Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2015
  4. Pope v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 170

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

Pope v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 170

Pope v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 170

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Pope v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 170

PARTIES:

Pope, Peter

(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

2015/WC000171

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2015

HEARING DATES:

24 & 25 August 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Neate

ORDERS:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The decision of the Regulator is set aside.
  3. The Regulator is to return the Appellant's application for compensation to WorkCover to determine the period for which the incident on 21 November 2014 continued or continues to aggravate the Appellant's personal injury.
  4. The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - physical injury - claim that injury was aggravated by forklift stopping unexpectedly - whether incident occurred - whether incident was a significant contributing factor to worker's injury - appellant bears onus of proof on balance of probabilities

CASES:

Adelaide Stevedoring Company Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538

Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 008

Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia (1975) 2 NSWLR 190

Gaudry v Pacific Coal P/L [1996] QCA 525

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

MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100

Qantas Airways Ltd v Q-Comp and Michelle Blanch [2009] 191 QGIG 115

Queensland (Queensland Health) v QComp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447

Thorpe v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 22

APPEARANCES:

Mr C. Newton, Counsel instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers for the Appellant.

Ms D. Callaghan, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.

Decision

  1. [1]
    Peter Mark Pope ("the Appellant") is employed as a storeperson by Costa Fresh Logistics P/L and Polar Fresh Investments P/L ("Polar Fresh") in its warehouse at Parkinson.  His work includes operating Reach fork lifts.  He claims to have incurred an injury to his neck as a result of an incident in the course of his work at his place of employment on 21 November 2014.  He has not worked since then.
  1. [2]
    By decision dated 11 June 2015 and sent to the Appellant on 12 June 2015, the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Respondent") confirmed the decision of WorkCover Queensland ("WorkCover") to reject his application for compensation in accordance with s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act").
  1. [3]
    The Appellant has appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") in respect of that decision.  He originally sought to have the decision set aside and the Commission order that:
  1. (a)
    the Appellant's applications for compensation be allowed; or
  1. (b)
    the file S13LC136779 (the initial injury event) be reopened and further that the medical certificates provided in S13UV156233 (the second injury event) be considered conformably with the Act within S13LC136779.
  1. [4]
    In submissions made at the conclusion of the hearing, the Appellant sought orders that the Respondent's decision be overturned and the matter remitted to WorkCover to determine the period for which the incident (described in these reasons as the "third incident") continued or continues as the case may be.
  1. [5]
    That appeal was heard at the same time as an appeal against a decision by the Respondent dated 12 May 2015, and sent to the Appellant on 12 June 2015, that confirmed the decision of WorkCover to terminate his entitlement to compensation (in relation to the injury sustained on 1 June 2014) from 11 December 2014 in accordance with sections 144A and 144B of the Act.
  1. [6]
    At the conclusion of the evidence in relation to both appeals, the parties settled the latter appeal.  The Commission made orders by consent in relation to that appeal on 25 August 2015.

 Background

  1. [7]
    The Appellant commenced working for Polar Fresh in October 2013 through a labour hire company.  He subsequently became an employee of Polar Fresh.  The Appellant is 36 years of age.  He has been driving forklifts since the age of 15 and is very experienced in operating Reach forklifts.  In October 2013, he was assessed as competent to drive a Reach forklift.  The Assessment form for Reach Forklift Operation (Exhibit 3) which he completed on 11 October 2013 shows, among other things, that the Appellant correctly understood that he could travel in a Reach forklift at "a fast walking pace."  He was trained to keep all parts of his body within the cab, and to use both hands to control the machine.  His practical assessment showed that he maintained appropriate operating speeds, demonstrated correct braking (and emergency braking) procedures, and that the correct feet position was maintained.  In his oral evidence, the Appellant noted that there is little room to put one's feet other than over the two foot pedals (or dead man pedals) on the floor of a Reach forklift.  Pressure on those pedals is an essential precondition to the movement of a forklift.  That movement is initiated and guided by using the joystick, and is manipulated using the steering wheel.
  1. [8]
    Before February 2014, the Appellant suffered no neck or shoulder pain or injury.  Three incidents in the workplace are said to be relevant to his appeal.  They occurred respectively on 17 February 2014, 1 June 2014 and 21 November 2014.  The third incident gives rise to these proceedings.  Given the way this case has been argued, it is appropriate to set out not only details of those three incidents, but also evidence about intervening events, including various tests in relation to the Appellant's injury, graduated return to work arrangements, and apparent changes to his symptoms between those events.  The following summary draws on extensive written evidence (much of it tendered by consent and not tested or referred to during the hearing) as well as the oral evidence.

