Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2015
  4. Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 133

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

Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 133

Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 133

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 133

PARTIES:

Gold Coast City Council

(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2014/151

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2015

HEARING DATES:

25 to 27 August 2014

18 September 2014 (Respondent's submissions)

3 October 2014 (Appellant's submissions)

10 October 2014 (Respondent's submissions in reply)

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Knight

ORDERS:

  1. The Appeal is allowed.
  2. The decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) of 11 April 2014 is set aside.
  3. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to the Appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - Whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment - Whether employment a significant contributing factor - Appellant bears onus of proof - Standard of proof - Claim not a compensable injury within s 32 of the Act - Appeal allowed - Decision of the Regulator is set aside - Respondent is to pay Appellant's costs of and incidental to the Appeal to be agreed.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 550

Carman v Q-COMP (2007) 186 QGIG 512

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

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

McDonald v Q-COMP (2008) 188 QGIG 180

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48

APPEARANCES:

Mr P.B. O'Neill of Counsel, instructed by Clayton Utz for the Appellant.

Ms D. Callaghan of Counsel directly instructed for Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator).

Decision

  1. [1]
    The Gold Coast City Council ("the Appellant"/"the Council") lodged this Appeal on 7 May 2014 pursuant to s 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act") seeking to set aside a decision by the Review Unit of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Respondent") on 11 April 2014 to accept an application for workers' compensation for a back injury processed on 18 September 2013 by Mr Darren Huxtable.
  1. [2]
    The Appellant seeks a decision by the Commission that the Appeal be allowed and:
  1. (a)
    The Respondent's decision of 11 April 2014 be set aside and be substituted with a decision to reject Mr Huxtable's Application; and
  1. (b)
    The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to the Appeal.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [3]
    The grounds of Appeal, as set out in the Appeal document, upon which the Appellant relies are as follows:

"a. On 18 September 2013, Darren Huxtable ('the Claimant'), an employee of the Appellant, filed an Application for Compensation dated 17 September 2013 alleging that he sustained a personal injury of a physical nature he described as a "lumbar back strain" injury to his back on 6 September 2013.

b. The Gold Coast City Council Self Insurance Unit rejected the Claimant's claim for compensation in determining that the Claimant did not sustain an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act for the reasons outlined in its decision dated 4 December 2013 ("Self Insurer's Decision").

c. As a result of the Self-Insurer's Decision, the Claimant lodged an Application for Review with the Respondent seeking a review by the Respondent of the Self‑Insurer's Decision.

d. As outlined in its reasons for decision dated 11 April 2014, the Respondent made a decision to set aside the Self-insurer's Decision to reject the Claimant's application for compensation and substituted a decision that the Claimant's application is one for acceptance in accordance with s 32 of the Act.

e. Pursuant to the grounds outlined at part 2 of this WRC Notice of Appeal, the Appellant believes that the Respondent erred for the reasons summarised as follows:

  1. The Respondent's factual conclusions are not supported by the documentation available to the Respondent during the review process;
  2. The submissions and supporting documentation provided in submissions made by the Applicant in reaching its decision;
  3. The Appellant believes that the Respondent did not properly consider and apply relevant case law in reaching its decision."

Issues for Determination and Relevant Legislative Principles and Authorities

  1. [4]
    The Appellant carries the burden of proof in this Appeal on the balance of probabilities.
  1. [5]
    It is conceded by the Appellant that Mr Huxtable is a "worker" for the purposes of the Act and that he has sustained a personal injury, being an aggravation of a pre-existing injury.
  1. [6]
    The Appellant does not accept that Mr Huxtable's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment with the Appellant and that his employment with the Appellant was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. [7]
    In this matter the Appellant must prove, on the balance of probabilities that:
  • Mr Huxtable was not raking bitumen at work on Friday 6 September 2013; and/or
  • Mr Huxtable did not sustain an aggravation of his existing lumbar spine condition as a result of raking bitumen on Friday 6 September 2013.
  1. [8]
    In considering whether Mr Huxtable sustained an "injury" within the meaning of the Act, the Commission must have regard to s 32, 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.

…

  1. (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. (i)
    a personal injury;
  2. (ii)
    a disease;
  3. (iii)
    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]
    In Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[1] Neate C considered the authorities in so far as they related to onus, noting:

"Although the onus to be discharged in 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. [10]
    In Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance[2] 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 does in fact does during the course of employment'."

  1. [11]
    As to aggravation of an injury, in Heald v Q-COMP[3], 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. [12]
    In JBS Australia Pty Ltd and Q-COMP[4] 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. [13]
    Likewise, in Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland[5] 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. [14]
    Relevant to degenerative back injuries and the onset of pain Hall P stated in Carman v Q-COMP[6]:

"It must be remembered that 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. [15]
    The Appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo.[7]

Witnesses

Mr Darren Huxtable

  1. [16]
    Mr Huxtable, the claimant lodged an application for workers compensation on or around 18 September 2013, alleging he sustained an injury to his back on 6 September 2013 while working for the Council.  At the time of the proceedings he had worked for the Council for approximately 24 years and as a leading hand for 17 of those years.  He was working for the "South" team at the time of the alleged injury and performed general labouring work including traffic control and weed spraying.  Mr Huxtable did not report his injury on that day to the Council.

Mr Shane Campbell

  1. [17]
    Mr Campbell was called to give evidence by the Regulator.  He works as a plant operator for the Council across a number of different maintenance groups.  He claimed he observed Mr Huxtable using a rake to spread bitumen on 6 September 2013 and that he was also involved in shovelling on the same day. 

