Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2015
  4. Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 107

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 107

Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 107

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 107

PARTIES:

Rowena Blair

(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2014/12

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2015

HEARING DATES:

10-12 June 2014 (hearing)

14 July 2014 (Appellant's submissions)

4 August 2014 (Respondent's submissions)

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Knight

ORDERS :

  1. the appeal is dismissed.
  2. the decision of the Worker's Compensation Regulator of 12 December 2013 is upheld;
  3. the Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed.  In the event agreement cannot be reached between the parties with respect to costs the Respondent has the liberty to apply.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment - whether plate lifting incident occurred in the manner described - whether employment a significant contributing factor - degenerative condition - whether employment was the backdrop - Appellant bears onus of proof - Appeal dismissed.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation  Act 2003 s 32

Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] ICQ 016

Carman v Q-COMP  186 QGIG 512

Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100

Dorcy Pacific Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP (WC/2010/14) Decision http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

Heald v Q-COMP  (2004) 177 QGIG 769

JBS Australia Pty Ltd and Q-COMP (C/2012/35) - Decision

Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 053

Lackey v Workcover Queensland [2000] QIC 43

McDonald v Q-COMP (2008) 188 QGIG 180

Momcilovic v R (2011) 254 CLR 1

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006]1 Qd R 519

Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1

Queensland Airways Limited v Q-COMP WC/2005/13

State of Queensland (Department of Communities Disability Services) AND Q-COMP (First Respondent) and Mrs B (Second Respondent)WC/2011/247 Decision

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447

Theresa Helen Ward and Q-Comp (C/2011/39QIRC)

APPEARANCES:

Mr T. Neilson Brandon instructed by Brandon and Gullo Lawyers for the Appellant.

Mr N. Jarro directly instructed for Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator).

Decision

  1. [1]
    This is an appeal by Rowena Blair ("the Appellant") pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act") against the decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers Compensation Regulator) ("the Respondent" / "the Regulator") of 12 December 2013.
  1. [2]
    That decision of the Regulator confirmed an earlier decision of WorkCover to reject an application for compensation by Ms Blair in respect of an injury for lateral epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, which the Appellant claimed she sustained on 13 December 2012 from lifting a stack of plates from a trolley into a kitchen sink in the course of her duties as a kitchen domestic for Ozcare Aged Care at Currimundi. 
  1. [3]
    The Appellant later added to the claim a subsequent injury to her right shoulder which she says occurred as a result of undertaking suitable duties where she relied predominantly on her right arm.  The Appellant claimed this second injury, sustained on 11 February 2013, was a direct result of her altered work duties arising from the management of the first injury.  The second injury was diagnosed as a soft tissue strain.
  1. [4]
    The basis for the decision by the Regulator was that the Appellant had failed to present evidence that established a causal connection between the injuries and the Appellant's work duties.  As such the Regulator accepted the Appellant had sustained personal injuries but found that those injuries did not arise out of the Appellant's employment and that her employment was not a significant contributing factor to the injury.

 Burden of Proof

  1. [5]
    Except for those matters conceded by the Regulator, the Appellant carries the burden of proof in this appeal.  At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Appellant's representative advised through written submissions that all aspects of Ms Blair's Appeal dealing with her alleged right shoulder injury should be ignored on the basis that any such claim will be dealt with in a separate application. 
  1. [6]
    To succeed in this matter therefore, the Commission must be satisfied Ms Blair has proven on the balance of probabilities that her claim for compensation in respect to the lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) arose out of or in the course of her employment; and that Ms Blair's employment as a domestic kitchen attendant was a significant contributing factor to the injury.

 Grounds of Appeal

  1. [7]
    The original grounds of appeal upon which the Appellant relied are as follows:
  • The first injury became apparent and was as a direct result of the duties the Appellant was engaged in at the time of the onset of pain;
  • The General Practitioner considered the injury consistent with the Appellant's description of her activity at the time;

 Relevant Legislative Principles and Authorities

  1. [8]
    In considering whether Ms Blair is entitled to payment of compensation the Commission must have regard to section 32 of the Act, which relevantly provides as follows:

"32  Meaning of Injury

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

     …

  (3) Injury includes the following -

  1. (a)
    a disease contracted in the course of employment, whether at or away from the place of employment, if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the disease;
  2. (b)
    an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation -
  1. a personal injury;
  2. a disease;
  3. a medical condition if the condition becomes a personal injury or disease because of the aggravation;

     …

  1. (4)
    For subsection (3)(b), to remove any doubt, it is declared that an aggravation mentioned in the provision is an injury only to the extent of the effects of the aggravation."
  1. [9]
    There is no dispute between the parties that at the material time, the Appellant was a "worker" within the meaning of s 11 of the Act; and suffered a personal injury in the form of lateral epicondylitis.  To succeed in this matter, the Commission must be satisfied Ms Blair has proven on the balance of probabilities[1] that her personal injury, namely the lateral epicondylitis, arose out of, or occurred in the course of her employment at Ozcare Currimundi, and, if so, that her employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. [10]
    In Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2], Neate C considered the authorities in so far as they related to onus, noting:

"Although the onus to be discharged is on the balance of probabilities, the Commission, in dealing with the matter, must feel an actual persuasion before the alleged facts can be found to exist.  The mere possibility of an appellant suffering an injury on mere conjecture is not enough.  Inference must be carefully distinguished from conjecture or speculation.  There can be no inference unless there are objective facts from which to infer the other facts which it is sought to establish.  (See MacArther v Workcover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100, 1010 (Hall P) and cases cited)."

And later:

"In a case where expert medical evidence is led, before any such expert medical evidence be of value, the facts upon which it is founded must be provided by admissible evidence (see Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 680, 681)."

  1. [11]
    In Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance[3] Keane JA, with whom de Jersey CJ and Muir J agreed said:

"[27]It cannot be disputed that, when s 32 of the WRC speaks of  'employment'  contributing to the worker's injury, it is referring to employment as a set of circumstances, that is to the exigencies of the employment of the worker by the employer.  The legislation is referring to 'what the worker in fact does during the course of employment'."