Three incidents

  1. [9]
    First incident: On 17 February 2014, in the course of his work, the Appellant grabbed a box of bananas from a pallet at shoulder height.  As he lowered the box he felt a sharp pain in the top of his left shoulder and the bottom left side of his neck.  He reported that incident and his symptoms and made a WorkCover claim.  The condition was originally thought to be muscular in nature.  He received physiotherapy and returned to work on a graded program.  Christopher ("Chris") Smith, the return to work coordinator at Polar Fresh, assisted the Appellant, including by writing his suitable duties plan.
  1. [10]
    An examination of the Appellant's cervical spine by X-ray on 4 March 2014 showed the alignment and disc spaces appeared normal, the bony architecture was preserved, and the intervertebral foramina were not narrowed (Exhibit 1).
  1. [11]
    The Appellant said that he reported exacerbation of pain due to driving on two occasions in March 2014.
  1. [12]
    In March 2014, Dr Afrasiabi provided medical certificates stating that the Appellant was not fit for duties on 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 March 2014.  The last certificate stated that he was suffering from neck and shoulder sprain (Exhibit 1).
  1. [13]
    Over time, the Appellant's condition improved so that, although it was not 100 per cent, he could continue doing his normal duties including as a forklift operator.
  1. [14]
    Second incident: On 1 June 2014, the Appellant moved a carton of rock melons which was at the top left back of a pallet.  He reached forward, grabbed the handle and pulled the carton towards himself.  The Appellant felt the same pain in his upper shoulder and on the left side of his neck.  He reported the event and was treated by Dr Wagner, a general practitioner, initially for muscle strain and later for bursitis in the left shoulder.  He was subsequently referred to Dr Bansi, an upper limb orthopaedic surgeon.
  1. [15]
    An ultrasound examination of the Appellant's left shoulder on 13 June 2014 found the rotator cuff intact with no tear, and no other significant features (Exhibit 1).
  1. [16]
    During the period between 3 June 2014 and August 2014, the Appellant was working on and off, usually on light duties including in the confectionery room then office work.  He said that he left work at one stage in July because of the pain he experienced while doing office work.  That pain was made worse by driving and other activities including typing at his desk.  He was not doing much activity at home and was not doing his usual exercises (such as sit-ups, push-ups, and lifting weights) in the period between the second and third incidents.
  1. [17]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 25 June 2014 stated that the Appellant required treatment from 6 June until 17 July 2014 but was capable of returning to suitable duties for that period (Exhibit 1).
  1. [18]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 15 July 2014 stated that the Appellant had no capacity for any type of work on that day and would be reviewed on 17 July 2014 (Exhibit 1).
  1. [19]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate issued by Dr Afrasiabi dated 17 July 2014 stated that the Appellant had no capability for any type of work for the period 16 to 22 July 2014 and would be reviewed on 22 July 2014 (Exhibit 1).
  1. [20]
    On 5 August 2014, Dr Bansi wrote to Dr Wagner describing the symptoms experienced by the Appellant following the first and second incident, and the results of his examination of the Appellant.  Dr Bansi asked the Appellant to have an MRI arthrogram of his shoulder.  In the meantime, the Appellant was to remain on light duties.  Dr Bansi gave the Appellant a certificate for suitable duties from 4 August to 4 September 2014.
  1. [21]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 7 August 2014 stated that the Appellant was capable of performing suitable duties from 16 July 2014 until 14 August 2014 (Exhibit 1).  On 8 August 2014, the Appellant was given a certificate for total incapacity for that day as his pain was too great.
  1. [22]
    An MRI scan of the Appellant's left shoulder was undertaken on 11 August 2014 and reviewed on 14 August 2014.  No significant injury to his rotator cuff or long head of biceps was seen (Exhibit 1).
  1. [23]
    On 18 August 2014, Dr Bansi wrote to Dr Wagner noting that he had seen the Appellant for review of the MRI scan of his shoulder which did not demonstrate any significant injury to his rotator cuff or long head of biceps.  Having ascertained from the Appellant that the first incident caused some neck pain which persists, Dr Bansi asked the Appellant to have an MRI scan of his neck.
  1. [24]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 15 August 2014 stated that the Appellant had no capability for any type of work on that day and would require treatment until 26 August 2014 (Exhibit 1).
  1. [25]
    An MRI of the Appellant's neck was undertaken on 21 August 2014.  The comment in the report of the MRI refers to "some early degenerative changes, most notable at C3-4 level with mild broadbased posterior disc bulge present with some very minimal crowding of left C3-4 exit foramina." 
  1. [26]
    On 26 August 2014, Dr Bansi:
  1. (a)
    referred the Appellant to Dr Gatehouse, a specialist orthopaedic surgeon dealing in spinal surgery, for his "review and management;" and
  1. (b)
    wrote to Dr Wagner advising her that the MRI scan demonstrates two levels of disc pathology, of which a "significant disc bulge at the C3/4 level … is the more likely to be clinically relevant," and that he had asked the Appellant to see Dr Gatehouse for "further advice about management for this condition"  (Exhibit 1).
  1. [27]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 30 August 2014 stated that the Appellant had no capability for any type of work on 28 and 29 August 2014 and would require treatment until 20 September 2014 (Exhibit 1).
  1. [28]
    A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 1 September 2014 stated that the Appellant had no capability for any type of work for the period 1 until 11 September 2014 and would require treatment until 20 September 2014 (Exhibit 1).
  1. [29]
    On 8 September 2014, while waiting to obtain an appointment to see Dr Gatehouse, the Appellant saw Dr Bansi for pain relief.  Dr Bansi provided a WorkCover medical certificate stating that the Appellant was incapable of working from 8 to 11 September 2014.  The Appellant delivered the certificate to Chris Smith at Polar Fresh.
  1. [30]
    On 8 September 2014, Dr Bansi wrote to Dr Wagner advising that he had seen the Appellant for further review and was advised that the Appellant had not been able to work over the previous week due to "persisting neck and arm pain."  The Appellant had obtained a WorkCover certificate to keep him off work until he saw Dr Gatehouse on 11 September 2014.
  1. [31]
    The Appellant saw Dr Gatehouse on 11 September 2014 and he recommended a nerve root block and physiotherapy.  Dr Gatehouse wrote to Dr Wagner, advising that the Appellant's pain "may be arising from the cervical spine in a referred type pattern" and the Appellant was to have that injection. 
  1. [32]
    The Appellant said that he had total incapacity between about late August and 8 October 2014.  Chris Smith, who assisted in writing the Appellant's plan, said that the Appellant was on suitable duties due to his partial or temporary incapacity for approximately four months until October 2014.
  1. [33]
    On 12 September 2014, Chris Smith sent an email to an officer of WorkCover attaching a medical certificate for the Appellant and advising that, as discussed, Polar Fresh had suitable duties available for the Appellant (Exhibit 7).  Mr Smith supported WorkCover arranging an occupational therapist to come on site to consider duties for the Appellant.
  1. [34]
    On 19 September 2014, Dr Gatehouse wrote to WorkCover in response to a request for information regarding the Appellant.  Dr Gatehouse referred to the Appellant's "ongoing troubles with left trapezial and shoulder type symptoms" which the Appellant related to a work-related injury in March that year and a further aggravation in June when he was lifting a carton of rock melons.  Investigation excluded the symptoms being attributed to his shoulder joint or subacromial region.  An MRI scan had demonstrated a degenerative disc at C3/4 where there was "diffuse bulge."  There was also "minor encouragement onto the neuroforaminal but without significant impingement or compromise."  According to Dr Gatehouse, it was "likely that the changes at C3/4 are pre-existent and a component of his pain may be considered an aggravation.  He is likely to have further musculoligamentous injury.  This would be considered a new injury."  (Exhibit 5)
  1. [35]
    Dr Gatehouse advised that the treatment received by the Appellant to date had been investigation and treatment with respect to his shoulder.  He had not had specific neck intervention.  At that stage, Dr Gatehouse was uncertain whether the Appellant's pain was related to the cervical spine.  That pain "may be rising from the cervical spine in a referred type pattern" and Dr Gatehouse had arranged for the Appellant to have a CT guided injection about the C4 nerve root.  That injection would be both a diagnostic and therapeutic measure.
  1. [36]
    Dr Gatehouse also advised that the Appellant would have capacity to return to work on a modified basis, and that might best be assessed by a workplace occupational therapist.
  1. [37]
    On 19 September 2014, at the request of WorkCover Queensland, Brody Dwyer from Momentum 4 Health and Injury Management ("Momentum 4"), completed a comprehensive work site assessment for the Appellant at his workplace.  This included a review of all work duties, both suitable duties and pre-injury duties.  Suitable duties were identified for the Appellant's return to work.  These were light and sedentary in nature and support frequent breaks in order to reduce static loading of the neck.  The Appellant reported that he would have no limitations performing these suitable work tasks.  A letter from Momentum 4 of that date asked Dr Gatehouse to review the suitable duties program attached to that letter and asked whether Dr Gatehouse could advise whether the Appellant could safely resume a return to work process prior to his scheduled review on 11 October 2014 (Exhibit 6).  Dr Gatehouse indicated "No."  The Appellant's work capacity was to be determined during a review on 11 October 2014.
  1. [38]
    The first CT nerve root block was administered at C3/4 on 26 September 2014 (Exhibit 1).  According to the Appellant, it "went well."
  1. [39]
    The Appellant consulted Dr Gatehouse on 8 October 2014.  The Appellant reported significant improvement and Dr Gatehouse certified that he could return to work for suitable duties.  The Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 8 October 2014 stated that the Appellant was suffering from "C4 root pain - cervical" and that he was fit to return for suitable duties from 8 October until 8 December 2014, that he would require treatment during that period (specifically physiotherapy), and that he would be reviewed again in November 2014 (Exhibit 5).
  1. [40]
    On 8 October 2014, Dr Gatehouse wrote to Dr Wagner and advised that a CT guided block performed around the C4 root "provided very good relief with a substantial improvement in his symptoms over the last 24 hours."  He continued:

"Diagnostically this would confirm this is the area of concern.  Presently, he is having a continued therapeutic benefit from this so we're going to hold off on further interventions.  I have, therefore, certified Peter to return to modified duties.  I will review him in about a month's time to ensure we are heading in the right directions."  (Exhibit 5)

  1. [41]
    On 13 October 2014, Chris Smith sent an email to WorkCover attaching a new medical certificate for the Appellant and noting that the specialist returned him to work on suitable duties from 8 October 2014.  According to Mr Smith, the Appellant "only dropped the certificate in this morning and has not turned up this afternoon.  He has effectively been absent from several shifts already."
  1. [42]
    On 14 October 2014, WorkCover rang the Appellant to ask why he was not at work and they discussed the suitable duties plan.
  1. [43]
    On 16 October 2014, the Appellant and Chris Smith signed a suitable duties plan dated 7 October 2014 which referred to the date of injury as 1 June 2014 (Exhibit 4).  The return to work goal was 40 hours per week doing the duties of a storeman.  Chris Smith described it as a "reintegration plan" to allow a gradual return to normal duties including forklift duties.  That goal would be reached in four weeks.  The schedule was for the Appellant to work eight hours each day for two days in week one, eight hours each day for three days in week two, eight hours for four days in week three, and eight hours for five days in week four.
  1. [44]
    The Appellant's work included filing, keyboard typing and other office work, as well as picking up rubbish. He said that his injury was exacerbated by those activities, looking down at his work bench.  It appears, however that the Appellant had a "fair bit of time off" work in October for various reasons, including pain from his work and having his car repaired.
  1. [45]
    On 5 November 2014, Chris Smith sent an email message to an officer of WorkCover advising that the Appellant had said he would not be coming to work that day as he had some things that needed to be sorted out (Exhibit 7).  Mr Smith noted that the Appellant's car was the reason for not coming to work in the previous week.  Mr Smith wrote that he did not think the Appellant had completed a full week of days that he was supposed to be at work since returning on restricted days.  He also let the Appellant know that he would advise WorkCover that the Appellant was not following the plan because often he was not coming to work.
  1. [46]
    On 10 November 2014, the Appellant spoke to someone at WorkCover in relation to his claim being suspended and there was a discussion about his absences from work.  The Appellant said that he was advised not to take time off work.  The Appellant said that he advised WorkCover that it was "really hard to do anything that they're asking me to do because it hurts."  Yet he agreed in cross-examination that by that date his neck pain had settled from what it was (it was "almost gone" and the restriction in his neck had "loosened up a lot").
  1. [47]
    On 11 November 2014, the Appellant consulted Dr Gatehouse and said that, although not 100 per cent, he was much better.  Dr Gatehouse provided a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate to the effect that the Appellant was suffering from a "Post cervical disc prolapse", that he was fit for suitable duties from 11 November until 11 December 2014, and that he would be fit to return to normal duties from 11 December 2014 (Exhibit 5).  There was a suitable duties program in place by that stage and he could increase his work in a graduated fashion.
  1. [48]
    On 12 November 2014, Dr Gatehouse wrote to Dr Wagner in relation to the final review of the Appellant:

"He is not having any troubles at present and doesn't have neck or referred symptoms.

Overall I am very happy with his progress today.