Mr Stephen Edwards

  1. [18]
    Mr Edwards, a maintenance supervisor, was called by the Council to give evidence.  He supervised Mr Huxtable's work and stated he has always been aware of Mr Huxtable's prior history of back problems and arranged his work accordingly.  He says that Mr Huxtable did not advise him that he had hurt his back on 6 September 2013 despite meeting with him about a separate and unrelated workplace injury Mr Huxtable had raised in respect of his ears.

Mr Greg Hallam and Mr Raymond Shepherd

  1. [19]
    Mr Hallam and Mr Shepherd were called to give evidence by the Council.  Mr Hallam is a general labourer and Mr Shepherd is a maintenance worker within the gang overseen by Mr Steel.  Mr Hallam was confident Mr Huxtable was not performing raking duties on 6 September 2013 for up to 20 minutes as described by him.  Mr Shepherd stated he did not observe Mr Huxtable performing raking duties on 6 September 2013.

Mr Paul Steel

  1. [20]
    Mr Paul Steel was called to give evidence by the Council.  Mr Steel works as a leading hand/ganger for the Council.  He recalled work performed by the Council at Driftwood Place on 6 and 9 September 2013.  He did not recall Mr Huxtable raking or shovelling on 6 September 2013 and he did not recall Mr Huxtable approaching him on that day to report a workplace related injury.

Dr Robert Cargill

  1. [21]
    Dr Cargill, General Practitioner, was called to give evidence by the Regulator.  Mr Huxtable was a patient of Dr Cargill since around 2000.  Dr Cargill noted that Mr Huxtable had experienced back problems for a long period of time and he had previously issued him with Workers' Compensation certificates.  He referred Mr Huxtable to a physiotherapist and also ordered a CT scan to be performed after being advised by Mr Huxtable that he had back pain on 9 September 2013.

Mr Mark Waldron

  1. [22]
    Mr Waldron, a Physiotherapist was called to give evidence by the Regulator in respect of his treatment of Mr Huxtable for ongoing lower back pain. 

History of prior back pain Claims made by Mr Huxtable

  1. [23]
    The Appellant submitted a list of Mr Huxtable's prior pre-existing back injuries which have led to eight worker's compensation claims with the Appellant.  These claims spanned a time period from 2002 to 2013.  All claims related to back problems incurred by Mr Huxtable whist working for the Council and all claims had been accepted by the self-insurer. 