  1. [12]
    As to aggravation of an injury, in Heald v Q-COMP[4], Hall P confirmed the view of Dr Turner that there are two types of compensable aggravation:

"A degenerative condition may be aggravated in the sense that it may be made worse, i.e. after the aggravation the degenerative disorder is worse than it was before.  But there can also be an aggravation in the sense of an increase of symptoms associated with a degenerative condition which, after the cessation of the symptoms, returns to its pre-aggravation state."

  1. [13]
    In JBS Australia Pty Ltd and Q-COMP [5], Hall P confirmed the need to establish that:

"…employment must significantly contribute to the occurrence of the injury.  It is insufficient to establish that the employment was the setting in which the aggravation occurred or the background to its occurrence."

  1. [14]
    Likewise, in Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland[6] citing Tophams Ltd v Sefton (1966) 1 All E.R. 1039, de Jersey P held that employment needs to be a "real effective cause" of the injury and not merely the setting or background in which the injury occurs.
  1. [15]
    Relevant to degenerative injuries and the onset of pain Hall P stated in Carman v Q-COMP[7]:

"It must be remembered that in Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1996) 152 QGIG 1181 is an often cited but ageing authority.

…

Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland, ibid, does not decide that a worker afflicted with a degenerative back suffers an injury if the back becomes painful at work.  Neither does Pleming, op cit., establish that a worker with a degenerative back will suffer an injury where the back becomes painful or more painful and the employment is a significant cause of the onset or intensification of pain."

  1. [16]
    The appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo.[8]   

 Witnesses

  1. [17]
    Ms Rowena Blair was employed as a domestic at the Currimundi Ozcare facility at the time her claim was worker's compensation was lodged.  She commenced with Ozcare in October 2007, undertaking domestic duties which included kitchen, cleaning and laundry tasks. 
  2. [18]
    Mr Phillip James, a housemate of Ms Blair's, was called to provide evidence in respect of the assistance he provided to Ms Blair with the completion of two incident reports and related documentation around the time her symptoms allegedly appeared.
  3. [19]
    Mr Ivan Giraldo was also employed at the Currimundi Ozcare facility as a domestic worker.  Whilst he was primarily engaged in cleaning he also performed kitchen tasks and worked with Ms Blair from time to time.
  1. [20]
    Dr Ali provided evidence to the Commission regarding Ms Blair's presentation to his medical practice with regard to her injuries.
  1. [21]
    Dr Pentis, an orthopedic surgeon, reviewed Ms Blair and provided two reports about the condition in her left elbow.
  1. [22]
    The Respondent presented three witnesses; Ms Karen Martin; Ms Tania Bell and Dr Steadman.  Ms Martin was employed by Ozcare as a diversional therapist at the Currimundi facility at the time of Ms Blair's elbow injury and later shoulder injury.
  1. [23]
    Ms Tania Bell was employed by Ozcare as the Support Services Manager at the Currimundi facility. 
  1. [24]
    Dr Steadman examined Ms Blair on behalf of the Regulator to provide an opinion relevant to the appeal.

 Background

  1. [25]
    Ms Rowena Blair travelled to Australia from the Philippines in 1992, eventually becoming a permanent resident.  Prior to commencing with Ozcare in or around 2008, Ms Blair had worked in a variety of manual jobs and also cared for her children.  Ms Blair told the Commission her prior employment included factory work, office cleaning and housekeeping.  Ms Blair remained out of paid employment while she raised her children and returned to the workforce when they had grown. 
  1. [26]
    Ms Blair commenced with Ozcare at the Currimundi Aged Care facility on 7 October 2008.  She was initially engaged to undertake a variety of domestic duties at the facility which included cleaning, laundry and assisting in the kitchen.  Some years later Ms Blair's duties were varied to the extent she predominantly performed kitchen duties on a regular 11:30 am to 7:00 pm shift of ten days per fortnight. 
  1. [27]
    During her shift, Ms Blair would assist the facility chefs with the preparation of food and undertake others tasks such as cleaning equipment, crockery and cutlery, storing food deliveries, empting bins, delivering meal trolleys, rinsing, stacking and unstacking dishes in the dishwasher  and preparing morning and afternoon teas for the residents.  Whilst there was some debate during the proceedings about the exact numbers, it was submitted the facility housed approximately156 residents, ranging from low to high care.
  1. [28]
    Ms Blair's evidence is that the first occasion she recalled feeling pain in her left elbow was when she was at work on 13 December 2012.  On the same day the facility was hosting a Christmas lunch for the residents and their extended families.  Ms Blair's evidence was that it was not uncommon for her to rinse, wash and clean up pots, pans and dishes for a minimum of one to two hours a day.  The resident's dirty dishes would be rinsed and stacked in a dishwasher in the 'blue room', with the assistance of one other worker after the lunch meal.  Prior to this task, Ms Blair would rinse, scrub and clean pots and dishes utilised by the chef during the preparation of meals in the main kitchen.  It was generally accepted the sink in the dishwashing area of the main kitchen was deeper than that in the "blue room".
  1. [29]
    Ms Blair recalled she first felt pain in her left elbow as she lifted a "pile of plates", which she estimated to be 12 in total, from a work trolley into the sink in the main kitchen area.  She said the sink was approximately 60 centimetres deep, an estimation that her colleague Mr Giraldo agreed with.  Whilst Ms Blair acknowledged she was not good at estimating lengths she did say the top of the sink came to her waist and that she had to bend down to place items at the bottom of the sink.  It was established in the course of the hearing that Ms Blair was 153 centimetres tall and weighed approximately 50 kilograms.  Ms Blair recalls the incident to have occurred between 1:00 - 1:30 pm, prior to her 2:00 pm lunch break.
  1. [30]
    When asked about the onset of the pain and her activities at the time Ms Blair stated:

"…I picked up a pile of plates from the trolley into the sink and then lower in the sink.  As I lower it into the sink I got the pain in the elbow so I kind of dropped the – yeah, with the shock, quick pain or something."[9]

  1. [31]
    Ms Blair described the plates as approximately 800 grams each.  Even though paper plates had been used to serve the lunch to the residents and families on the 13th of December 2012, she said heavier plates had been used by the chef in the process of preparing the meal.  Mr Giraldo gave evidence that the washing up done in the main kitchen was quite heavy and also involved handling 80cm pots, particularly in the evenings after the preparation of hot meals.  The plates used in the main kitchen were utilised during meal preparation by the kitchen staff.
  1. [32]
    On the day of the alleged injury Ms Blair was also experiencing a stomach illness.  After her break, feeling increasingly unwell, she approached Ms Pauline Renwick to advise of her illness and subsequently went home early.  Ms Blair did not mention any pain or symptoms in her elbow to Ms Renwick at that time. 
  1. [33]
    Although Mr Giraldo's shift ordinarily commenced at 5pm in the afternoon, he informed the Commission he was working with Ms Blair on the 13 December and recalled her complaining about the pain in her elbow in the lunchroom.  Mr Giraldo said he recommended she advise her manager so the problem didn't get worse.  He recalled Ms Blair had later told him about her visits to the doctor and physiotherapist.
  1. [34]
    Ms Blair attended her General Practitioner, Dr Rodelio Manzano the following day complaining of gastroenteritis.  Dr Manzano's notes for the consultation between himself and Ms Blair for 14 December 2012 read as follows:

"Friday December 14 2012

Dr Rodelio Manzano

Diarrhea – runny, lower abdominal since yesterday afternoon

2. itchy left ear canal

T=36..6

O=abdo-soft, nil tenderness, no organomegaly, ++bowel sounds

Left ear-canal-mildly red, nil discharge, T.M-ok

Reason for Contact:

Otitis Externa

Gastroenteritis-Viral"

  1. [35]
     Ms Blair's evidence is that in the same consultation she also informed Dr Rodelio Manzano of her elbow pain.  Her recollection was that Dr Manzano examined her elbow and diagnosed tennis elbow.  He advised her to rest the elbow but did not provide a certificate for further days off beyond 14 December 2012.  Despite taking the time to note Ms Blair's second complaint with respect to her left ear, there is no record contained in Dr Manzano's notes of 14 December 2012 in respect of an elbow complaint by Ms Blair or an examination on that particular day, nor was Dr Manzano called to give evidence in relation to his recollection of the consultation.
  1. [36]
    Ms Blair advised that after two days rest her stomach illness had resolved but her elbow had not improved.  She returned to work on 16 December 2012 in accordance with her roster.  The previous day, the 15th, was her nominated Rostered Day Off (RDO).  When questioned about her recollection of the condition of her elbow on 16 December 2012,  Ms Blair responded:

"Okay. How about the left elbow? How did that feel?---No. It wasn't better at all. I mean, I did the self-medication. I rubbed some Deep Heat and then I purchased some Voltaren Rapid from the chemist hoping that it would help me with the pain because I just thought this is all in muscle so the chemist told me that the Voltaren 15 helps reduce the swollen muscle."[10]

  1. [37]
    Ms Blair continued with her normal duties.  She described the pain at the time as starting in the elbow and shooting down to her fingers and that she had numbness in her fingers.[11]  Her evidence was that she could not recall experiencing any pain or symptoms in her elbow prior to 13 December 2012.  She acknowledged previously holding a second job as a masseuse at a business called The Beach Massage up until June 2012, but said she did not continue in the role after this time.  A letter from the owner of the massage business indicated Ms Blair had worked in the role 3 days a fortnight and provided massage services to eight to ten clients in that period.
  1. [38]
    Ms Blair's housemate at the time, Mr Phillip James, recalled Ms Blair coming home one evening in mid-December and advising she had hurt her elbow at work that day.  Mr James wasn't clear about the tasks Ms Blair had been doing at the time of the incident.  His recollection was:

"First of all I asked her about, basically, what had happened, and we discussed what she had done. And then I said to her, did you fill out an incident report, because I wanted to highlight to her that in the aged-care industry they're pretty big on those sorts of things and she told me that she hadn't. So I tried to encourage her to do that as soon as possible. I also suggested that she sees her doctor as soon as possible about it."

  1. [39]
    On the 18th December 2012 Ms Blair said she purchased a brace to assist her lifting items in the normal course of her duties.  Ms Tania Bell, the facility support services manager was of the view Ms Blair purchased the arm support on the 20th of December subsequent to receiving advice from the facility physiotherapist who had taken the time to examine Ms Blair's elbow after she had initially met with Ms Bell and reported her pain.
  1. [40]
    Ms Blair recalled formally reporting the injury to Ms Tania Bell, prior to the commencement of her shift on 19 December 2012.  Ms Bell was of the view that Ms Blair reported the incident on 20 December 2012, but agreed it was reported in the morning before the commencement of Ms Blair's 11.00am shift.  Ms Blair's recollection was that she explained to Ms Bell the pain commenced on 13 December when she lifted a pile of plates from the trolley into the sink.  Ms Bell took Ms Blair to see the on-site Ozcare physiotherapist, Trevor Wilson.  Ms Bell was unable to recall if she was present when the examination took place.  Ms Blair described the pain as commencing at the elbow and running down her arm and that her fingers were numb and tingly.  Ms Blair's recollection as recorded in a subsequent statement was that after undertaking an examination, Mr Wilson advised her that he considered she had tendonitis as the pain from tennis elbow would run up the arm.
  1. [41]
    According to Ms Blair, Ms Bell provided her with an Ozcare incident form to complete and she then continued with her shift for that day.  Ms Blair took the form home to complete and sought the assistance Mr James, her housemate.  Ms Blair confirmed she only entered some basic details onto the form, with the remainder of the details being completed by Mr James.  Ms Blair then returned the completed form to Ms Bell the next day. 
  1. [42]
    Mr Phillip James's evidence was that he assisted Ms Blair to complete the form because she struggled with her spelling.  It was his understanding that Ms Blair then returned the form to Ms Bell the following day, 20 December 2012.  In his evidence to the Commission, Mr James said:

"I tried to instill in Rowena that when she signed and dated a document, she needed to do that when it was completed, and we were filling this out on the 19th and there were certain things on the document that she couldn't fill out until she had more information."