I have therefore certified him to return to normal duties.  He is having a progressive increase in activity over the next month.  If there are any further troubles he will be in contact."  (Exhibit 5)

  1. [49]
    According to the Appellant, he followed the plan to eventually return to full duties.  However, there is evidence that the Appellant was away from work for various reasons in November.  For example, the Appellant was issued with a doctor's certificate on 13 November 2014 saying that he was unfit for duties on that day (Exhibit 1)
  1. [50]
    Chris Smith recalled the Appellant returning to normal duties involving the forklift on about 14 November 2014.  Apparently, he was back on a forklift for a couple of shifts in November.  It was not clear whether he was rostered off work on 19 and 20 November 2014 or was at work and using a forklift.
  1. [51]
    The Appellant described the condition of his neck about this time as better after the nerve block injection.  Although there was some restriction in his neck, it was not as bad as prior to the injection.  As noted earlier, he was not doing exercises at home.
  1. [52]
    Third incident: In the afternoon of 21 November 2014, the Appellant was operating a forklift at work and had collected a pallet with a load of cheese.  He was standing, and not leaning backwards, as he manoeuvred the forklift.  He was facing the steering wheel, with his right hand holding the joystick with light pressure and his left hand holding the knob on the horizontal steering wheel.  He was proceeding backwards towards the aisle into which he needed to turn, and was looking over his left shoulder.  The forklift was travelling at a fast walking pace.  The Appellant asserts that the forklift came to a sudden and unexpected halt, apparently over the distance of between one and two metres, when the emergency brake was activated.  According to the Appellant, he almost fell out of the forklift through the gap on his left side but restrained himself by holding on to the knob on the steering wheel with his left arm, thus bracing himself against falling.  As a consequence he experienced the same stabbing, shooting pain to his upper shoulder and lower neck as on the two previous occasions.  He did not fall out of the forklift.
  1. [53]
    A DVD in evidence showed two examples of a similar forklift travelling in the vicinity of where the Appellant was working on 21 November 2014, and then coming to a halt (Exhibit 8).  According to the Appellant, the second example was more accurate in showing how a forklift stops in response to the emergency brakes.  That recording shows the forklift halting with the operator's body moving slightly.  In each case the driver was consciously causing the forklift to stop.
  1. [54]
    The Appellant reported the incident and filled out an incident report (Exhibit 1 pp 13-14).  The Appellant said that he put the load of cheese in a bay, and dropped the pallet in the receiving lane after letting Deborah White, the floor manager, know of the incident and suggesting that there might be something wrong with the forklift because it stopped suddenly.  Of his own accord, the Appellant also tagged the forklift for inspection in order to investigate why the incident occurred.
  1. [55]
    In the incident report, the Appellant wrote:

"Driving along & the L footpedal suddenly popped up stopping the forklift.  As a result of the sudden stop, I was about to fall out of the forklift but managed to hang on with my left hand on the steering wheel.  Felt a sharp pain in my neck & down to my left shoulder.  Forklift has been tagged out."  (Exhibit 5)

  1. [56]
    Events after the third incident: The Appellant saw Dr Gatehouse on 26 November 2014 and was issued with a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate.  That certificate described his condition as "recurrent left neck & shoulder symptoms" and stated that the Appellant was not able to work at all from 21 November until 21 December 2014, and that he would be reviewed again in December 2014 (Exhibit 5).
  1. [57]
    Dr Gatehouse wrote to Dr Wagner on 28 November 2014 and stated that the Appellant:

"was doing well until he had a further aggravation of his symptoms whilst driving a forklift at work.  The brake caught or ceased on the forklift he was driving and he has had a jerk through the left side.  He has had a recurrent onset of neck and referred shoulder symptoms.

In this circumstance I asked Peter to have a repeat C4 nerve sheath injection.  If this fails to settle his pain than I have asked him to have a repeat MRI scan."  (Exhibit 5)

  1. [58]
    Dr Gatehouse referred the Appellant for a CT guided left CA nerve root injection, which was administered on 8 December 2014 (Exhibit 1).  This apparently was not successful and surgery was recommended.
  1. [59]
    The Appellant has not returned to work since the third incident and was unable to afford the surgery.

Possible cause of third incident

  1. [60]
    Appellant's evidence: The Appellant gave evidence that:
  1. (a)
    there are multiple places for a driver to place their feet to put pressure on the pedals;
  1. (b)
    in order to operate a Reach forklift, there must be weight on both pedals at all times;
  1. (c)
    except in an emergency, it is not appropriate to brake by using those pedals; and
  1. (d)
    it would not be difficult to find a position in the cabin where the Appellant's feet were not on the pedals.

The Appellant agreed that if the left pedal popped up and there was nothing wrong with the forklift, he must have moved his foot off the pedal. 