Events of 6 September 2013

  1. [24]
    Mr O’ Neill, Counsel for the Appellant submits the determination of this claim relates to an assessment as to the credibility of the various witnesses who have given evidence before the Commission.
  1. [25]
    Mr Huxtable had worked for the Council for approximately 24 years and as at September 2013 he was also an elected Health and Safety Representative and a CFMEU Union delegate.  He described his day-to-day work duties as that of a "rouseabout" in that he performed a number of duties, however, his job description was that of a leading hand ganger for the previous 17 years. 
  1. [26]
    The work to be performed on 6 September 2013 by the Council was to repair a section or sections of a footpath in a park behind houses at Driftwood Place.  Certain areas of the footpath had been damaged by tree roots.  The footpath was a combined pedestrian/bicycle path which was located in a park behind some residences.  Repair work was undertaken by the "South" team at this location on Friday 6 September 2013 and Monday 9 September 2013.
  1. [27]
    On 6 September 2013, Mr Steel had the proposed work at Driftwood Place allocated to his team by Mr Edwards.  Mr Edward's evidence was that he was aware of Mr Huxtable's back problems and as a consequence of that awareness he stated that he was always careful in what work he assigned to Mr Huxtable.  On that day, Mr Huxtable and Mr Scovelle were designated traffic controllers.  Mr Edwards explained that Mr Scovelle had been placed on permanent restricted duties because of back injuries.
  1. [28]
    The team assembled to perform work on 6 September 2013 at Driftwood Place consisted of:
  1. (a)
    Mr Hallam and Mr Shepherd, who were both Maintenance workers and experienced in laying bitumen;
  2. (b)
    Mr Campbell was a Plant Operator who had been "hired out  to the Roads and Drainage branch to operate a bobcat and who worked with the team for up to three days a week;
  3. (c)
    Mr Scovelle was to perform traffic control duties, but also drove the bitumen truck from time to time;
  4. (d)
    Mr Huxtable was to perform traffic control duties.
  1. [29]
    It is not controversial that the work required sections of the footpath to be "profiled", which meant that the upraised sections of asphalt needed to be dug out and removed with the use of a bobcat.  After that work was completed, fresh asphalt was laid in those areas.  Mr Campbell was responsible for performing the profiling work.
  1. [30]
    Witnesses generally agreed that at least two repair patches were undertaken on that day although there is some confusion and contention as to the location of the second repair patch.  It is how the work on that day was undertaken and by whom that requires consideration of the evidence of those involved.
  1. [31]
    Mr Huxtable's evidence was that on 6 September 2013 Mr Edwards had instructed him to go to the site at Driftwood Place and perform traffic control work.
  1. [32]
    Prior to commencing work at Driftwood place on the morning of 6 September 2013, Mr Edwards said that Mr Huxtable reported to him he was suffering from ringing in the ears, otherwise called "tinnitus" and that he had first suffered from the problem in March 2013.  Mr Edwards said he asked Mr Huxtable why he had waited seven months to tell him this.  He said Mr Huxtable's response was "Because I'm reporting it now".  Mr Edwards said that he wasn't pleased with these events and reminded Mr Huxtable that it was his responsibility to inform him if he had been injured.  He then told Mr Huxtable that an Incident Report would need to be completed on that day.  When Mr Huxtable returned to the Council offices later on the afternoon of 6 September 2013 to assist with the preparation of the incident report for his ear injury, Mr Edwards said that Mr Huxtable made no mention of hurting his back. He also noted Mr Huxtable entered the room and held his discussions in respect of his ears in no apparent pain or discomfort. 
  1. [33]
    In cross-examination, Mr Huxtable was asked by the Council why he had not reported his back pain (which he had recorded at being nine out of ten in intensity) to Mr Edwards on 6 September 2013, when on the same day he met with Mr Edwards and reported his Tinnitus which he said arose seven months earlier on another job.  Mr Huxtable’s recall in respect of the details of his meeting with Mr Edwards and his reporting of the Tinnitus in his ears was somewhat vague, but he acknowledged it could have happened.  However, Mr Edward's evidence was that an Incident Report had been completed on 6 September 2013 to that effect by Mr Huxtable and he said later that he could recall that occurring
  1. [34]
    The first job undertaken on 6 September 2013 at Driftwood place was to "profile a section of the footpath".  Mr Campbell carried out this part of the job on his bobcat, which also included the interchanging of various tools including a profiler and a sweeper on the bobcat.  Mr Huxtable said that while Mr Campbell was moving the rubbish with the bobcat, he was performing traffic control duties.
  1. [35]
    During the proceedings an agreement was reached between the parties concerning the tender of photographs.  The agreement was that the photographs would be tendered for the purpose of identifying landmarks around where the work had been performed at Driftwood Place.  Of concern to the Appellant was that the photographs had not been put to its witness, Mr Hallam.  Mr Hallam had not accepted that there was a patch repaired behind house number seven as he believed it would have been difficult getting the Flocon truck in and out of the easement.
  1. [36]
    There was an easement between two properties at Driftwood Place where the bobcat was required to remove a wooden barrier.  Mr Huxtable's evidence was that, after the bobcat had removed its material, a Flocon truck drove from Driftwood Place to the bicycle path on the easement between houses number seven and nine. 
  1. [37]
    Mr Huxtable said one of the patches worked on that day was behind house number nine which was identified on a Google Earth map of the park behind Driftwood Place.  His evidence was there was no work performed behind house number eleven on 6 September 2013.
  1. [38]
    Concerning the mechanism of how the bitumen was dispensed from the Flocon truck, Mr Huxtable said it was released in batches and the piles were spread by workers shovelling and then raking the bitumen.  There was general consensus amongst the remaining witnesses in respect of how the bitumen was released, including Mr Campbell, that it was not practical to release the bitumen too quickly or too voluminously given the challenges associated with spreading it when and if it cooled down too quickly.
  1. [39]
    Mr Huxtable thought that Mr Steel may have done some raking at that time the first patch was being repaired.  Although somewhat confusing, his evidence was the first patch was about 20 metres long and took between three quarters of an hour to an hour to complete.  During this period, Mr Huxtable said he continued with his traffic control duties and did not participate in any raking or shovelling.  In contrast, Mr Campbell was quite clear that Mr Huxtable did participate in some raking on the first patch which he said Mr Huxtable continued on with despite complaining of a twinge in this back.  The remaining Appellant witnesses who were present on the day did not observe Mr Huxtable raking when the first patch was being completed. 
  1. [40]
    A similar procedure was undertaken on the second patch.  After the bitumen had been dispatched in batches, Mr Huxtable said he and Mr Campbell began raking the substance.  He also thought Mr Steel might have been shovelling the bitumen at the other end of the truck.  This is contrary to the evidence given by Mr Hallam and Mr Shepherd.  Mr Hallam said he saw Mr Shepherd using a rake but at no stage did he see Mr Huxtable raking or shovelling.  Mr Shepherd agreed he had been using a rake but was quite clear he had not seen Mr Huxtable shovelling or raking on that day. 
  1. [41]
    Mr Huxtable recalled picking up the rake and helping Mr Campbell.  Mr Huxtable's evidence was that they usually all pitched in and helped each other out on the job though he wasn’t entirely specific about which particular roles they assisted one another with.  He thought he had raked for approximately 15 to 20 minutes but stopped when he experienced pain in his back.  The pain was strong for about half an hour which he assessed at a level of nine out of ten.  He was unable to recall what he did after he experienced the pain.  Mr Huxtable's evidence was the pain had subsided considerably by Saturday 7 September 2013, and he had played a game of lawn bowls for three hours.  He assessed his pain threshold was around two out of ten, but after playing bowls, it had increased to four out of ten.  By Sunday, however, he was not feeling much pain at all.
  1. [42]
    On Monday 9 September 2013, Mr Huxtable said he awoke with quite severe back pain.  He visited his General Practitioner, Dr Cargill on that day and explained he had a sore back.  Dr Cargill's patient records for the consultation which commenced on or around 8.40 am included:

"back sore again

Hurt back again Feb. not sure why this time. LSS1 type area both sides seeing physio".