  1. [43]
    In cross examination Ms Bell confirmed a "Ms Turkett", had approached her with concerns she had observed Ms Blair having difficulty with her elbow for some days. It is not clear when Ms Bell was first approached, however Ms Bell did not speak to Ms Blair about the problem advising the Commission:

"Yes. But despite Ms Turkett approaching you, you didn't go and see Ms Blair?---No. No.

Okay. But you'd accept that Ms Blair had at least appeared to have problems with her left elbow, according to at least one co-worker, for some days prior to the date that she formally reported it to you?---Well, I was aware that Ms Blair had another occupation, and I said well – I said to myself, 'Well, it's obviously from the other occupation that Ms Blair...'"

  1. [44]
    In cross-examination it was put to Ms Blair that one of the cooks, Gavin, overheard Ms Blair talking about the incident form as she filled it out in the lunch room on 20 December 2012, during which she was alleged to have said she didn't know how she injured her arm.  Ms Blair denied the proposition asserting she had completed the form at home on the evening of 19 December 2012 with the assistance of Mr James.  However, whilst Mr James did confirm the form was filled out the evening of 19 December 2012, he believed Ms Blair had not yet advised anyone of the injury and did so when she handed the form in on 20 December 2012.  Mr James was of the view Ms Blair had informed her supervisor of the injury on 20 December 2012.
  1. [45]
    Mr James's recollection was he wrote out all he could on that evening before the 20 December 2012, but there was further information Ms Blair required the following day and she was to complete the form, sign and date it before handing it in on 20 December.  He also recalled making a repeated error due to tiredness, with the date of the injury on the form, writing 19 instead of 13 as the date of injury.  Significantly, included in the incident form was the name of Dr Manzano and Trevor Wilson the facility physiotherapist as the medical consultants.
  1. [46]
    Mr James also advised the Commission as to the contents of the Ozcare form he filled out with and for Ms Blair, particularly in respect of the stated cause:

"Okay. And then the full description of incident. I won't take you through that, but is that based on what Ms Blair told you?---Yes.

Okay. Now, then going to contributing factors, there's a continuous repetitive action of same task as reported above?---Yes.

Do you recall why that was written?---Yes, I asked Rowena what she had been doing, and she expressed to me that this was the task that she was performing, and it was a task that she did every day that she worked. Yes?---And from that I then came up with that it was the repetitive action of that task that had caused the injury.

Okay?---And that was my layman's understanding of how the injury or the contributing factor to the injury. Okay. So that was your suggestion?---Yes.

Okay. And then we go down, the wound type. It says torn ligament?---Yes.

Why did you write that?---Again, that was my understanding of - because prior to that - prior to filling that part of this out, she hadn't sought medical advice, and that was my understanding of how the injury presented.

Okay. Just to clarify that, though, I think you said that she went to the doctor?---The next day, but we were filling this out in retrospect.

Okay?---And the doctor suggested that it was - - - Well, just to clarify. At the time you were filling this out, on the 19th of December?---Yes.

Had she been to the doctor?---Yes.

Okay. So the words "torn ligament", were they your words, or what were - - -?---They were my words.

They were your words?---Because the doctor - the doctor said tennis elbow.

Okay. And then if we go over to the third page, under medical treatment it says you've written physio, Trevor, and then doc, Dr Manzano?---Yes.

So by writing those names, what did you understand that to mean?---I asked Rowena, as far as the medical treatment, what she had done. She said she had spoken to Trevor who is - was the physio at her workplace.

Yes?---And also she'd been to see Dr Manzano. "[12]

  1. [47]
    Whilst Ms Bell was aware an incident report had been completed at some stage, she told the Commission that she did not hand an Ozcare incident form to Ms Blair and never saw the completed form.  Her recollection of the events was that Ms Blair approached her prior to the commencement of her shift on 20 December 2012, advising she had a "funny elbow".  Ms Bell then said that she directed but did not escort Ms Blair to see the physiotherapist who later advised that he thought it was a ligament issue.

"Right. Now, she reported it to you before work?---Yes.

And you took her off to the physiotherapist by the name of Trevor?---Yeah. I directed her to Trevor, yep.

Okay?---And she went on her own. Yep.

Now, in your file note you say, 'Trevor examined her arm by pressing on various spots. The spot that he thought her – he thought was a ligament'. Now, you said before in your evidence-in-chief, that you weren't actually there when Ms Blair spoke to Trevor?---I can't – I honestly can't recall. I don't think I was there."

  1. [48]
    Later on the same day, Ms Blair's evidence is that Ms Bell produced a file note for her to counter-sign.  At the time, Ms Blair recalled she was distracted with her duties and advised Ms Bell that she couldn't sign the document until she had read it and that she would require more time to do so as she was a slow reader.  Ms Bell advised she would read the document to Ms Blair and proceeded to do so, asking her to sign it when she had finished reading it aloud.  Significantly, the file note dated 20 December 2012 and prepared by Ms Bell contained the following:

"Rowena came to see me and said she had a 'funny arm'. I asked if she injured her arm at work she replied 'I don't know – went on to say yesterday her arm became week (sic) and she suddenly could not grip objects. She said she had been to the doctor and the doctor told her she had tennis elbow. I took Rowena into chat to Trevor. Trevor examined her arm by pressing on various spots the spot that hurt her he thought was a ligament. He said she probably has a strained ligament in her arm. She purchased a Velcro strap from the chemist today and said it was helping her was able to grip things today. Trevor and I suggested she tries to minimize heavy lifting with her left arm and it will slowly repair itself. And also advised her to massage and heat packs.