  1. [61]
    Three other current or former employees of Polar Fresh, each with experience as a forklift driver, gave evidence in relation to the third incident and incidents of that type.
  1. [62]
    Christopher Smith's evidence: As noted earlier, Chris Smith knew the Appellant as a result of their dealings in relation to the Appellant's injury and associated return to work arrangements.  Mr Smith became aware of the alleged incident about 10 minutes after it occurred.  The Appellant told him that pedals popped up causing the forklift to stop suddenly.  The Appellant said he had to hold on to stop himself falling out of the cabin, and injured his neck and shoulder area.  Mr Smith said he was surprised because he had never heard of these pedals popping up before.  He asked the Appellant to confirm that the pedals popped up causing the forklift to stop.  Mr Smith asked whether the Appellant had tagged out the machine, and the Appellant confirmed that he had taken it to Crown, the manufacturer of the forklift.  A full maintenance report was required in relation to the pedals.
  1. [63]
    Chris Smith also noted that:
  1. (a)
    there are approximately 35 Reach forklift trucks on the floor at any one time;
  1. (b)
    this was the first time he was aware of someone falling out of a forklift;
  1. (c)
    he was not told of any witnesses to the incident;
  1. (d)
    although there is a CCTV on site, and the Appellant asked for any footage of the incident, there was no footage in that area; and
  1. (e)
    James Smith, the operations manager, conducted a further investigation.
  1. [64]
    James Smith's evidence: James Smith, an operations manager for Polar Fresh at the time of the third incident, is very experienced in the operation of forklifts, having been licensed at 18 years of age.  (He was 43 at the time of the hearing).  In 2007, he first drove Reach forklifts.  His role as operations manager included receiving information in relation to injuries.  His first dealings with the Appellant were when the Appellant was injured in late 2013.  On 21 November 2014, Chris Smith informed him about the third incident.  James Smith described the alleged incident as out of the ordinary.  He was keen to view what had happened, and the Appellant subsequently showed James Smith where the incident occurred and discussed it with him.  According to James Smith, there was no mention of expansion joints or the Appellant's foot being off the dead man pedal.  The Appellant asked for CCTV footage to be obtained, and Mr Smith was unaware why such footage could not be produced.
  1. [65]
    James Smith gave evidence that he had never seen an incident involving a foot pedal that just popped up.  Although he has heard of a foot coming off the pedal, he has not heard of a person nearly falling out of a forklift.  However, he had no reason to doubt that the incident occurred in the way described by the Appellant.  He said that when a brake is disengaged, a forklift travelling at fast walking pace will stop in about one metre.
  1. [66]
    Joshua James's evidence: Joshua James gave evidence in relation to the operation of a Reach forklift.  He had operated such a forklift at Polar Fresh for about 10 months in 2013 and early 2014.  Although not as experienced as the Appellant, he described the way in which a forklift is manoeuvred using the joystick (for acceleration and deceleration and to operate the brake) and the steering turntable, and the way the dead man pedals operate.  He stated that on occasions there can be difficulties in keeping both feet on the pedals (e.g. when going over a bump in the floor of the type near a roller door) and that is more likely when the driver is sitting rather than standing.  When the forklift is travelling at full speed (9 - 13 km/hr) and a foot comes off the pedal, the forklift comes to an immediate stop, within one to two metres.  Mr James gave evidence that he had been thrown from a forklift and had run to a stop.  He also confirmed that (as is apparent from the photographs in evidence) there is little at the left side of a driver on which a driver could brace himself if the forklift stops unexpectedly.  Rather, there is "a big gap - to go out of."  Mr James is a friend of the Appellant and was not aware of where Mr Pope said the incident occurred.
  1. [67]
    Assessment of the evidence: The only plausible suggestion for the forklift stopping unexpectedly is that one (or both) of the dead man pedals was released.  Why that occurred was not explained, but was the subject of some speculation.
  1. [68]
    Three brief observations about the evidence about the circumstances surrounding the incident are appropriate:
  1. (a)
    Although some witnesses referred to the existence of narrow expansion joints between slabs of concrete on the workplace floor, there was no evidence that the forklift came to an unexpected stop as a result of hitting a bump created by the filling of an expansion joint.  At most, the Appellant speculated that if the forklift had hit an expansion joint the consequent bump might have redirected his weight to one side so that one of his feet came off a pedal, thus activating the brake.
  1. (b)
    The forklift was inspected, and both parties accept that there was no mechanical fault which would have given rise to the forklift stopping unexpectedly in the way described by the Appellant.
  1. (c)
    Despite the fact that there is a CCTV camera in the area where the incident occurred, there is apparently no CCTV footage of the incident.  There is evidence that on 21 November 2014 the Appellant enquired of his employer whether such footage existed.

The meaning of "injury" and the conduct of the appeal

  1. [69]
    The issues in this appeal must be resolved by reference to the relevant provisions in s 32 of the Act.  At the relevant time, those provisions stated:

"32Meaning of injury

(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if—

(a)for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder—the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; or

  …

 (3)Injury includes the following—

  …

(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—

(i)a personal injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder;

…

(4)For subsection (3)(b) and (ba), 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. [70]
    This appeal was conducted as a hearing de novo.  The Appellant bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that every relevant element of the definition of "injury" in s 32 of the Act has been satisfied.  In other words, he has to prove that his condition falls within that definition of "injury."[1]

 Medical evidence

  1. [71]
    By consent, a series of medical reports and other medical records at various dates throughout 2014 were tendered (Exhibit 1).  None of the authors of those documents gave oral evidence, and the documents provide background to the injury sustained by the Appellant and the treatment he received.  In summary, it is apparent that the Appellant was treated for muscular pain in his neck and shoulder until at least 21 August 2014 when the MRI scan of his neck disclosed the bulge at C3/4.  Even then it was some weeks until, following the successful CT nerve root block was administered on 26 September 2014, Dr Gatehouse was satisfied that this was "the area of concern."
  1. [72]
    The only doctor to give oral evidence was Dr Gatehouse, whose reports are referred to and quoted earlier in these reasons.  As already noted, Dr Gatehouse sent a report to WorkCover dated 19 September 2014 in which he advised that investigation excluded the Appellant's symptoms being attributed to his shoulder joint or subacromial region.  An MRI scan had demonstrated a degenerative disc at C3/4 where there was a "diffuse bulge."  There was also "minor encouragement onto the neuroforaminal but without significant impingement or compromise."  According to Dr Gatehouse, it was "likely that the changes at C3/4 are pre-existent and a component of his pain may be considered an aggravation.  He is likely to have further musculoligamentous injury.  This would be considered a new injury."  (Exhibit 5)
  1. [73]
    In his oral evidence, Dr Gatehouse said that:
  1. (a)
    he was not certain whether the diffuse bulge was a pre-existing asymptomatic condition or a consequence of injury;
  1. (b)
    normal movement with no pain but some stiffness could be consistent with those pre-existing changes;
  1. (c)
    an injury could have provoked the onset of symptoms and that could be aggravation or exacerbation from a pre-existent level, even though it had been asymptomatic;
  1. (d)
    the Appellant could have cervical and muscular conditions at the same time;
  1. (e)
    a muscular injury could be a new injury (with more diffuse pain), and the cervical injury could be an aggravation of a pre-existing disc injury;
  1. (f)
    it was difficult to attribute the injury to one or more of the three incidents involving the Appellant's neck in 2014.
  1. [74]
    Dr Gatehouse acknowledged that the Appellant received no further medical treatment, apart from physiotherapy, after 8 October 2014 and that by 11 November 2014 the Appellant's symptoms seem to have "settled down."  No further treatment was recommended on that date.  He did not know whether the June injury had ceased by 11 November 2014, although the Appellant's symptoms appeared to be resolved.  Dr Gatehouse agreed that the three incidents were aggravations of a pre-existing degenerative condition of the neck, and said that the Appellant had a "continued problem."
  1. [75]
    In a report to WorkCover dated 13 March 2015, Dr Gatehouse reviewed the history of the assessment and treatment of the Appellant in 2014.  In response to a question whether the Appellant's current symptoms and need for surgery were related to the injury events of 24 February 2014, 1 June 2014, or 21 November 2014, or all or some of those events, Dr Gatehouse wrote:

"Mr Pope appears to have had three injuries, as noted by yourself, in February, June and lastly in November 2014.  Mr Pope describes an injury in February (my notes state March), and then subsequently in June.  The June injury however appears to be the most significant when he has been lifting a carton of rock melons and this appears to be the event which has prompted further referral and subsequent investigation.  He has settled since that event but then had a further escalation of symptoms with the event driving a forklift in November 2104.  (sic)

I would therefore consider that all the events have contributed to his present symptoms.  The predominant event would be that of June 2014.  However the event in November 2014, although not the initiating event, has led to failure of resolution."  (Exhibit 5)

  1. [76]
    In light of that answer, Dr Gatehouse continued:

"With respect to percentage terms and the extent related to each of these events, I would consider that they would be equal in their contribution.  In some respects, there has likely been ongoing presence of injury since his initial event and the further episodes have led to an escalation in this regard."

  1. [77]
    Dr Gatehouse confirmed in his oral evidence that the request for surgery was based on the most recent and prior events, and that the most significant event was lifting the carton of melons in June 2014.  He described that event as a significant contributing factor to the Appellant being off work in December 2014.  Dr Gatehouse also described the event in November as a significant contributing factor to being certified as unfit for work as at 11 December 2014 and in relation to the proposed cervical surgery.

The issues

  1. [78]
    The Respondent conceded (and I find) that the Appellant is a "worker" and that he sustained a personal injury, being an aggravation of pre-existing degeneration of his C3/4 cervical spine on or around 21 November 2014.  The issue is whether the injury occurred at his place of work in the manner described by the Appellant.  Consequently, for the appeal to succeed, the Appellant must satisfy the Commission on the balance of probabilities that:
  1. (a)
    the injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment; and
  1. (b)
    his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. [79]
    The evidence in relation to:
  1. (a)
    the incident that the Appellant asserts occurred on 21 November 2014; and
  1. (b)
    the Appellant's physical condition before the incident and immediately after it,

 is summarised earlier in these reasons.

Appellant's submissions

  1. [80]
    The Appellant submits that:
  1. (a)
    he has suffered an aggravation of an asymptomatic pre-existing degenerative cervical condition at the C3/4 level;
  1. (b)
    all three injury events (i.e.  the incidents on 17 February, 1 June and 21 November 2014) lit up the symptoms and pathology at that level and progressively contributed to them;
  1. (c)
    the third incident is a "nothing event" which, but for the first two events, would certainly not have resulted in an injury and necessitated a claim by the Appellant.
  1. [81]
    In the Appellant's submission, the trauma and forces involved in the third incident were "very modest indeed" and he understood at the time that it was merely a recurrence of the earlier pathology and not a "new event."
  1. [82]
    The Appellant points out that he was doing what he was employed to do every day, namely, to drive a forklift in a free standing position.  He does not suggest that anything about the forklift stopping was unusual other than the fact he did not expect the forklift to stop at that time, having been travelling at a fast walking pace.  In his submission, the forklift stopping would not produce injury if the operator was expecting it and was ready for it.  On this occasion, however, it was an unexpected event.  Consequently, the Appellant was not prepared for it and suffered an injury in attempting successfully to not fall from the cabin.
  1. [83]
    Although he acknowledges that the Respondent bears no evidentiary onus, the Appellant submits that the Respondent has produced no evidence on which to sensibly argue that there was no injury.
  1. [84]
    In support of his submission that the incident occurred, the Appellant refers to and relies on the evidence:
  1. (a)
    that the incident was reported immediately to Deborah White, the floor manager (who was not called to give evidence);
  1. (b)
    that the incident was reported to Chris Smith, and he did not dispute that;
  1. (c)
    that Chris Smith and James Smith accept that the Appellant requested CCTV footage of the incident which, had it existed, might have been the best evidence of how the incident occurred;
  1. (d)
    of James Smith that workers at Polar Fresh had misplaced their feet while operating Reach forklifts;
  1. (e)
    of Joshua James about the operation of the forklift and that he had cause to technically fall from such a forklift;
  1. (f)
    that James Smith, the state manager of Polar Fresh, thought the incident was unusual but appears to have accepted it, having been "walked through" it by the Appellant; and
  1. (g)
    that, given the unexpected timing of the forklift stopping and the Appellant's position side on to the direction in which the forklift was travelling, he had saved himself from being thrown out of the forklift by using his left arm, with the result that his symptoms flared up.
  1. [85]
    On that basis, the Appellant submits that the Commission would have no doubt that the incident occurred and that there was an escalation of aggravation of his symptoms as a consequence of that incident.
  1. [86]
    The Appellant relies on the expert medical opinion evidence of Dr Gatehouse, in particular his evidence that:
  1. (a)
    incident on 1 June 2014 has "causal potency" in the Appellant's condition;
  1. (b)
    the cause of the Appellant's condition is multifactorial;
  1. (c)
    each of the three incidents contributed equally to that condition;
  1. (d)
    as a result of the condition, the Appellant needs spinal surgery and cannot work;
  1. (e)
    the incident on 21 November 2014 was a significant contributing factor to the Appellant's injury.
  1. [87]
    The Appellant submits, correctly, that the decision whether he has satisfied the requirements of s 32 of the Act remains with the Commission and is not one for a doctor or doctors to make.  In that respect, however, he quotes the following passage from the judgement of Reynolds JA in Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia:[2]

"when a medical witness speaks of a probability of a causal relationship, he is himself drawing an inference based on medical knowledge and the facts as known to him.

There is no doubt that, if a medical witness expressed the view that there is a connection, or that there is probably a connection, between the suggested cause and the result, a case is made out for consideration of the issue by the tribunal of fact."