  1. [43]
    Mr Huxtable did not advise Dr Cargill he had been playing lawn bowls on the previous Saturday nor did he tell Dr Cargill that he had been raking at work on 6 September 2013.  Dr Cargill ordered CT scans to be undertaken and noted a long history of lower back pain and symptoms in Mr Huxtable's patient records.
  1. [44]
    Mr Huxtable contacted his supervisor, Mr Edwards on Monday 9 September 2013 to advise that he was sick and could not attend work.  He provided no further details during the phone call as to the reason for his absence.  Mr Edward's evidence was that Mr Huxtable denied his absence was work related.
  1. [45]
    Mr Huxtable contacted Mr Edwards again the next day advising him he was unwell but did not indicate his absence was work related.  On Wednesday 10 September 2013, Mr Huxtable advised Mr Edwards he was now on "workers' compensation".  During his conversation with Mr Edwards he advised he believed his injury was caused by raking at work and that he had reached his conclusion when his Physiotherapist, Mr Waldron had asked him to recount what had occurred at work on the last day and he recalled he had been raking.
  1. [46]
    In cross-examination, Mr Huxtable agreed that as a Health and Safety Representative he had attended a five day Health and Safety course on 21 November 2012.  He had also attended a similar course in March 2007.  Mr Huxtable agreed the Council regularly reinforced with employees their obligations to report workplace health and safety incidents within 24 hours of these events occurring.  Mr Huxtable said if he had reported every pain he experienced in his back that he would not retain his job.
  1. [47]
    Mr O'Neill on behalf of the Appellant submitted Mr Huxtable had suffered back pain before 6 September 2013, which was clear from patient notes retained by his Physiotherapist for a consultation on 3 September 2013.  Whilst Mr Waldron's notes do not record how Mr Huxtable had hurt his back, he vaguely recalled him mentioning it could have occurred at work but was unsure as to how this may have happened. 
  1. [48]
    On 3 September 2013, Mr Huxtable's diary notes indicate he had taken Family Leave.  The day before, Monday 2 September 2013, had been Mr Huxtable's rostered day off ("RDO").  During the proceedings Counsel suggested to Mr Huxtable that he had been away from the workplace for four days and that the problems with his back had actually started on or before 3 September 2013 and not 6 September 2013.
  1. [49]
    Mr Huxtable was also asked whether he had only thought about raking at work on 6 September 2013 as being a possible cause of his injury after he had a discussion with Mr Waldron on 10 September 2013.  At that time, Mr Waldron had advised Mr Huxtable the CT scan had found some bulges in his spine.

Medical Evidence

  1. [50]
    Dr Cargill was called to give evidence by the Appellant.  He reported that Mr Huxtable had been a patient of his since around 2000.
  1. [51]
    Dr Cargill said that he summarised the information given to him by patients and that his notes were fairly brief.  He confirmed that Mr Huxtable had back symptoms and pain for a long period of time. 
  1. [52]
    In considering the records concerning Mr Huxtable, Dr Cargill stated:

"He's had lumbar disc disease for a long time.  He used to work fairly heavy work.  He used to clean gully boxes or something, from memory, and he had – he's had several episodes of lower back pain that he's been on workers' compensation for.  He's had lots of rehabilitation.  I can, from memory, I can't remember exactly when, but memory, the city council had paid for a gym membership for him to do and exercise and try and strengthen his back.  He has had a bit of history of back problems".

  1. [53]
    Dr Cargill had no independent recollection of Mr Huxtable's visit to him on 9 September 2013.  CT scans were performed on 9 September 2013 and 11 August 2013 and both were similar "with the exception that early compression of the right L5 nerve root within the neural foramen was reported on the latter scan".
  1. [54]
    After receipt of the CT scan, Dr Cargill said it confirmed he retained a small L4‑5 disc protrusion.  There had been a suggestion in that report that Mr Huxtable might have an early compression of the exiting right L5 nerve root and he thought an MRI might be appropriate.
  1. [55]
    Mr Huxtable's next visit to Dr Cargill was on 11 September 2013.  It was during this consultation that Mr Huxtable had advised him for the first time he had felt back pain on 6 September 2013 whilst raking at work. 
  1. [56]
    Dr Cargill's evidence was that people with chronic back pain have pain all the time with which they learn to live, but that back pain can flare up.  He did not think Mr Huxtable's playing lawn bowls on Saturday 7 September 2013 would cause him to alter his view about Mr Huxtable's problems with his back.
  1. [57]
    Dr Cargill subsequently diagnosed lumbar back pain and recommended Mr Huxtable return to work on suitable duties from 24 September 2013.
  1. [58]
    Dr Cargill was asked by Counsel for the Appellant if the signs of progression of Mr Huxtable's back as viewed from CT scans taken in 2006 and 2013 could be a consequence of natural degeneration.  Dr Cargill observed that spines do degenerate with age, but he stated that he could not give a qualified opinion to that question.  He also acknowledged he was unaware that Mr Huxtable had been performing lighter duties since his earlier workers' compensation claims where the work was usually described as fairly hard physical work.
  1. [59]
    Dr Cargill agreed that if in fact there was no raking incident which had occurred involving Mr Huxtable on 6 September 2013 at the workplace, then there could be some other non-work related cause for his back pain.
  1. [60]
    After providing Dr Cargill with the history given by Mr Huxtable - i.e. the onset of severe pain on 6 September 2013 with a pain intensity of nine out of ten; that pain abating on 6 September 2013 in the afternoon; the pain level being two out of ten on Saturday 7 September 2013 but increasing to four out of ten later in the day and Mr Huxtable playing lawn bowls for three hours on Saturday afternoon, Dr Cargill was asked if Mr Huxtable could possibly have aggravated his back condition by playing bowls.  He agreed it was possible but said he had not been aware of anyone injuring their back from playing lawn bowls.  Later, he acknowledged he had previously advised that squatting and kneeling could aggravate Mr Huxtable's existing lumbar problems. 
  1. [61]
    Mr Waldron's evidence was Mr Huxtable's first consultation with the practice from which he operates was on 13 February 2013 with another Physiotherapist, Ms Morten.  The notes from that consultation show Mr Huxtable was suffering back pain resulting from an incident where he twisted his back while sitting in a chair.  Mr Waldron accepted this type of incident was not uncommon.  Ms Morton had also recorded in her notes of February 2013 that Mr Huxtable should be performing exercises and hamstring stretches before and after playing bowls.
  1. [62]
    Mr Huxtable had consulted Mr Waldron prior to 3 September 2013 but had not seen him since July 2013.  On 3 September 2013, Mr Huxtable had presented with an aggravation to his lumbosacral spine and advised Mr Waldron he was unsure as to how that occurred.  Mr Waldron agreed that basically the references in his notes translated to Mr Huxtable having aggravated his lumbosacral spine.  Later, on 10 September 2013, Mr Waldron's notes from his consultation with Mr Huxtable recorded "raking at work on Friday – Lsp got worse over the weekend." 
  1. [63]
    In cross-examination, Mr Waldron, who had considered the CT scans ordered by Dr Cargill, was advised by Council that Mr Huxtable had a previous CT scan seven years earlier which confirmed a L4‑5 central disc protrusion and also a disc bulge.  Mr Waldron's response was that if there had been a pre-existing scan showing a disc bulge that it could be said that his condition was an aggravation of a previous condition.  Mr Waldron said it was difficult to confirm that lumbar disc protrusion is of necessity a degenerative condition. 
  1. [64]
    Mr Waldron was not given any information by Mr Huxtable as to his playing bowls on Saturday 7 September 2013.  Mr Waldron could see some correlation between Mr Huxtable's recordings of two out of ten pain on Saturday morning increasing to four out of ten after he had been playing lawn bowls for three hours on Saturday.
  1. [65]
    Mr Waldron noted the difference in Mr Huxtable's presentation between 3 September 2013 and 10 September 2013.  The difference was noted in the level of pain upon palpation. He was of the opinion the reported symptoms had increased since 3 September 2013.  In Mr Waldron's view, that situation was consistent with an event causing an exacerbation between those dates.
  1. [66]
    The Regulator put the following proposition to Mr Waldron:

"...in relation to the evidence you provided about the lawn bowls, if Mr Huxtable had already experienced an increase in symptoms and we know from your note that he had increased symptoms, aggravated lumbosacral spine pain on the 3rd of September 2013.  If he was, in fact, standing at lawn bowls for three hours, bending down to – in the bowling action and bending down on a regular number of occasions to pick up his bowls, all of those types of body actions, sir, I suggest are the type of actions that are consistent with giving rise to either an aggravation or an exacerbation of somebody with his type of back condition?" 

Mr Waldron responded "Possibly".[8]

  1. [67]
    Mr Waldron had a similar a similar proposition put to him by the Respondent where the emphasis was on whether it was possible that "raking" at work could have led to an aggravation or exacerbation of a person with Mr Huxtable's back problems which could be exhibited through a delayed onset of his condition and Mr Waldron answered "yes".

Submissions

  1. [68]
    There was conflicting evidence given as to who was performing particular aspects of work on 6 September 2013, though aside from Mr Huxtable and Mr Campbell there was general consensus between the men on the asphalt team that they had not observed Mr Huxtable raking on 6 September 2013.
  1. [69]
    The Respondent produced, in submissions, a matrix highlighting the difference in evidence given by the relevant persons working for the Council on 6 September 2013 noting it was unsurprising the workers were not in agreement concerning every detail of the work undertaken on that day.
  1. [70]
    The Respondent identified Mr Edwards, Mr Hallam, Mr Shepherd and Mr Steel had all changed the evidence they had previously given to Mr Middleton, an investigator for the Council.  The excuse given for the change of evidence was as Mr Steel explained "we all got together, all – all of us, when we did the – when it first come to light."
  1. [71]
    As well, the Respondent pointed out that Mr Huxtable and Mr Campbell were not part of the bitumen crew that would normally perform the work involved at Driftwood Place.  Mr Huxtable was appointed to the crew to do traffic control work.  Mr Campbell worked with the crew two to three days per week.
  1. [72]
    The Appellant asserted the difference in evidence given is highlighted when considering the evidence given by Mr Huxtable and Mr Campbell.  This factor was significant as Mr Campbell corroborated Mr Huxtable's evidence that he was using a rake on 6 September 2013 and that he had complained of a problem with his back at that time.
  1. [73]
    The Appellant submits that the Commission would have doubts about the accuracy and veracity of the evidence of both Mr Huxtable and Mr Campbell.
  1. [74]
    These concerns are considered hereunder:
  1. (a)
    Mr Campbell and work on the first patch
  1. (i)
    Mr Huxtable could not recall who was controlling the flow of mix from the Flocon truck.  Mr Campbell said it was Mr Shepherd who was pressing the button, but witnesses Mr Hallam, Mr Shepherd and Mr Steel said it was Mr Hallam who performed this duty;
  1. (ii)
    Concerning the first patch worked on that day, Mr Huxtable said he had not done any raking at this time.  He said it was probably Mr Shepherd who was shovelling.  Mr Campbell said it was Mr Hallam, Mr Shepherd and Mr Steel who were shovelling and raking at that time.  Each of the Appellant witnesses said it was Mr Hallam alone who was shovelling.  Mr Huxtable could not recall who was using the steel rake on the first repair patch, or who was using the wooden rakes, but Mr Campbell said Mr Huxtable was raking with Mr Shepherd.
  1. (iii)
    Mr Campbell's evidence was he and Mr Huxtable were raking on the first patch and that Mr Huxtable was working "right beside me".  Mr Campbell recalled Mr Huxtable telling him "he felt a twinge in his back.  He goes - and he's rubbing his back and you think nothing of it.  You tell him to harden up, you know?  It's a hard job and just take it on the chin and, you know, work through it.  It's probably just a cramp or something."[9] 
  1. (iv)
    While working on the second patch, Mr Campbell said Mr Huxtable was again performing raking work.  However, Mr Campbell was clear that Mr Huxtable hurt his back during work on the first patch.  Mr Huxtable's evidence was that he had hurt himself when work was being performed on the second patch.
  1. (v)
    Mr Edwards' evidence was that he did not know what work any of the individuals had specifically performed on 6 September 2013.  He stated that he had not given Mr Huxtable any instruction not to assist the bitumen crew with shovelling, raking or brooming on that day or any other day.  However, Mr Edwards said he believed that Mr Huxtable was on a suitable duties plan.  He said "Darren Huxtable was given work that I thought he was capable of doing that - that wouldn't cause any injury to his bad back."[10]  The "lighter work" that Mr Huxtable did was to perform traffic control work.
  1. (b)
    Mr Huxtable working on the second patch
  1. (i)