I asked her if she wanted to go home and she said she was ok to work."

  1. [49]
    It is clear the file note was signed by both Ms Bell and Mr Blair.  Ms Bell acknowledged the words "and also advised her to massage and heat packs", appeared to be hand written on the document after the note was typed and signed by both ladies.  Ms Blair's recollection was no further alterations or additions were made to the note in her presence.  According to Ms Blair, Ms Bell insisted she sign the document on that day.  Ms Blair disagreed she had advised Ms Bell she didn't know where she hurt her elbow and that the pain had manifested on 19 December 2012. 
  1. [50]
    Ms Blair subsequently made an appointment to see Dr Manzano on 27 December 2012.  Dr Manzano's notes in respect of that consultation read as follows:

"Thursday December 27 2012  09.01.01

Dr Rodelio Manzano

Left elbow pain for 2 weeks

getting worse

 working at the kitchen-nursing

 started Dec. 19 while lifting a pile of plates felt sudden pain left  elbow

 2. due for blood test

 O=Left elbow-tenderness lateral epicondyle area, pain n extension

 Reason for contact:

 Left lateral epicondylitis

 Actions:

 Physiotherapy, anti inflammatory

 Q-COMP Workcover Certificate printed: PMC – 2511014W-

 Letter Created – re. Referral letter with Progress Note to Mr Steven Boffinger"

  1. [51]
     Ms Blair's evidence was she continued her normal work duties up until her consultation with Dr Manzano, during which time the pain became worse.  Dr Manzano referred Ms Bell for an x-ray and ultrasound and further investigations.  Dr Manzano indicated he would be away for two weeks and Ms Blair was to see his colleague Dr Ali once the results of the tests were received.  At the end of the appointment Ms Blair was referred to the receptionist to assist her in completing a WorkCover claim form.  In the same appointment he provided Ms Blair with a workers compensation certificate which confirmed she would be unable to work at all from 27 December 2012 until 4 January 2013.  The completed application for workers compensation was then faxed to WorkCover by the medical centre.

 Tasks Undertaken By Ms Blair

  1. [52]
    Under cross-examination Ms Blair acknowledged it was the plate washing incident which led to the pain and symptoms in her elbow.
  1. [53]
    In addition, Ms Blair agreed her other responsibilities at the Ozcare aged facility fell into the following broad categories:
  • Rinse and load into the dishwasher dishes, pots, pans and trays used in food preparation;
  • Pack daily food deliveries away and rotate stocks;
  • Empty the kitchen bins;
  • Assist the cooks in food preparation;
  • Collect "hot boxes" and trolleys from the residential units;
  • Deliver meals in "hot boxes" to residential units;
  • Clean and sanitise the "hot boxes and trays after use;
  • Deliver groceries and tea trolleys to residential units;
  • Prepare and serve afternoon tea to the residents, including special requirements;
  • Unpack the dishwasher;
  • Clean trolleys;
  • Put dishes away;
  • Prepare dishes for next day;
  • Assist with dinner service;
  • Collect dishes after dinner;
  • Wash dinner dishes;
  • Tidy kitchen;
  • Clean and prepare tea trolley for next day;
  • Deliver clothing protection to the laundry and lock the laundry.
  1. [54]
    Ms Blair explained the food supplies delivered to the kitchen were in bulk quantities with the example being drawn of potatoes being packed in 5 kilogram bags.  With regard to emptying bins, she told the Commission that one of the bins she emptied could weigh anywhere between 40 to 50 kilograms and that she emptied them into the large commercial waste bins outside. 
  1. [55]
    Ms Blair estimated the industrial bin to be about chest height and that she was required to lift the smaller wheelie bins above her head height to empty them into the larger bin.  Mr Giraldo confirmed Ms Blair's assessment advising he had seen her emptying the bins at times and he considered the industrial bin to be as high as her head and the wheelie bins to be quite heavy.  His evidence was that he would assist her on occasions as the task appeared challenging.
  1. [56]
    The delivery of meals to residential units in "hot boxes", or "cam-carts" as they were officially known, required Ms Blair to push trolleys out of the kitchen area, along a pathway requiring her to turn the trolleys and move them over door sills.  With regard to this daily procedure Ms Blair noted:

"Okay?---Yeah. And you - you - you turn to your right, that way, and that's a little bit [indistinct] and with me, with the heavy food inside it, I have to, like, braking - pulling that way and just manage it to make sure you don't tip it and pull the basket on top."[13]

And:

"And is it flat or is it on a slope?---There's – there's a slight – that's the pathway from the flip-flop door that slope a bit, and then it just curves and you go past the laundry. And then you enter the door to high care."[14]

"And is it difficult to push the hot box over that floor surface?---Only when – it can be a hot box or a trolley. If it's full of stuff, it is quite difficult because it's not a smooth pathway. It's like a rough cement, so you have the slightly vibration when you push things through there. So I can't really explain that exactly, that pathway. But it's not a smooth pathway …

And later:

"… it's not flat. There was, like, a thing on the door that was across like that.

