Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2015
  4. Cameron v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - [2015] QIRC 67

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

Cameron v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 67

Cameron v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[2015] QIRC 67

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Cameron v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 067

PARTIES:

Cameron, Joy

(Appellant)

v

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2014/247

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

DELIVERED ON:

20 April 2015

HEARING DATES:

12 and 13 November 2014

27 January 2015 (Appellant Submissions)

24 February 2015 (Respondent Submissions)

MEMBER:

Deputy President Swan

ORDERS :

  1. The Appeal is dismissed.
  2. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the Appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) - Applicant claimed she suffered a back injury at work over a period of time from 10 June 2011 to 21 October 2011 - between 10 and 12 June 2011 Applicant performed duties at a trade show in Cairns - Applicant failed to report previous history of neck pain to medical specialists - the mere possibility of an injury is insufficient to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the cited incident was a significant contributing factor to the injury - the weight of medical evidence was against the Applicant's claim.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Poulson AND Q-COMP (C/2011/29) - Decision

http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

JBS Australia Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP (C/2012/35) - Decision http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

Davidson v Blackwood - [2014] ICQ 008

APPEARANCES:

Mr T. Collins, Counsel instructed by Rapid Legal Solutions.

Mr S. Gray, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), the Respondent.

Decision

  1. [1]
    This Appeal is made by Ms Joy Cameron (the Applicant) against the decision of the Regulator dated 15 July 2014.
  1. [2]
    The Applicant's Notice of Claim for Damages dated 2 October 2013 to WorkCover relates to an injury said to have been sustained during the course of her employment as an Administrative Officer with James Cook University (JCU).  The Regulator confirmed WorkCover's decision to reject the Applicant's claim.

 Witnesses

  1. [3]
    Witnesses for the Appellant were:
  • Joy Cameron;
  • Dr Malcolm Wallace - Orthopaedic Surgeon;
  • Dr Scott Campbell - Neurosurgeon.
  1. [4]
    Witnesses for the Respondent were:
  • Justine Olsen - Administration Manager, James Cook University;
  • Assoc. Prof. Peter Stedman - Orthopaedic Surgeon;
  • Dr Michael Coroneos - Neurosurgeon.

 The nature of the Appeal

  1. [5]
    The Appeal is conducted as a hearing de novo.  Notwithstanding that Counsel for the Applicant reaffirmed that position in submissions, those submissions primarily refer to the commentary and reasoning in the Regulator's Review Decision as the basis upon which to mount its appeal.
  1. [6]
    The Respondent's submissions related to the evidence adduced during the hearing and did not respond with any particularity to submissions made by the Applicant's Counsel as it related to an analysis of the reasoning and commentary in the Regulator's Review Decision.  However, there were many instances where what was considered in the Regulator's Review Decision were again canvassed, through evidence, in this hearing.  Those areas were appropriately addressed.

 The Onus of Proof

  1. [7]
    The Applicant bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

The Applicant's claim

Specific claim

  1. [8]
    The specific claim is that the Applicant suffered injuries to her back arising out of a workplace incident occurring over the period of time 10 June 2011 to 21 October 2011.  During the period of 10 June 2011 to 12 June 2011 the Applicant performed duties for JCU at a Trade Show conducted in Cairns.

The Applicant's evidence was that:

  1. The Applicant commenced work with JCU in 2009.
  2. JCU conducted a Medical Conference in Cairns in June 2011.
  3. The Applicant was required to take promotional materials to this Conference for display purposes.
  4. The Applicant attended that Conference with another colleague from JCU.
  5. The promotional material was transported in a large suitcase that the Applicant said was heavy.
  6. In that luggage were A4 sized JCU course booklets, promotional course material, tablecloths, posters, giveaway pens, amongst other things.
  7. The Applicant believed that the luggage weighed approximately 30 kilos on the flight to Cairns and on the flight back to Townsville, the luggage remained heavy.  However, in cross-examination, the Applicant said that her luggage on the return flight from Cairns to Townsville did not attract an excess baggage tag.
  8. The Applicant said she first felt some symptoms of pain at the airport on her trip to Cairns.
  9. On her return flight from Cairns, the Applicant said she "was in tears and that with the pain" [T2-19].
  10. Upon returning to Townsville, the Applicant said she had a sore neck and on the next day underwent massage therapy.
  11. The therapy helped and the Applicant applied heat and liniment to her neck and she took analgesics.
  12. The Applicant said she had advised Ms Olsen (Office Manager) on 14 June 2014 that she had hurt her neck.
  13. The Applicant said she had previously lodged an Accident, Incident & Injury Report on 1 November 2011 with JCU.
  14. In that Report, the Applicant stated "Relocated workstation six times since 23/02/09 including desk, chair, computer position which has led to protrusion of the disc between C6/C7 causing irritation of the left C7 nerve root.  Initial problem and associated pain was reported to my Supervisor in 2010 (Justine Olsen) but I was advised that there was no current Rehabilitation Coordinator employed by JCU to evaluate my workstation and/or give advice or assistance.  My job description/duties was changed without consultation which increased computer use.  Trialed different computer positions, purchased single lens computer glasses, new fully adjustable chair, footrest."
  15. On 22 November 2011, WorkCover Queensland accepted Ms Cameron's application for compensation for "left sided disc prolapse C6/7" sustained on 1 June 2011 and benefits were to be paid as from 4 October 2011.
  16. On 4 October 2011, the Applicant saw Dr Vollmerhause reporting pain down her left upper arm and numbness in her hand.
  17. During that period of time between working in Cairns and visiting Dr Vollmerhause, the Applicant said she had a workstation change at her workplace.
  18. On 15 February 2012, the Applicant visited Dr Coroneos.  WorkCover had arranged for this visit.
  19. Dr Coroneos asked her if she could specifically recall any particular injury she may have had.  The Applicant said, at that time, she could not recall anything specific.  However, she said she had noticed a gradual onset of pain in her neck around 1 June 2011.  She described her symptoms as awaking with a stiff neck and feeling a crack or pull from the lower neck going down her left arm.
  20. When the Applicant looked at her Diary she noted that on 12 June 2011 the following "neck/back sore."
  21. The Applicant agreed that she had not told Dr Coroneos about the trade show week-end in Cairns.
  22. After the Applicant saw Dr Coroneos she was assessed by Dr Savvas for permanent impairment for her injury and that assessment came back as zero per cent associated with her employment.
  23. After that assessment had been made, the Applicant then saw Dr Campbell. 
  24. The Applicant then lodged a Notice of Claim for Damages.  The period claimed was from 10 June 2011 to 31 October 2011.

 Regulator's submissions on Claims lodged by the Applicant

  1. [9]
    The Regulator says that after the Applicant's successful 1 November 2011 claim, she then lodged the current claim with WorkCover.
  1. [10]
    The date of the first claimed injury is nominated as 1 June 2011 and the nature of the injury is described as 'neck pain C6/7 disc protrusion causing nerve compression'.  The Applicant says that she was advised by her Physiotherapist that this was the appropriate description of the injury.
  1. [11]
    The Applicant's application said her injury was left sided disc prolapse C6/7.
  1. [12]
    The Applicant's Notice of Claim for Damages describes the part of the body injured as being the cervical spine.  The Regulator says that the nature of the injury is:
  • Chronic soft tissue musculo ligamentous - claimed 4.8% impairment; and
  • Cervical spine injury - claimed impairment 5%.
  1. [13]
    The Regulator states that "Although the claimed injury appears to be described differently, all of the medical evidence is to the effect that Ms Cameron has only sustained one injury and the different descriptions are actually of the same injury."
  1. [14]
    The Applicant's Notice of Claim for Damages says that her injury was sustained over a period of time from 10 June 2011 to 31 June 2011.  The Applicant described the detail of the event resulting in her injury as follows:

   "The worker was required to travel to and from Cairns for a work trade display.  This included the worker having to carry a large amount of items for the trade display, including brochures, signage and other items to set up for the trade display.  The luggage the worker was carrying was extremely heavy and the worker was required to pay the excess baggage charge.  The worker was required to relocate her work station six (6) times, this included altering her desk, chair and computer positions as she was required to lift and more computer hardware, heavy items and boxes" [Exhibit 16 - question 38].

  1. [15]
    The Applicant also signed a Notice of Claim for Damages dated 5 June 2014 (subject of this decision) claiming damages for the same nominated injury.  The time period in question was the same time period for both claims - i.e. 10 June 2011 to 31 October 2011 with her symptoms commencing on 10 June 2011.
  1. [16]
    In the second claim the Applicant is relying upon the reference in paragraph 14 to being required to relocate her work station etc.
  1. [17]
    The Regulator submits that in effect the Applicant is again claiming damages for the same injury over the same period of time.