    While working on the second patch, Mr Huxtable said he was performing raking duties with Mr Campbell who had been shovelling.  He said that the raking had taken him between 15 to 20 minutes to complete.  This is when Mr Huxtable said he had injured his back.
  1. (ii)
    The Appellant said that according to Mr Campbell's evidence, Mr Huxtable was raking on the second patch after he had hurt himself on the first patch.  This was not Mr Huxtable's evidence.
  1. (iv)
    The evidence of Mr Hallam, Mr Steel and Mr Shepherd was that the only person who had shovelled at that point was Mr Hallam.  The Respondent said that Mr Shepherd did not know whether or not Mr Huxtable was raking bitumen on 6 September 2013.
  1. (v)
    Mr Huxtable said he had walked away from working on the second patch when he hurt his back.  When questioned about what he did when he walked away from the job, Mr Huxtable said he didn't do anything.  The Appellant said Mr Huxtable's evidence around this point showed he "had an apparent difficulty in answering a simple question."
  1. (vi)
    Council asked Mr Huxtable whether he had advised Ms Kassie Wentworth (a rehabilitation counsellor) that "When he went to collect a rake from his truck he felt a sharp pain in his lower back" and his response was he couldn't recall saying that.
  1. (vii)
    Mr Huxtable said he had not told anyone about his back, although Mr Campbell's evidence was to the contrary.  Mr Campbell said this "banter" between him and Mr Huxtable about Mr Huxtable's back occurred in close proximity to Mr Hallam, Mr Steel and Mr Shepherd.  The Appellant stated this evidence from Mr Campbell was not put to those witnesses by the Respondent.
  1. (viii)
    Considering this evidence, the Appellant submitted the version of events as between Mr Huxtable and Mr Campbell are contradictory.
  1. (c)
    The manner in which the bitumen was dispensed from the Flocon truck.
  1. (i)
    The Appellant submitted that this factor required consideration as the evidence given by Mr Huxtable was that when the bitumen was dispensed from the Flocon truck, everyone "pitched in" to get it shovelled and raked as quickly as possible.
  1. (ii)
    Mr Huxtable's evidence was the second patch was about 10 metres long and Mr Steel might have been raking further up the patch than Mr Huxtable.  Mr Huxtable said the bitumen was dropped at various areas and then people had to try to spread it out which required everyone to respond including he and Mr Campbell. 
  1. (iii)
    The Appellant said Mr Hallam's evidence was that he dropped the mix in one area only, which was an area of about one metre to two metres wide and he shovelled and Mr Steel used the garden rake to disperse the mixture.  Mr Huxtable disagreed with this proposition.
  1. (iv)
    The Respondent said there was no evidence of Mr Hallam saying how the mix was dropped in one area only, and that it was an area of about one metre to two metres.
  1. (v)
    The evidence showed Mr Hallam was controlling the bitumen truck and the flow of asphalt.  Mr Hallam agreed with the Respondent the mix from the truck came out in one lot.  However, in cross‑examination, Mr Hallam stated "I can't put the whole lot out, because it's hot mix.  I – I've been told – and I get abused if I put too much out and – because they can't catch up, because as soon as it hits the ground, it starts to cool down, and the cooler it is, the harder it is to rake and final trim it, so I stop each time.  I'll go and shovel a bit; then I'll move the truck forward and I'll have a little bit of a rest…"[11]
  1. (vi)
    However, the Appellant put to Mr Huxtable that the fundamental problem with his description was that the mixture goes off very quickly.  It starts to cool and becomes increasingly hard to spread.  Mr Huxtable agreed.
  1. (vii)
    Council put the following question to Mr Huxtable, "and therefore, as I've put to you, the system of work that is adopted is to do small patches only, at a time.  You don't dump multiple patches of Hot Mix, sir, because of the problem of it cooling.  Do you agree with that?  

Mr Huxtable replied: "No, I disagree, sir."[12]

  1. (viii)
    The Appellant submitted Mr Huxtable did not really understand the process undertaken in dispensing with the bitumen.  Consequently, the Appellant said Mr Huxtable's comments he and Mr Campbell pitched in to assist could not be accurate.  The Appellant said this "would seem to confirm the evidence of Mr Steel, Mr Hallam and Mr Shepherd that he (Mr Huxtable) did not undertake hard physical work".
  1. (ix)
    Against that submission, the Respondent said Mr Hallam had said while he was fairly certain Mr Huxtable had performed pedestrian control duties, because the pathway was blocked, he could not say "100%" for sure that Mr Huxtable had not been raking on that day. 
  1. (x)
    When cross-examined on that point, the following question was put to Mr Edwards by Council "Can I pose another question to you.  If it was suggested to you that Mr Huxtable was raking for half an hour - raking bitumen for half an hour on Friday, the 6th of September, what do you say about that proposition?" 