Okay. And how high was that?---Say, about that high. Okay. You're indicating, I think, about three centimetres?---yeah. … it's not quite clear where that was. Was it on the door or was it on the floor?---On the floor. … So it was underneath the door?---Yeah. … And so it was like a lip in the doorway, was it?---Yeah, … And so you had to wheel the hot box over that lip?---Yeah, you picked it up a bit. You lift it up a bit, because it doesn't go smoothly."[15]

 The Medical Evidence

Dr Ali – General Practitioner

  1. [57]
    Doctor Amjad Ali of the Kawana Waters Seven Day Medical Centre provided evidence as to the treatment of Ms Blair's injury at his medical practice and the notes held on her file in respect of her elbow injury.  Doctor Ali first met with Ms Blair on 4 January 2013.  Prior to this date Dr Rodelio Manzano had been treating Ms Blair for the injury.  According to the practice notes, Ms Blair's symptoms had not abated and Dr Ali prescribed a steroid injection into the left elbow.
  1. [58]
    Dr Ali's understood that Ms Blair has injured her elbow lifting a pile of plates at work.  Doctor Ali told the Commission his impression over the time he was treating Ms Blair's injury was she didn't wish to be off work, that she wanted her elbow fixed so she could return to work.  When questioned about the diagnosis and the difference in terms used by Doctors Ali (epicondylitis) and Manzano (tendonopathy), he advised they amounted to the same thing.  Doctor Ali considered Ms Blair's duties as she explained them to him were "really significant triggers for this sort of problem, so yes, lifting those plates would have been enough to trigger the epicondylitis."[16] 
  1. [59]
    Doctor Ali understood from Ms Blair's history with the practice that there had been no previous issues with her elbow.  Arising out of a further visit on 14 January 2013, Dr Ali arranged for an ultrasound-guided steroid injection to be administered to settle the injury.  A review of Ms Blair and her symptoms on 25 January 2013 indicated the injection had brought about some improvement.  At that time, the doctor recommended continuing physiotherapy before reviewing Ms Blair's condition further. 
  1. [60]
    A question was raised with Dr Ali by Counsel for the Respondent, Mr Jarro, as to whether "an injury such as lateral epicondylitis could arise from performing a massage therapy employment-related role" to which the doctor advised that it could.  Later, Counsel for the Appellant queried with the doctor if it was likely a six month delay between the cessation of employment as a masseuse and the onset of pain indicated that such employment was not necessarily the cause of the injury.  Doctor Ali considered that a six month delay in onset of pain would not occur.  He was also of the opinion Ms Blair would have sought medical attention if the pain had occurred earlier and there were no records to that effect.  

Dr John Pentis

  1. [61]
    Doctor John Pentis, a practising orthopaedic surgeon, was called to give evidence on behalf of the Appellant.  Doctor Pentis examined Ms Blair for the purposes of the Appeal on 17 February 2014 and prepared a report from that examination on 20 February 2014 along with subsequent reports on 18 March and 15 April 2014.  In his report of 20 February 2014, Dr Pentis concluded Ms Blair had common extensor origin tendonitis, commonly known as tennis elbow.  Doctor Pentis also acknowledged Ms Blair's injury could be as a result of degeneration and that she had a multitude of middle-aged orthopaedic complaints.
  1. [62]
    Doctor Pentis' explanation of the condition was that while it could be as a result of degeneration it was not necessarily the case.  He considered it could "occur with any sort of activity where there's repetitive straining or overly straining of the extensor origin musculature", and considered the one event of lifting plates as described by Ms Blair would be sufficient to bring on the condition. 
  1. [63]
    Dr Pentis, who was unaware Ms Blair had a history of working as a massage therapist at the time he prepared his report, expressed the view in cross-examination that such a role could possibly have contributed to the development of Ms Blair's condition depending on the type of massage that was administered however, he believed the flexors were the main muscles used in that activity and a different condition was more likely. 

Dr Peter Steadman

  1. [64]
    Dr Peter Steadman, an orthopaedic surgeon, examined Ms Blair on 14 March 2013 at the request of the Regulator.  As a result of the examination and further subsequent queries Dr Steadman produced reports dated 18 March 2013, 19 May 2014, 6 June 2014 and 2 September 2013.
  1. [65]
    In respect of Ms Blair's diagnosis, Dr Steadman noted:

" … the history, information and investigations are all consistent with a condition known colloquially in the community as tennis elbow which is a degenerative tendonitis process that occurs on the outside of the elbow at an anatomical structure known as the lateral epicondyle where all the forearm – extents of the forearm muscles find their origin."[17]

  1. [66]
    In his report of 18 March 2013, Dr Steadman concluded the Appellant:

"has a multitude of middle aged orthopaedic complaints. She has a painful left elbow that appears clinically consistent with tennis elbow. She has carpel tunnel of the left hand and a painful right shoulder… Clinical findings suggest that these injuries are all degenerative conditions and age related. I do not think the mechanism of injury in the workplace would be the cause. "

  1. [67]
    Importantly, Doctor Steadman was requested to describe the condition and it's development to which he responded:

"Well, it's a condition that finds itself mostly in people in their middle ages and the reason is that the pathophysiology behind it is – to use an analogy, it's a bit like the mangrove in the swamp that's getting rainwater from the land and it's getting the seawater coming in and the trees that are just in the middle – if there's some change in the climatic conditions, the trees in the middle that aren't getting any rainwater and aren't getting any seawater begin to struggle to survive and so what happens as we reach middle age is that the blood supply that's coming through the bone to the origin of the tendon starts to deteriorate and the blood supply that's coming through the muscle likewise starts to diminish and so where the origin of the tendon comes from, the lateral epicondyle, the pathophysiology is that the tendon progressively begins to deteriorate at that point because it's not being well nourished.

As you can imagine, in everyday use, we're using the muscles of the forearm for all of our activities but the body generally has the capacity to overcome that damage that occurs in sort of day-to-day activity because there's a sort of continual healing process that's occurring but when you reach middle age, that ability to sustain that healing deteriorates and so begins the process where the tendon starts to tear and it's not a tear in an emotive sense like an injury.