  1. [88]
    The Appellant submits that there should be a finding that the work incident caused an aggravation of the underlying pathology, and that the incident was a significant contributing factor to that pathology, and hence the claim for compensation should have been allowed and the appeal should succeed.  In particular, he submits that the injury sustained on 21 November 2014 was a manifestation and re-expression of the injury arising from the incident on 1 June 2014 which has not resolved.  In other words, his cervical pathology (from a previous work-related injury) was not repaired.
  1. [89]
    The Appellant notes that his claim proceeds to the extent of the aggravation.  He submits that, in circumstances where the more weighty cause of the current incapacity is in events which predated 21 November 2014, the best approach would be to order the Regulator to return the matter to WorkCover to determine when the Appellant's incapacity from the injury ceased.[3]  That submission has even more practical force given the terms of settlement in relation to the appeal in WC/2015/170.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [90]
    The Respondent submits that the Appellant has not satisfied his onus of proof in establishing that he sustained an "injury" for the purpose of s 32 of the Act.
  1. [91]
    The initial issue identified in that submission is whether the Appellant's account of the alleged event can be relied upon and accepted by the Commission.  In support of the submission that the incident did not occur in the manner described by the Appellant, the Respondent refers to:
  1. (a)
    various accounts of the incident provided by the Appellant (in his incident report, discussions with WorkCover, and discussions with Chris Smith and James Smith) which "implied a rather dramatic event" and "suggested significant forces were involved;"
  1. (b)
    the evidence of Chris Smith, including that he was surprised that such an incident could occur, and that he had not heard of that happening previously;
  1. (c)
    the evidence of James Smith, who was also surprised having not seen or heard of such an event;
  1. (d)
    the DVD and other evidence about the speed and stopping distance and stopping motion of a Reach forklift in that workplace; and
  1. (e)
    the need for the Appellant to have been holding and operating the right-hand control so that the forklift would move.
  1. [92]
    Second, the Respondent notes that the Appellant could not nominate any witnesses to the incident.  The only support he had for the occurrence of the incident was Joshua James, whose evidence is summarised earlier in these reasons.
  1. [93]
    The Respondent submits that Mr James' evidence must be treated with much caution and be given little weight because:
  1. (a)
    he is a friend of the Appellant and admitted that he wanted the Appellant to get what he was entitled to;
  1. (b)
    he has limited (about 10 months) experience with driving Reach forklifts;
  1. (c)
    his experience of his foot slipping off the dead man pedal seemed to occur when he hit expansion joints;
  1. (d)
    the Appellant admitted that he did not know whether any expansion joint had had any role in the alleged incident.
  1. [94]
    Third, the forklift was tagged out and tested but no fault was found.  The Appellant conceded that there was no-fault with the forklift.
  1. [95]
    Fourth, it follows logically that if there was no fault with the forklift but the Appellant's scenario is to be accepted, the Appellant must have lifted his left foot off the pedal.  The Respondent submitted that such an occurrence is unlikely because:
  1. (a)
    the photographs and DVD in evidence demonstrates that the normal standing operating position would naturally involve standing on the dead man pedals, which is clearly the intention of the design; and
  1. (b)
    by his own evidence, the Appellant has been driving forklifts for 15 years, was very experienced with operating the Reach forklift, had both feet on the floor of the cabin of the forklift at the time of the incident, was standing in the normal standing operating position he had adopted on many previous occasions, was holding on to the controls with both hands at the time of the incident, was operating a forklift at fast walking pace, was trained in using the right hand control to brake and he complied with this, and was trained that the dead man pedal was only to be used to brake in an emergency situation.
  1. [96]
    The Regulator submits that, 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.[4]
  1. [97]
    The Respondent submits that the Appellant has not satisfied his onus of proof that the injury occurred as originally or subsequently alleged because:
  1. (a)
    the mechanism is inherently unlikely (for the reasons outlined in the Respondent's submission); and
  1. (b)
    the Appellant has changed his version in two significant respects (that the pedal "popped up" and that the forklift stopped suddenly).

Consequently, the Respondent submits, the Appellant has not satisfied his onus of proof that the injury arose out of or in the course of his employment.

  1. [98]
    The Respondent also submits that, even if the Commission is satisfied that the Appellant's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment, the Appellant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury.
  1. [99]
    The Respondent quotes and relies on the following passage from the decision of Hall P in Qantas Airways Ltd v Q-Comp and Michelle Blanch:[5]

"It is important to bear in mind also that the adjective 'significant' qualifies the expression 'contributing factor'.  The notion of contribution in itself requires some linkage between the employment and the injury.  'Significant' qualifies the expression 'contributing factor' and although not to be taken as meaning 'large', 'great', 'weighty' or 'substantial', is still a concept that may be understood to mean: 'of importance' and/or 'of consequence' to the occurrence of the injury."

  1. [100]
    The Respondent identified and relied on judgments for the proposition that medical evidence can assist the Commission but cannot determine the issue whether the injury arose out of or in the course of the Appellant's employment.  It is the role of a court or this Commission to determine the questions of fact in the face of medical testimony.[6]  The Respondent also relied on the following passage from the decision of Martin J in Davidson v Blackwood:[7]

"It is inevitable in cases such as this that expert witnesses will play important, if not determinative, roles for both parties to a dispute.  The outer limits of these roles must, however, be marked out by the law of evidence, and, in particular, the ultimate issue rule, according to which an expert witness must not seek to substitute himself or herself for the tribunals of fact, or for the Court.  In the present case, it was not for the expert witnesses called on behalf of either party to say whether or not the 2010 fall suffered during the appellant's employment, was a 'substantial contributing factor' to the injury is disclosed in the wake of the 2011 incident.  As the Deputy President pointed out a number of occasions, this was a matter for the tribunal of fact.  It was for the tribunal of fact to determine, on the basis of the evidence put before the Commission, whether or not the appellant's fall was a substantial contributing factor to his subsequent personal injury.  It was for the expert witnesses to illuminate, to the extent of their knowledge and expertise, the cause (or causes) of the appellant's back condition."

