Yates v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] QIRC 68

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Yates v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 068

PARTIES:

Yates, Michelle
(Appellant)

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2015/83

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2016

HEARING DATES:

26, 28, 29, 30 October, 7 & 8 December 2015
1 April 2016 (Appellant Submissions)
10 May 2016 (Respondent Submissions)
23 May 2016 (Submissions in Reply)

HEARD AT:

Townsville (26, 28, 29 and 30 October 2015)
Brisbane (7 and 8 December 2015)

MEMBER:

Deputy President Swan

ORDERS

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to the Appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator – Appellant incurred a psychiatric injury – nominated stressors very vague – unpleasant workplace – causation of injury not work related – appeal dismissed

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Yates [2015] QIRC 174
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Toward [2015] ICQ 008
Roberts v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 030
Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 027

Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) v Adams [2015] ICQ 001
Waugh v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) & anor [2015] ICQ 028

APPEARANCES:

Ms J. Sorbello, Counsel for the Appellant, instructed by Shine Lawyers
Mr S. McLeod, Counsel for the Respondent, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

Decision

This Appeal is made by Ms Michelle Yates (the Appellant), pursuant to s 550(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator (the Regulator) to confirm a decision of WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) to reject Ms Yates' Application for Compensation.

Ms Yates contends that she sustained a psychiatric injury arising from bullying and harassment she experienced during the course of her employment with Morris Corporation (the employer), while working at Ravenswood Village over a period of time between May 2012 to March 2014. The employer was in a contractual arrangement with Carpentaria Gold Mine providing accommodation, amongst other things, for mine workers at the Village.

Ms Yates described her work with the employer as that of a "utility worker". The work, at various times, included cleaning and working in the kitchen and laundry at the Village. The Village had approximately 221 accommodation-style rooms, together with a community kitchen and dining room.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Prior to this matter being allocated to the Commission as constituted, an application had been made by the Regulator to the Commission on the grounds that the application, as it then stood, was out of time and not valid or enforceable pursuant to s 131(1) of the Act. Commissioner Thompson heard that application – see Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Yates[1].
[1] Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Yates [2015] QIRC 174
That decision considered, amongst other things, the identification of the date upon which there had been "…some evaluation, that is to say, some conclusion or…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yates v Workers' Compensation Regulator and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QIRC 68
Decision Date: 21 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Yates v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the Appellant, Ms Yates, appealed a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator regarding her claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury she sustained while employed as a cleaner. The Regulator had determined that the injury was not work-related. The Appellant argued that she had been bullied and harassed by her colleagues, which led to her psychiatric injury. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Appellant's psychiatric injury was caused by stressors at work, as claimed by the Appellant, or if it was due to other factors outside of her employment. The court needed to consider the evidence presented by the Appellant and the Regulator, particularly the testimonies of Ms Drysdale, Ms Lamont, and Dr Graham, as well as the credibility of the Appellant as a witness. The court also had to determine the relevance and weight of the stressors listed in the Appellant's statement of stressors.

The court found that the Appellant's evidence was not reliable, primarily due to inconsistencies and contradictions in her testimony. The court noted that Ms Drysdale's evidence indicated that there was animosity among the workers, including instances of rude behaviour directed at the Appellant. However, the court accepted that the evidence of bullying and harassment was not strong enough to establish that the Appellant's psychiatric injury was caused by work-related stressors. The court also found that Dr Graham's opinion on the causation of the injury could not be accepted due to the Appellant's unreliable testimony. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the Appellant pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to the Appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Two other witnesses gave evidence for the Appellant, Ms Kimberly Drysdale and Ms Michelle Lamont.Evidence of Ms Drysdale·For the purposes of the time frame in which this matter is being considered, Ms Drysdale was working for the employer for 2 weeks in May 2012.·Ms Drysdale was employed as a utility worker in the housekeeping and kitchen areas of the work site. She had worked for the employer from January/February 2012 through until mid-May 2012. ·Ms Drysdale believed that Bonny, Shellie and Chicka behaved badly towards Ms Yates and she was unsure as to whether it was Bonny or Shellie who had told her that Ms Yates had a "bad attitude, was lazy and lived in a hovel".·Mr Drysdale's described herself as a "very intimidating person", but she determined to leave her employment because she had been bullied by Bonny and Shellie.·Her evidence was that at the toolbox meeting held in early May 2012, if Ms Yates added commentary to any issues under discussion, others at the meeting (including Chicka) would tell her that no-one was interested and would tell her to "shut-up" because she was stupid [T3-20]. She said this commentary occurred in the presence of Mr Kelvin Davies and Mr Cahenzli. The nature of the topic being discussed at the time was not given, but she described the behaviour as "so rude". Mr Cahenzli's evidence was that he had not observed Bonny, Shellie and Chicka behaving abusively towards Ms Yates.·The Regulator submitted that the only evidence of relevance given by Ms Drysdale was that she remembered Bonny apologising to Ms Yates.·In considering Ms Drysdale's evidence, I accept that there was animosity amongst the named workers, including Ms Drysdale who had formed a friendship with Ms Yates. The Appellant submitted that based upon the "unchallenged evidence of Dr Graham", the Commission has only to decide whether the Appellant has "established that she was bullied and harassed by three main perpetrators". Concerning the specialist medical evidence given, save for Dr Graham's evidence that events at work and outside of it were interrelated and causative of Ms Yates' injury, and her later retraction of that point, the following is not a criticism of Dr Graham's evidence. Dr Graham was presented with information from Ms Yates upon which she made a clinical finding. It is accepted that Ms Yates suffered a psychiatric injury. However, as I have found that Ms Yates was an unreliable witness, I am unable to accept Dr Graham's opinion upon the questions of causation of Ms Yates' injury. Counsel for the Appellant further added:"More specifically, the Tribunal need only be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the sufficient stressors identified 1 to 18 are established such that they were the major significant contributing factor to the injury." Counsel for the Appellant described the Stressors as being "largely substantiated". The ones which fell into that category have not been specifically identified. Included in the "Further Amended Statement of Stressors" was the assertion that the management action identified at Stressors 19 to 42 were not causative of the injury sustained. This, in my view, is a statement which is inconsistent with the case as outlined by the Appellant in its opening submissions and conducted by the Appellant in the Hearing.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.