It's a tear that's known as part of the pathophysiology and if we do an ultrasound or an MRI, we will see a tear – an inflammation in the area where the tendon comes from the most and then eventually that's what makes the condition painful because there's this area of tendon inflammation and progressive tearing and finally when the tendon is completely torn, that's when the condition resolves itself and goes away and that doesn't necessary, after the pain's gone, result in any weakening of the forearm. It's just this sort of process that occurs on the outside of the elbow and as I say, known as lateral epicondylitis to doctors but tennis elbow to the rest of the community."[18]

  1. [68]
    His explanation of the condition relevant to Ms Blair's situation was "the condition is endemic in people in the middle decades of life."  Doctor Steadman considered " she's (Ms Blair) got these conditions which we recognise that are all part of the so-called, you know, degenerative tendonopathies of middle age."  And further: "there's thousands of people out there in the community with it who don't have work-related conditions that relate to it."
  1. [69]
    Under cross-examination, Dr Steadman noted:

"I think that this case is really about the issue. It's about causation. I mean, we know what's wrong with her and we know, further down the track, how that would be treated but the issue really is taking into account the, you know, her age and various – the conditions that she has – you know was there was an event which was able to incite that and thereby alter the course of the disease. Or just serendipitously did she develop the condition and just you know, lifting a plate or many plates at work just made the elbow sore as it would be for having the condition so I think that's an important aspect of the case you've highlighted."[19]

  1. [70]
    Later, it was suggested to Dr Steadman that the current legislation incorporates consideration of an aggravation of a pre-existing injury and that the activity at the onset of Ms Blair's pain would be so significant in itself to be sufficient to alter the course of the condition so as to amount to aggravation of the condition for the purpose of assessment under the legislation.  In the event the Commission was able to determine that such an incident occurred, Dr Steadman accepted that the lifting of 9 - 10 kilograms of plates into a deep sink would have been sufficient to aggravate or change the course of what he otherwise considered a dormant degenerative condition.

 Findings and Conclusions

  1. [71]
    The issue to be determined in this matter is whether Ms Blair sustained an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act.  In particular, Ms Blair must prove, on the balance of probabilities that her elbow injury arose out of, or in the course of, her employment as a domestic kitchen hand with Ozcare and that her employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. [72]
    There is no contest between the parties that Ms Blair was suffering from lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow).  The Regulator contends however that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the injury arose out of employment.  Further, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that it is more probable than not that there is a significant causal relationship between the incident of the 13 December 2012 and Ms Blair's post-incident condition.  Conversely, the Appellant's representative argues there is sufficient evidence before the Commission in support of the position the plate lifting incident on 13 December 2012 resulted in Ms Blair sustaining an "injury", as that term is defined in s 32 of the Act.
  1. [73]
    The medical evidence presented left no doubt that Ms Blair developed epicondilytis in her left elbow.  However, to satisfy the requirements of the Act there must be reasonable proof the incident occurred for the medical evidence to have any weight.  The key point on the matter was examined in Pollock v Wellington[20] where Anderson J. posited: (see also Kudryavtseva v Blackwood). [21]

"…expert medical evidence is only of value where the facts upon which it is founded are provided by admissible evidence. The evidence from the two doctors about the Appellant's history of her injury is not evidence of the facts of that history but does assist in relation to the issue of whether or when she reported the alleged fall and attributed her symptoms to it."

  1. [74]
    With that in mind it is not sufficient to rely on a statement that something happened.   The party alleging the "fact" must provide some direct or corroborative material that demonstrates the existence of a fact in issue.[22]

 Arose out of or in the course of employment?

  1. [75]
    Whilst I am convinced Ms Blair experienced elbow pain, at the very least, in the week proceeding Christmas 2012 and a number of her work colleagues, including Ms Bell and Mr Geraldo, were aware she was experiencing some pain around this time, I'm not persuaded the initial pain and symptoms complained of by Ms Blair specifically arose on the 13 December 2012 as described by her for the following reasons:
  • Ms Blair did not report her elbow pain or symptoms to her supervisor on the afternoon of the 13 December 2012 despite speaking directly to Ms Renwick and seeking permission to leave early due to a stomach bug;
  • Not one of Ms Blair's work colleagues witnessed such an incident occurring;
  • Despite attending a medical appointment with Dr Manzano the following day, there is no record in his notes of any comments by Ms Blair in respect of any elbow pain or an examination by her doctor, despite other records of an ear complaint in the same consultation;
  • Details contained in the tendered incident report in respect of the elbow injury and the oral evidence of both Ms Blair and her housemate Phillip James about the plate lifting incident and the timing associated with Ms Blair seeking medical treatment are inconsistent and unclear; and
  • A contemporaneous file note prepared on 20 December 2012 and retained by Ms Bell indicates Ms Blair was unsure as to whether her elbow pain and symptoms arose out of work and make no mention of the 13 December 2012 plate lifting incident.
  1. [76]
    In Lackey v Workcover Queensland,[23]the Industrial Court held the phrase "arising out of" involves a causal or consequential relationship between the employment and the injury, but does not require a direct or proximate relationship.
  1. [77]
    Whilst at least by the 19 December 2012, it is clear Ms Blair was experiencing some elbow pain and other related symptoms and had reported the pain to her employer, for the reasons set out above I'm not persuaded on the materials before the Commission that the symptoms and pain associated with her condition directly arose out of, or in the course of her employment.

 Was Ms Blair's Employment a Significant Contributing Factor?

  1. [78]
    Whether employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury is a mixed question of law and fact.[24]  In Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor,[25] President Martin referred to Croning v The Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland[26] noting the employment must be the real or effective cause of the injury, not merely the setting in which it occurred and also Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[27] where, at [42], Keane JA said:

“It is clear, as a matter of language, that the words ‘if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury’ are intended to be a requirement of connection between employment and injury additional to each of the requirements that the injury occur in the course of employment or arising out of the employment.”

