court found that the Appellant's evidence was credible and consistent, and that the Regulator's decision was not supported by the evidence. The court determined that the Appellant's claim was reasonable and justifiable, and that the Regulator's rejection of the claim was an error. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Regulator was set aside.

The court ordered that the appeal was allowed and that the Review Decision dated 29 June 2023 was set aside. A new decision was substituted, accepting the Appellant's application for workers' compensation. The court also noted that costs would be subject to a further application if the parties could not agree on the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Review Decision dated 29 June 2023 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation, the subject of this appeal, is one for acceptance.

3. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission.

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.