 Medical Evidence

  1. [18]
    It is not in dispute that the applicant has suffered a personal injury.
  1. [19]
    While the Applicant has relied upon the records of the massage therapist (i.e. her reporting of pain to him on 13 June 2011) as proof that she had sustained an injury because of her work at the trade show, the Regulator says that she has subsequently failed to reference her history to various medical specialists of pre-existing neck and lower back pain recorded on 9 and 18 April 2011, 2 and 16 May 2011 and 30 May 2011.  The massage therapist had recorded that history as given to him by the Applicant.
  1. [20]
    Since seeing her massage therapist last on 30 July 2011, there is no record of any treatment for her pain until she visited her Medical Practitioner in October 2011.  The history given to the Doctor on that occasion related to the onset of her symptoms while undertaking work station changes.
  1. [21]
    Upon visiting Dr Vollmerhause on 4 October 2011, the records note that the Applicant's pain history related to pain radiating into the left upper arm, paresthesia/numbness tingling in the hand, and C6/7 with pain down the C5 distribution of the upper arm.  In that history, the Applicant described having had problems in the last twelve months, but particularly since her new work station issues.
  1. [22]
    The Applicant was referred by WorkCover to an Occupational Therapist, Ms Smith.  A report was provided on 14 December 2011.  The Applicant again referred to her work station changes since the commencement of her employment with JCU in February 2009.
  1. [23]
    The Applicant was referred by WorkCover to Ms Hawkins, Occupational Therapist who provided a report on 14 December 2011.  The reference was again to problems relating to six work station changes.  The Applicant also advised that she had reported her neck pain to her supervisor in July 2010.
  1. [24]
    The Applicant was referred to Dr Coroneos who provided a report on 15 February 2012.  Dr Coroneos reported a history given by the Applicant as not relating to any specific event, but of gradual onset of neck pain and left arm pain over the years.  There had been no mention of the trade show in Cairns.
  1. [25]
      The Applicant reported that as of 1 June 2011 she had noticed a gradual onset of symptoms and in September 2011 she awoke with a stiff neck and felt a crack or pull from her left lower neck going down her left arm.  As well, the Applicant suffered from paresthesia in her left third finger.
  1. [26]
    Dr Coroneos, upon review of the Applicant's CT and MRI scans of the cervical spine was of the view that the changes were of cervical spondylosis at C5/6 and C6/7.  He was unable to determine any significant neurosurgical spinal injury having occurred during the Applicant's employment to account for the ongoing symptoms requirement for ongoing occupational restrictions.
  1. [27]
    Dr Coroneos stated that the onset of symptoms had been described by the Applicant as gradual rather than relating to a specific event.  The Applicant had also advised Dr Coroneos of her problems with her work station.
  1. [28]
    Dr Coroneos believed that the symptoms first described to her massage therapist did not change his opinion that she had cervical spondylosis and this included intermittent neck symptomatology.
  1. [29]
    Dr Coroneos explained how the condition of cervical spondylosis could cause symptoms at any time.
  1. [30]
    Both Dr Steadman and Dr Coroneos made reference to the underlying degenerative condition.
  1. [31]
    Dr Campbell provided a Report on 30 November 2012.
  1. [32]
    The Applicant's history to Dr Campbell was related to the physical work involved in the trade show in Cairns and travelling to and from Townsville carrying heavy luggage.  The Applicant also mentioned the changes in her work station.
  1. [33]
    The Applicant advised Dr Campbell that she had felt the onset of her neck pain, left upper limb pain and pins and needle of the left hand as from mid-June 2011.  In September 2011 the Applicant said she awoke with a severe aggravation of the symptoms.  She had not described any precipitating event.
  1. [34]
    Dr Campbell was of the view that the Applicant had sustained a chronic soft tissue musclo ligamentos injury to the cervical spine.  He also stated, as had Dr Coroneos, that the CT and MRI scans of the spine demonstrated a small and insignificant disc bulge at C6/7.
  1. [35]
