Workers' Compensation Regulator v Langerak

Case [2020] ICQ 2

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Langerak [2020] ICQ 002

PARTIES:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(appellant)

v
JADE LANGERAK

(respondent)

FILE NO:

C/2019/8

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

5 March 2020  

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2019

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER/S:

1.    Leave granted to amend grounds of appeal.

2.    The appeal is allowed.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE – ARISING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT – “A MAJOR OR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR” – PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION – INADEQUATE REASONS – where the respondent was transferred to a new location and role in the Queensland Police Service following a marriage breakdown – where the respondent incurred a psychiatric injury that had arisen in the course of her employment – whether the respondent’s employment was the major significant factor to the personal injury – whether the Commission erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons – whether the Commission erred in law in its application of s 32(5) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32

CASES:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, cited

Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 1, cited

CS Energy Limited v Q-COMP [2008] ICQ 2, cited

Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8, cited

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9, cited

Gold Coast City Council v K Page Main Beach Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 332, cited

Q-COMP v Hochen [2010] ICQ 10, cited

Q-COMP v Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67, cited

Queensland Independent Education Union of Employees v Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd [2015] ICQ 3, cited

Saville v Q-COMP & the State of Queensland (acting through the Department of Corrective Services) [2007] ICQ 28, cited

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Chapman [2016] ICQ 11, cited

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 10, cited

Yousif v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 4, cited

APPEARANCES:

CJ Clark instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator for the appellant

DLK Atkinson QC instructed by Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the respondent

  1. In mid-2013, Ms Jade Langerak was employed as a general duties officer at Mt Isa Police Station. Her then-husband, also a police officer, was stationed at Camooweal. The respondent’s marriage broke down and, in August 2013, she left her marital home. She was subsequently transferred to a different location and a new role in the Queensland Police Service.

  2. The principal question before the Commission was whether the respondent’s employment was the major significant contributing factor to a psychiatric injury she incurred in her new role. That question was posed against a backdrop of ongoing marital and financial difficulties that the respondent was experiencing in her personal life at the time of the injury.

  3. The Commissioner found that the respondent’s employment was the major significant contributing factor to her injury and that the management action of the QPS was neither reasonable nor taken in a…

Continue reading Workers' Compensation Regulator v Langerak

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Langerak [2020] ICQ 2
Case
[2020] ICQ 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Workers' Compensation Regulator v Langerak concerns a claim for workers' compensation by a police officer, Ms Langerak, following a psychiatric injury that arose in the course of her employment. The dispute centred on whether Ms Langerak's employment was a major or significant contributing factor to her injury and whether the Commission had provided adequate reasons in its decision-making process. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining if the Commission had erred in its application of the relevant statutory provisions and if it had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision and whether it had erred in its application of section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Court had to assess the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Commission and whether these reasons were sufficient to support the conclusion that Ms Langerak's employment was a major or significant contributing factor to her injury.

The Court of Appeal found that the Commissioner had failed to consider certain evidence, specifically the First Report by Dr Gundabawady, and gave certain evidence more or less weight than was appropriate. The Commissioner had outlined Dr Gundabawady's oral evidence but did not adequately consider the First Report. The Court held that the appellant succeeded on this ground of appeal, as the Commissioner's failure to consider the First Report and the weight given to other evidence amounted to an error in law.