Mr Edwards: "No". 

Counsel: "Did not happen?"

Mr Edwards: "No.  Oh, no.  I don't think so."[13]

  1. (xi)
    The Respondent pointed out Mr Hallam, in cross-examination, replied to the following question from the Respondent: "Now, Mr Hallam, in your role on the asphalt crew, is it your experience that chaps such as Mr Scovelle actually pitch in and help to get the work done?" to which Mr Hallam responded "Everybody." The Respondent asked "and that includes Mr Huxtable?" Mr Hallam responded "Yep".
  1. (d)
    Further Issues concerning Mr Huxtable's credibility

These issues include:

  1. (i)
    On the morning of 6 September 2013, Mr Edwards had chided Mr Huxtable for reporting health issues with his ears when those problems dated back to March 2013.  His concern related to Mr Huxtable's non- compliance with Council practice of reporting health issues or at least within 24 hours of them occurring.  With that in mind, the Appellant questioned why Mr Huxtable did not report his back problems on that day (when his pain threshold had been nine out of ten) as he had spoken to Mr Edwards in the afternoon of 3 September 2013 and completed an Incident Report relating to his ear problem.
  1. (ii)
    The Respondent says that Mr Huxtable's evidence that he did not want to report every twinge he had in his back for fear of losing his job was plausible.  While the Respondent says that Mr Huxtable described his condition on 6 September 2013 as a "twinge" in his back, the Appellant points out that he recorded his pain level at nine out of ten.
  1. (iii)
    The Appellant said that it was implausible that Mr Huxtable could undergo such significant pain on Friday 6 September 2013 and not mention that to Dr Cargill on Monday 9 September 2013 when he had experienced various levels of pain over the week-end and had experienced severe pain on Monday morning.  In the Appellant's view, Mr Huxtable's belated version of events on 11 September 2013 was unconvincing.
  1. (iv)
    The Appellant also drew attention to Mr Huxtable's telephone conversation with Mr Edwards on Monday 9 September 2013 when he stated that he was simply sick and could not attend work.  Mr Edwards claims to have enquired as to whether Mr Huxtable's ears were the cause of his illness or whether it was connected with work and Mr Huxtable replied that he was just sick.  There had been no plausible explanation given by Mr Huxtable on that occasion.
  1. (v)
    Mr Huxtable's onset of pain on 3 September 2013 had not been evidence given by Mr Huxtable during examination in chief, but had been obtained by the Respondent when acquiring consultation notes from Body Applications where Mr Waldron worked.  The Appellant contends that it is more likely the pain suffered by Mr Huxtable on 3 September 2013 was non work related as Mr Huxtable had four days off work prior to 3 September 2013.
  1. (vi)
    Mr Huxtable had not given Dr Cargill any information concerning his onset of pain on 3 September 2013.  In terms of his playing bowls on Saturday 7 September 2013, this had not been mentioned either to Mr Waldron or Dr Cargill.
  1. (vii)
    The Appellant also raised the evidence given by Mr Huxtable concerning the movements of the Flocon truck and how it could have been positioned without damaging the repair patches.  While the Respondent suggested that Mr Huxtable's difficulty with his responses on that point was that he was tired from giving his evidence (3 hours and 39 minutes), the Appellant suggests that Mr Huxtable was caught out with his inconsistent evidence.
  1. (viii)
    The Appellant argued Mr Hallam had given clear and unambiguous evidence with respect to the manner in which the bitumen was distributed and the sequence or positioning of the Flocon truck along the bike/pedestrian footpath whilst the patches were being attended to. 

Findings and Conclusions

  1. [75]
    In this matter the Appellant must convince the Commission, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Huxtable's injury either did not arise out of or in the course of his employment as a labourer with the Council; or was one to which his employment was not a significant contributing factor.  To meet that test, the Appellant bears the evidential onus of placing evidence before the Commission which goes to that point and it also has the persuasive onus in that the evidence must persuade the Commission that Mr  Huxtable's claim should not be have been one for acceptance.

Did Mr Campbell rake bitumen on the first patch?

  1. [76]
    Despite the inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr Hallam, Mr Shepherd and Mr Steel in respect of the location of the bitumen patches and the whereabouts of Mr Campbell and to a lesser extent Mr Huxtable at all times whilst the maintenance work was being undertaken on 6 September 2013, I am satisfied that on balance Mr Huxtable did not rake any bitumen whilst the first patch was being fixed and was instead involved in the traffic control and monitoring duties which Mr Edwards normally allocated to him.
  1. [77]
    Whilst Mr Campbell's evidence was that he observed Mr Huxtable raking during this time, a close review of his evidence, in my view, revealed he did not have a full grasp of the roles undertaken by all the men in the asphalt team and in particular the manner in which the bitumen was distributed across the patches.  This is entirely understandable given Mr Campbell's role was to operate the bobcat, undertake the profiling and sweep and remove the associated rubbish, whilst the remaining team members commenced shovelling and raking the bitumen.  Mr Campbell's evidence in respect of which roles were undertaken by various team members at times also seemed to draw from his collective experience across a number of sites or jobs rather than his specific recall of what actually occurred on 6 September 2013.
  1. [78]
    Whilst it is the case that the Appellant's witnesses also struggled to recall certain details in respect of the work undertaken on the first patch on 6 September 2013, they were all quite firm in respect of Mr Huxtable's involvement with any raking of the first patch.  Further, on his own evidence Mr Huxtable said that he had not been raking on the first patch.