  1. [79]
    In my view, the mangrove analogy provided by Dr Steadman during the course of his evidence in respect of the degenerative nature of Ms Blair’s injury was compelling.  Whilst he was prepared to accept that Mr Blair’s transferring of plates from the trolley into the kitchen sink could have aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition, the difficulty I have with the Appellant’s argument in respect of the link between the plate incident and the onset of the injury is that I am not convinced Ms Blair’s pain and symptoms arose in the manner described on the 13 December 2012 for the reasons already set out.  Instructively, Dr Steadman also noted:

"I think that this case is really about the issue.  It's about causation.  I mean, we know what's wrong with her and we know, further down the track, how that would be treated but the issue really is taking into account the, you know, her age and various – the conditions that she has – you know was there was an event which was able to incite that and thereby alter the course of the disease.  Or just serendipitously did she develop the condition and just you know, lifting a plate or many plates at work just made the elbow sore as it would be for having the condition so I think that's an important aspect of the case you've highlighted."[28]

  1. [80]
    After considering the materials before the Commission, I have formed the view Ms Blair has not adequately discharged the necessary onus in respect of sufficiently proving, on the balance of probabilities, a connection between her employment and the onset of her elbow injury.
  1. [81]
    I do accept that by the 19 December Ms Blair was openly complaining of pain and symptoms in her elbow.  I also accept that the nature of Ms Blair’s duties were quite physical at times.  However it was the evidence of Dr Ali and both specialists that tennis elbow is degenerative in nature.  As in Croning,[29] the evidence in this matter suggests Ms Blair’s employment was the setting in which her pain and symptoms arose, rather that a significant contributing factor.
  1. [82]
    As such, I consider the Appellant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she suffered an injury on 13 December 2012, which arose out of or in the course of her employment, and that her employment was a significant contributing factor to her injury which is the subject of this Appeal.  Consequently, I conclude the Appellant did not suffer a physical injury in accordance with s 32 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2009.
  2. [83]
    Accordingly, I order:
    1. the appeal is dismissed.
    2. the decision of the Worker's Compensation Regulator of 12 December 2013 is upheld;
    3. the Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed.  In the event agreement cannot be reached between the parties with respect to costs the Respondent has the liberty to apply.

Footnotes

[1] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447; Queensland Airways Limited v Q-COMP WC/2005/13; Dorcy Pacific Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP (WC/2010/14) Decision ; State of Queensland (Department of Communities Disability Services) AND Q-COMP (First Respondent) and Mrs B (Second Respondent) WC/2011/247 Decision .

[2] Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 053.

[3] Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006]1 Qd R 519.

[4] (2004) 177 QGIG 769.

[5] (C/2012/35) - Decision .

[6] (1997) 156 QGIG 100.

[7] 186 QGIG 512 [513].

[8] McDonald v Q-COMP (2008) 188 QGIG 180.

[9] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 16 (R. Blair).

[10] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 16 (R. Blair).

[11]Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 16 (R. Blair).

[12] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 12 June 2014) 7 (P. James).

[13] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 39 (R. Blair).

[14] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 41 (R. Blair).

[15] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 42 (R. Blair).

[16] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 11 June 2014) 7 (A. W. Ali).

[17] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 12 June 2014) 29 (P.B. Steadman).

[18] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 10 June 2014) 16 (P.B. Steadman).

[19] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 12 June 2014) 33 (P.B. Steadman).

[20] Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1 at 3.

[21] Kudryavtseva v Blackwood [2015] QIRC 053 [10] citing Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 680, 681 (Hall P).

[22] Momcilovic v R (2011) 254 CLR 1.

[23] [2000] QIC 43.

[24] Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006]1 Qd R 519 [40]; Theresa Helen Ward and Q-Comp (C/2011/39QIRC).

[25] [2015] ICQ 016.

[26] (1997) 156 QGIG 100.

[27] [2006] 1 Qd R 519.

[28] Transcript of proceedings, Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/12, Commissioner Knight, 12 June 2014) 33 (P.B. Steadman).

[29] Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100.

 

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Rowena Blair v Simon Blackwood (Worker's Compensation Regulator)

  • MNC:

    [2015] QIRC 107

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Knight IC

  • Date:

    01 Jun 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Campbell v Australian Leisure & Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2015] ICQ 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] ICQ 16
Cite 2 - [2015] ICQ 16
Carman v Q-Comp (2007) 186 QGIG 512
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 186 QGIG 512
Cite 2 - (2007) 186 QGIG 512
Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 680
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 185 QGIG 680
Cite 2 - (2007) 185 QGIG 680
Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Cite 2 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Cite 3 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Cite 4 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Dorcy Pacific Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2011] QIRC 4
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QIRC 4
Cite 2 - [2011] QIRC 4
Heald v Q-COMP (2004) 177 QGIG 769
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 177 QGIG 769
Cite 2 - (2004) 177 QGIG 769
JBS Australia Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2013] ICQ 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] ICQ 13
Cite 2 - [2013] ICQ 13
Kudryavtseva v Blackwood [2015] QIRC 53
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QIRC 53
Cite 2 - [2015] QIRC 53
Cite 3 - [2015] QIRC 53
Lackey v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QIC 43
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] QIC 43
Cite 2 - [2000] QIC 43
MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Momcilovic v R (2011) 254 CLR 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2011) 254 CLR 1
Cite 2 - (2011) 254 CLR 1
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[2006] 1 Qd R 519; [2006] QCA 48
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] 1 Qd R 519
Cite 2 - [2006] 1 Qd R 519
Cite 3 - [2006] 1 Qd R 519
Cite 4 - [2006] 1 Qd R 519
Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1996) 152 QGIG 1181
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 152 QGIG 1181
Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 15 WAR 1
Cite 2 - (1996) 15 WAR 1
State of Queensland v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Cite 2 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Stephen Horace MacDonald v Q-COMP (2) (2008) 188 QGIG 180
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) 188 QGIG 180
Cite 2 - (2008) 188 QGIG 180
Tophams Ltd v Sefton (1966) 1 All E. R. 1039
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1966) 1 All E. R. 1039
Ward v Q-COMP [2011] ICQ 33
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] ICQ 33
Cite 2 - [2011] ICQ 33

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Blair v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 42 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.