The appeal was allowed, and the Court directed the parties to provide input on what further orders should be made. This decision highlights the importance of comprehensive and balanced consideration of all relevant evidence in workers' compensation claims, particularly when determining the major or significant contributing factors to an employee's injury.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Commissioner found that the respondent’s employment was the major significant contributing factor to her injury and that the management action of the QPS was neither reasonable nor taken in a reasonable way in connection with her employment.Factual background Following the breakdown of her marriage, the respondent requested a transfer from Mt Isa to Rockhampton. She was instead transferred to the Townsville Police Communication Centre (TPCC). The respondent commenced her role at the TPCC on 3 January 2014. On 17 March 2014, the respondent was diagnosed with severe major depression. On 15 April 2014, the respondent was admitted to the Toowong Private Hospital identifying non-employment related issues as causative of her condition. She remained there until her discharge on 27 May 2014. On 10 June 2014, the respondent’s treating psychiatrist reported that her treatment had gone well and that her mental state was settled, such that she was able to return to the workplace. He confirmed that in his opinion she was medically fit to return to general duties policing but to return her to the TPCC “would be deleterious to her health and welfare”. The respondent initially opposed a return to the TPCC, but an agreement was eventually made between her and the QPS that she would return there. The Commissioner found that the agreement was made in circumstances where the respondent held genuine concerns that to not return to the TPCC was likely to jeopardise her continued employment with the QPS. On 6 August 2014, the respondent returned to work at the TPCC. On 9 October 2014, the respondent was advised that she was to be sent for an independent medical examination on 4 November 2014 because of her lack of progress and because she had become suicidal. Dr Gundabawady was engaged by the QPS to examine the respondent and he gave reports to the QPS on 11 November 2014 (the First Report), 1 December 2014 (the Second Report) and 18 March 2015 (the Third Report). The respondent continued to have personal issues with her husband while attending work up until 19 November 2014, when her general practitioner issued a medical certificate stating that she was unfit for work. The respondent did not return to the TPCC following her departure on 20 November 2014.The case before the Commission It was not in dispute that the respondent was a worker and had sustained an injury, namely an aggravation of her pre-existing major depressive disorder, for the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Act). The respondent contended that she had sustained an injury caused by her return to work at the TPCC on 6 August 2014. She further contended that the Regulator had not established that that injury was caused by reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way. The primary submission of the Regulator was that it could not be shown that any employment factors reached the threshold of being the major significant contributing factor to the respondent’s psychiatric condition in November 2014. The Regulator submitted that the causes for that condition instead arose out of the long-standing, deeply distressing breakup of the respondent’s marriage.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant’s submissions appear to be that the Commissioner:(a) failed to consider certain evidence, and (b) gave certain evidence more or less weight than was appropriate.Did the Commissioner fail to consider certain evidence? The Commissioner considered Dr Gundabawady’s evidence other than the First Report throughout his reasons.[3] Specifically, the Commissioner outlined Dr Gundabawady’s oral evidence at paragraphs [112] to [114] and [182]. The Commissioner notes, among other things, that:“[112] Under cross-examination the doctor evidenced that the primary object of 4 November 2014 was to decide whether Langerak was suitable to continue at the TPCC and the QPS generally.…[113] In the period between 19 June 2014, November 2014 and March 2015 it was accepted by the witness that she had stressors outside of work some of which were documented in his first and third reports [Transcript p. 8-14]. In November 2014 and March 2015 those personal stressors were operative [Transcript p. 8-15]. Dr Gundabawady did not accept that clinically her workplace was the significant factor because all the stressors were not consistent or persistent [Transcript p. 8-16]. His role had not been to access what was the major significant contributing factor but to focus on her condition and whether she was fit to return to work [Transcript p. 8-16]. …[114] In re-examination he did not at the time of the first report consider Langerak needed time off. At the interview with Langerak on 17 March 2015 she had not disclosed any history about an incident in late November 2014 regarding self-harm relating to her relationship difficulties.…[182] In the course of cross-examination Dr Gundabawady did not accept the position that Langerak’s “workplace was a significant factor” because ‘all the stressors were not consistent. They all keep changing. In re-examination when taken to the Bundaberg Hospital record of Langerak’s attempted suicide he agreed the history was completely different to what he had been told by her in a subsequent consultation on 17 March 2015 in that it was a “serious incident that could have changed his opinion”.”[3] See, eg, Langerak v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 35 [106]-[114], [132], [180]-[182] and [241]-[247]. The Commissioner also described the findings of the Second Report as follows:“[110] The second report of 12 December 2014 was provided following a request for clarification by the QPS on the independent assessment and report provided on 11 November 2014. In response to a series of questions, Dr Gundabawady advised that:· his first report was based upon her self-report and reports by treating psychiatrists (Dr Matthews and Dr Kahn);· after reviewing additional documentation provided by the QPS outlining support mechanisms he opined that she had been given all available support at work;· despite the adequate support demonstrated by the QPS Langerak continued to have significant stressors, no family/social support and financial difficulties; and· non work-related psychosocial factors were significantly contributing to her medical condition and decompensation.”

Decision

Reasons for decision

It follows that the appellant succeeds on this ground of appeal. Conclusion The appeal is allowed. I will hear from the parties about what further orders should be made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.