Did Mr Huxtable work on the second patch?

  1. [79]
    While working on the second patch, Mr Huxtable said he was performing raking duties with Mr Campbell who had been shovelling.  He said that the raking had taken him between 15 to 20 minutes to complete.  This is when Mr Huxtable said he had injured his back.  Mr Campbell's evidence was that Mr Huxtable continued to undertake raking work on the second patch despite him complaining of back pain on the first patch.  However Mr Huxtable's evidence was that he had hurt himself after about 15 minutes and that he had walked away.  The evidence of Mr Hallam, Mr Steel and Mr Shepherd was that the only person who had shovelled at that point was Mr Hallam.
  1. [80]
    Mr Hallam's evidence in respect of the bitumen that he "can't put the whole lot out, because it's hot mix.  I – I've been told – and I get abused if I put too much out and – because they can't catch up, because as soon as it hits the ground, it starts to cool down, and the cooler it is, the harder it is to rake and final trim it, so I stop each time.  I'll go and shovel a bit; then I'll move the truck forward and I'll have a little bit of a rest…", was persuasive.
  1. [81]
    It is clear the men were required to work within close proximity to one another and would have clearly observed Mr Huxtable raking on the second patch if he had in fact been undertaking this role.
  1. [82]
    Whilst the Appellant's witnesses were unable to fully account for Mr Huxtable's location or the nature of his duties for every minute of the working day on 6 September 2013, their evidence in respect of the manner in which the work was undertaken and the various roles held by team members in combination with the inconsistencies and contradictions in Mr Huxtable and Mr Campbell's evidence supports a finding that Mr Huxtable did not undertake any raking work on the second patch on 6 September 2013.

Whether or not Mr Huxtable's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment?

  1. [83]
    In my view, it is implausible that an employee with Mr Huxtable's training and experience in safety and workers' compensation matters could have waited until 11 September 2013 to advise his Doctor and employer that he had injured his back raking bitumen, in circumstances where he rated his pain on 6 September 2013 at a nine out of ten level.
  1. [84]
    On the day Mr Huxtable alleges he experienced the severe back pain, he met with Mr Edwards in respect of the preparation of another workplace incident report relating to an injury to his ears, yet made no comments in respect of any back pain or injury he may have incurred on 6 September 2013 despite being reminded of the importance of timely reporting on that day and despite his evidence that his pain levels had hit a nine out of ten some hours prior to his discussions with Mr Edwards.
  1. [85]
    Further, despite speaking to Mr Edwards on both 9 and 10 September 2013 when he advised he would not be attending work due to illness, Mr Huxtable failed to mention any work related back injury despite being specifically asked by Mr Edwards if his absence was related to work on the Monday when he first called in to say he was sick and notwithstanding his past experience, training and knowledge of Workplace Safety matters, along with Workers' Compensation claims and processes.
  1. [86]
    Mr Huxtable had also previously reported back pain to his Physiotherapist on 3 September 2013, well before 6 September 2013 noting he was unsure as to how he aggravated his lower back pain.
  1. [87]
    Whilst the evidence does not necessarily support a finding that Mr Huxtable's bowling activities or the manner in which he may have slept led to the onset of his back pain, I am satisfied based on the material before the Commission that Mr Huxtable's lower back injury and pain did not arise whilst undertaking maintenance work or raking duties on 6 September 2013.
  1. [88]
    Whilst Mr Huxtable has a long and extensive history of lower back pain and/or injuries during his employment at the Council, I am satisfied that the claim that is the subject of this Appeal is not a compensable injury within the parameters of s 32 of the Act.
  1. [89]
    For all of the foregoing reasons the Appeal is upheld and the decision of the Regulator is set aside.  The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to the Appeal to be agreed.  In the event agreement cannot be reached between the parties with respect to the costs, the Appellant has the liberty to apply.

Footnotes

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

[2] Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance [2006] QCA 48.

[3] Heald v Q-COMP (2004) 177 QGIG 769.

[4] JBS Australia Pty Ltd and Q-COMP (C/2012/35) - Decision .

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

[6] Carman v Q-COMP (2007) 186 QGIG 512.

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

[8] Transcript of proceedings, Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/151, 26 August 2014) 88 (M. M. Waldron).

[9]Transcript of proceedings, Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/151, 27 August 2014) 11 (S. Campbell).

[10]Transcript of proceedings, Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/151, 25 August 2014) 41 (S. J. Edwards).

[11] Transcript of proceedings, Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/151, 25 August 2014) 61 (G. W. Hallam).

[12] Transcript of proceedings, Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/151, 26 August 2014) 109 (D. R. Huxtable).

[13] Transcript of proceedings, Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, WC/2014/151, 25 August 2014) 47 (G. W. Hallam).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Gold Coast City Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • MNC:

    [2015] QIRC 133

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Knight IC

  • Date:

    17 Jul 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
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
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 185 QGIG 680
Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Cite 2 - (1997) 156 QGIG 100
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
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QIRC 53
Cite 2 - [2015] QIRC 53
MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[2006] 1 Qd R 519; [2006] QCA 48
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCA 48
Cite 2 - [2006] QCA 48
Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1996) 152 QGIG 1181
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 152 QGIG 1181
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

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.