    The Regulator stated in submissions "When asked to comment on the differences between the history given by Ms Cameron to Dr Coroneos and that given to him, Dr Campbell noted that it is different in that Ms Cameron told Dr Campbell of the onset of symptoms after awaking from her sleep in September 2011 and therefore there was a specific date when she first noticed her symptoms.  He said in that regard, it is different.  The similarities though were that there was no specific event and that the injury occurred over time."
  1. [36]
    Dr Campbell said that in forming his view he had relied upon the events described by the Applicant as including the trade show and from having been required to repetitively relocate her work station.  These two factors contributed to her injury.
  1. [37]
    Dr Campbell was further queried as to the difference between his and Dr Coroneos' opinions.  The Regulator said that Dr Coroneos saw the Applicant's injuries as being more in the nature of a degenerative condition, whereas Dr Campbell said that her condition related to both degeneration together with the contribution from her work activities.  Dr Campbell's response was "Well, I would currently at this point in time say her condition is related to a pre-existing neck injury for which she was having massage therapy and - and the over a period of time work injury."
  1. [38]
    A further difference relates to the history she had given to Dr Coroneos.  In that history she had told Dr Coroneos that her neck pain and left arm pain had been gradual over a number of years.  The Applicant had told Dr Campbell that she had awoken in September 2011 with the type of symptoms previously referenced (i.e. a stiff neck and a crack or pull from her lower neck going down to her left arm.  Within that context, Dr Campbell said "So there's a specific date where she first noticed her symptoms".
  1. [39]
    Dr Campbell said that he would probably say that the degeneration was normal age wear and tear.  However, when questioned by Counsel for the Regulator: "you've noted the significance of the history of the massage treatments the Applicant was having prior to June 2011 and that continued after - the fact that she has the onset of symptoms in or about June could be consistent with a natural progression of her degenerative condition.  That could be a ?" to which Dr Campbell responded "That is possible".
  1. [40]
    Dr Campbell agreed with the Regulator that it was possible that, because of the treatment the Applicant had been having for her neck since June 2011, the onset of her symptoms in or about June 2011 could be consistent with her degenerative condition [T1-30].
  1. [41]
    Dr Wallace provided a medico/legal report dated 23 June 2013.  The history given by the Applicant is of the onset of symptoms in June 2011 when travelling to Cairns to set up the trade display.
  1. [42]
    On the flight home from Cairns the Applicant said she experienced neck pain and restriction of motion and some radiation of the pain into the left upper limb.
  1. [43]
    The Applicant said the pain had settled after her massage therapy and she had kept working.  The medical records show that the Applicant's first complaint of neck pain was on 4 October 2011 where she stated that, coupled with the pain in her left arm, became severe [T1-5].
  1. [44]
    Dr Wallace's view was that the Applicant sustained a workplace injury to her cervical spine with the nature and conditions of her employment being a significant contributing factor to her current condition.
  1. [45]
    Dr Wallace did not alter his opinion when he became aware of the massage therapist's record of the Applicant's history of prior neck pain, even though she had denied prior neck pain when providing her history to Dr Wallace.
  1. [46]
    Dr Wallace said that while he was concerned that the Applicant had pre-existing symptoms, what was not specific was whether she had the upper limb paraesthesia, numbness, or tingling for 12 months.
  1. [47]
    The Regulator stated that while the Applicant's evidence was that she had experienced symptoms on the flight from Cairns to Townsville, after a couple of sessions with the massage therapist she reported feeling better.  In effect, on 8 July 2011, which was three and a half weeks since her flight from Cairns to Townsville, the Applicant reported that her condition had improved but that the pain had not completely gone.  By 30 July 2011 the Applicant was feeling well.
  1. [48]
    Against that background, the Regulator asked Dr Wallace the following question:

 "… the fact of the onset of the symptoms in September 2011, some two months later, therefore would cause you doubt the relationship between the activities of June 2011?"

Dr Wallace:  "I - again, I have to rely on the history that was given to me by Joy Cameron, which was that after the weekend that she - in Cairns that she first experienced left upper limb symptoms, as well as continuing to have neck pain" [T1-15].

  1. [49]
    The Regulator submitted that "Even though Ms Cameron had the benefit of giving her evidence after these important facts were highlighted in the medical evidence, she did not give that level of particularity in her evidence."
  1. [50]
    Primarily, the Regulator states that "It is extraordinary that with all of that uncertainty, Dr Wallace would steadfastly maintain his opinion, even though he accepted it was on an incorrect history given by Ms Cameron."
  1. [51]
    In submissions, Counsel for the Applicant stated that at the time of writing their reports, none of the medical specialists were aware of the Applicant's visits to the massage therapist.  He stated that Dr Wallace had been aware of the visit "because the appellant could not get into a physio."
  1. [52]
    The Applicant was referred to Dr Steadman who provided a medico/legal report dated 20 January 2014.  This history given by the Applicant included the reference to the Cairns trade show and the pain she experienced upon her return flight from Cairns to Townsville in June 2011; on 30 October 2011, when the Applicant was at her work station on a new desk and she still had pain and on 30 November 2011 when the Applicant woke up with pain down her left arm, her neck was a bit stiff and sore, and her right middle fingers and ring finger were numb.
  1. [53]
    Dr Steadman stated that the Applicant had not revealed that she had prior neck pain before the claim made concerning the fight back from Cairns to Townsville.
  1. [54]
    The new information concerning her prior history of neck pain had not caused him to change his initial opinion as to the Applicant's neck pain.  As Dr Steadman noted:  "as I noted in my summary paragraph on page 6 of 9 that in the absence of a significant inciting event, I didn't accept that there was a work relationship to her complaint and I accept that she has a complaint but I didn't accept that there was a work relationship to her complaint and I accept that that there was a causative work relationship but now having had the opportunity to look at the notes that indicate she was receiving treatment in the months before the event on the plane, in my opinion, it confirms that she had a pre-existing problem as opposed to a specific event which had caused her or been presented to me as a work-related injury .[T1-38].
  1. [55]
    Dr Steadman said the Applicant had a disc protrusion of her neck, but when looking at the two cited incidents of the flight back from Cairns to Townsville and the lifting at work, he could not see any correlation between those events and any specific inciting event.
  1. [56]
    In considering whether the Applicant suffered an aggravation, Dr Steadman noted that she had some mild pre-existing degenerative disease and is likely to have suffered from a previous aggravation.  Specifically, he stated that the aggravation at some time ceases and at that point it becomes constitutional.
  1. [57]
    Dr Steadman noted that the massage therapy report was that the Applicant had a pre-existing problem as opposed to a specific event occurring.  Dr Steadman disagreed with Dr Wallace concerning the cause of the injury.
  1. [58]
    Dr Steadman stated that, as a consequence of what was in the report of the massage therapist, it was more likely that the Applicant already had the disc protrusion before she went to Cairns.
  1. [59]
    Dr Steadman could not discount the possibility that the disc protrusion could have arisen from the trade show, but the Regulator says that Dr Steadman's concession was only given within the context of a 'hypothetical' question.  That point was confirmed in the transcript of T1-45.
  1. [60]
    Dr Steadman stated that disc protrusion is a degenerative condition "It doesn't occur generally in a normal disc.  This little space where the nerve root is coming out called the foramen is squashed because there is arthritis present in the - in the joint just next to it, so it's making the space smaller than it should be.  And that's ultimately what leads to the irritation of the nerve being irritated in that space, whether it's actually sort of got to the point where it's causing actual physical features that the nerve damaged or whether it's just got to the point that it's causing some pain down the arm."
  1. [61]
    Against that background, Dr Steadman said the Applicant's back did not simply become symptomatic after the trade show, because the massage therapist records establish that the Applicant had one clinical continuum relating to a sore neck.
  1. [62]
    The Regulator says Dr Steadman is saying that "the clinical pattern of the problem has already been established prior to the trade show and that the records now indicate one clinical continuum relating to a sore neck."
  1. [63]
    Dr Steadman agreed with the proposition posed by the Regulator in paraphrasing Dr Coroneos view that "…unable to determine any significant neurosurgical spinal injury having occurred on the dates mentioned that I can relate to her employment at James Cook University where she is an administrator.  The changes on MRI and CT are due to age related cervical spondylosis.  These are well described in spinal surgical textbooks.  There is desiccation, broad based annular bulging and facet degeneration" [T1-60].

Is employment a significant contributing factor to the Applicant's injury?

  1. [64]
    The primary submission made by the Applicant is:

 "Plainly, the expert's opinions as to the injury and a degree of impairment can be given a great deal of weight.  However, it is submitted opinions as to the mechanism of the injury have been reached on a different basis.  To paraphrase Dr Steadman those opinions "do not come out of a text book" but rather by reference to a failure to contemporaneously report or the fact that there was earlier pain.  It is submitted that those opinions carry less weight and run the risk of falling into the category of "a combination of speculation, inference, personal and second-hand views as to the credibility of the complainant, and a process of reasoning which went well beyond the field of expertise."