  1. [101]
    The Respondent submits that Dr Gatehouse's oral evidence about whether the third incident was "a significant contributing factor" to the Appellant's injury can be of no assistance in determining whether an employment was a significant contributing factor.  That submission proceeds on the basis that Dr Gatehouse's opinion evidence was based on the history reported to him and that history (as recorded in his letter to the general practitioner dated 28 November 2014 and recounted in his report to work cover dated 13 March 2015) was different from the factual scenario presented at the hearing.  Because Dr Gatehouse was not given the latter scenario, the Respondent submits that his opinion cannot assist the Commission.

Consideration and conclusion

  1. [102]
    There is no dispute that the incident described by the Appellant is unusual.  There is evidence that it was not unique.  Whatever might have caused one of his feet to be relocated momentarily from a dead man pedal, it is plausible that the incident occurred in the way described by the Appellant and that, as a consequence, his efforts to restrain himself from falling out of the cabin of the forklift were sufficient to cause the symptoms complained of and to aggravate his condition which otherwise was becoming symptom-free.
  1. [103]
    The Respondent strains a little in some of its submissions.  First, it seeks to rely on slight differences in the way the Appellant described the third incident on different occasions in order to suggest a degree of inconsistency.  However, it is apparent from the various statements made by the Appellant from the date of the incident onwards that he has maintained a substantially consistent description of how the incident occurred.
  1. [104]
    Second, the Respondent submits that Dr Gatehouse's opinion can be of no assistance in determining whether an employment was "a significant contributing factor" to the Appellant's injury.  Apart from the fact that the matter is to be determined by the Commission rather than a medical witness, that submission is made on the basis that Dr Gatehouse's opinion relied on the history reported to him.  In his words:
  1. (a)
    "the brake caught or ceased (sic) on the forklift he was driving and he has had a jerk through the left side" (letter to Dr Wagner dated 28 November 2014, Exhibit 5); and
  1. (b)
    "the brake cord had seized on the forklift that he was driving and it tended to jerk through his left side" (letter to WorkCover dated 13 March 2015, Exhibit 5).

The Respondent submits that the history summarised by Dr Gatehouse is different from the scenario given by the Appellant at the hearing, namely that his foot may have slipped off the dead man pedal and the forklift came to a gradual stop over two metres.  Because Dr Gatehouse was not given the latter scenario, the Respondent submits that his opinion cannot assist the Commission.

  1. [105]
    As is apparent from the evidence summarised earlier, there is no precise explanation of why the forklift stopping unexpectedly.  The only plausible explanation is that one (or both) of the brake pedals was momentarily released causing the forklift to stop.  Whatever Dr Gatehouse meant to say,[8] it is clear that he proceeded on the basis that some mechanism involving the brake caused the forklift to stop and the Appellant to experience a jerking motion through his left side.  That is consistent with the Appellant's evidence to the Commission.
  1. [106]
    Third, the apparent absence of witnesses to the incident is not surprising and does not detract from the likelihood of the incident occurring.  If anything, the fact that there are at any one time approximately 35 forklifts operating in the workplace supports that conclusion.  If forklifts are regularly passing and stopping at different places around the workplace as individual tasks require, the stopping of a single forklift might not attract the attention of employees in the vicinity, particularly if the forklift operator remained in the cabin of the forklift after it stopped.  Had the Appellant fallen from the forklift, or had his load crashed to the floor, that might have attracted some attention.  Although the incident was significant for the Appellant, it was not in its nature something that would necessarily have attracted the attention of any people working nearby.
  1. [107]
    The fact that the Appellant's account is uncontradicted does not, of itself, necessarily mean that the appeal should succeed.  As the Regulator submits, 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.
  1. [108]
    The evidence is summarised earlier in these reasons and need not be repeated.  Having regard to all the evidence and essentially for the reasons set out in the Appellant's submissions, I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that on 21 November 2014 the Reach forklift being driven by the Appellant at a fast walking pace came to an unexpected stop when one of the Appellant's feet became dislodged from the dead man pedal, activating the emergency brake.  Although the Appellant had both hands on relevant controls, the unexpected motion of the decelerating forklift was such as to cause the Appellant to restrain himself from falling leftwards through the space at the side of the cabin.  That restraint was principally effected by his left hand grabbing the handle, with the consequence that he aggravated his pre-existing cervical condition and experienced pain.

 Orders

  1. [109]
    For the reasons set out above:
  1. (a)
    The appeal is allowed.
  1. (b)
    The decision of the Regulator is set aside.
  1. (c)
    The Regulator is to return the Appellant's application for compensation to WorkCover to determine the period for which the incident on 21 November 2014 continued or continues to aggravate the Appellant's personal injury.
  1. (d)
    The Regulator is to pay the Appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject of a further application to the Commission.

Footnotes

[1] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v QComp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447.

[2] Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia (1975) 2 NSWLR 190, 193-194 (Reynolds JA).

[3] See Thorpe v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 22.

[4] Citing Kudryavsteva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 053; MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100, 101 (Hall P).

[5] Qantas Airways Ltd v Q-Comp and Michelle Blanch [2009] 191 QGIG 115.

[6] Gaudry v Pacific Coal P/L [1996] QCA 525; Adelaide Stevedoring Company Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538, 563 (Rich ACJ).

[7] Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 008, [17] (Martin J).

[8] It is plausible to compere those two passages from documents (which were expressly dictated) and infer that Dr Gatehouse dictated the same passage on each occasion but it was rendered differently when it was transcribed.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Pope v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Pope v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • MNC:

    [2015] QIRC 170

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Neate IC

  • Date:

    23 Sep 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
Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1940) 64 CLR 538
Cite 2 - (1940) 64 CLR 538
Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] ICQ 8
Cite 2 - [2014] ICQ 8
Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia (1975) 2 NSWLR 190
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1975) 2 NSWLR 190
Cite 2 - (1975) 2 NSWLR 190
Gaudry v Pacific Coal Pty Limited [1996] QCA 525
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1996] QCA 525
Cite 2 - [1996] QCA 525
Kudryavtseva v Blackwood [2015] QIRC 53
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QIRC 53
Cite 2 - [2015] QIRC 53
QANTAS Airways Limited v Q-Comp and Michelle Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2009) 191 QGIG 115
Cite 2 - (2009) 191 QGIG 115
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
Thorpe v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 22
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 22
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 22

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.