  1. [65]
    The Regulator found the submission 'unusual' given the amount of time which had been spent on discussing the massage therapist's records and how that might impact upon already expressed medical opinions.
  1. [66]
    The Regulator believed that the opinions by the medical practitioners were well within their field of expertise.  The Regulator stated that "Any 'speculation' arises because of Ms Cameron's failure to give an accurate history to the reporting specialists; particularly in circumstances where Ms Cameron had denied a history of her neck being symptomatic prior to the trade show."
  1. [67]
    The medical specialists called to give evidence had given evidence on that point prior to the Applicant giving her evidence.  The Regulator said that the Applicant had the opportunity when giving evidence to explain this point, but her evidence was lacking in detail necessary for the Commission to resolve the questions in her favour.  I have accepted that submission as correct in the circumstances.
  1. [68]
    By way of example, the Applicant was asked by the Regulator about her disc bulge at C6/7 and whether she was aware of an incident that had caused that.  The Applicant was unaware of a specific incident but had referred to the neck pain she had experienced on the flight back to Townsville as 'very different' from earlier pain she had in her neck, which was described as 'muscular tension'.
  1. [69]
    The Regulator's view was that the Applicant had not described how her pain was in any way different to what was described to the massage therapist prior to the trade show.  In its view, the Regulator suggested that there was nothing in that evidence which dispelled the notion that the Applicant was exhibiting symptoms consistent with the disc bulge or protrusion prior to the trade show.
  1. [70]
    Querying whether the Applicant could progress a claim that her employment was a significant contributing factor to her injury, reference was made to the following:

In Poulson v Q-COMP, Hall P stated:

 "If s 32(1) of the Act did no more than recite the traditional formula "arising out of or in the course of employment".  The appellant would have had a case.  However, the Legislature has added a further requirement, viz., that the employment be a significant contributing factor to the injury.  An applicant must now show a further element of causation.  Further, whatever the precise content of 'significant', it is apparent from the phrase "a significant contributing factor" that the mere satisfaction that some element of contribution (minor was the adjective used by the Acting Industrial Magistrate) occurred is insufficient.  Here, on the evidence, the Appellant established the type of case made out in Pleming v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland.  The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the contribution of the employment was of any significance whatever compared to the dominant contributing factor, viz., the Appellant's underlying condition".[1] 

  1. [71]
                  In JBS Australia Pty Ltd v Q-Comp, Hall P stated:

 "I should say to begin with that, I accept that the 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, compare Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland, at 101 per De Jersey P.  It must be shown to be more probable than not that there is a significant causal relationship between the accident and the workers' post-accident condition".[2]

  1. [72]
    In the Regulators' view those comments were apposite to the Applicant's situation - there is an absence of evidence to show that the Applicant's employment was a significant contributing factor to her injury.  That point has been well established by the Regulator.
  1. [73]
    The mere possibility that the injury complained of arose from the Applicant's work at the trade show or from moving office equipment was insufficient to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the incidents cited was/were a significant contributing factor[3].
  1. [74]
    In relation to whether the Applicant had told Ms Olsen after the trade show that she had injured herself, Ms Olsen's evidence is that the Applicant told her that she had a neck complaint, but that this conversation occurred after the July holidays.  She recalled this event because the Appellant was using a heat pack after that holiday.  While the Applicant had spoken to Ms Olsen about pain she was suffering, the Regulator describes this as "a non-specific report and not related to the trade show".  I have accepted that this witness was truthful in the giving of her evidence.
  1. [75]
    The Regulator submits that the compelling weight of evidence was that the Appellant was suffering from symptoms related to her personal injury prior to the trade show.  That activity undertaken at the trade show may have heightened her symptoms, but the "significant contributing factor to the development of those symptoms is her underlying degenerative condition" [Regulators submissions – point 90].de
  1. [76]
    In my view, the Regulator's assertions on this point are correct.  The weight of the medical evidence supports this finding.
  1. [77]
    It has not been established that employment has been a significant contributing factor to the Applicant's injury.
  1. [78]
    The application is dismissed.
  1. [79]
    The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the Appeal.
  1. [80]
    Order accordingly

Footnotes

[1] Poulson AND Q-COMP (C/2011/29) - Decision

http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

[2] JBS Australia Pty Ltd AND Q-COMP (C/2012/35) - Decision

http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

[3] Davidson v Blackwood - [2014] ICQ 008

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Cameron v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Cameron v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)

  • MNC:

    [2015] QIRC 67

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Swan DP

  • Date:

    20 Apr 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
Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 8
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] ICQ 8
Cite 2 - [2014] ICQ 8
JBS Australia Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2013] ICQ 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] ICQ 13
Cite 2 - [2013] ICQ 13

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.