Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2016
  4. Zalar v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] QIRC 112

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

Zalar v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2016] QIRC 112

Zalar v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2016] QIRC 112

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: 

Zalar v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 112

PARTIES: 

Zalar, Mark Stanislaus

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2015/142

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2016

HEARING DATES:

4-5 October 2016

HEARD AT:

Mackay

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Neate

ORDERS:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.
  1. The decision of the Respondent is confirmed.
  1. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent'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 – injury at mid to lower back – whether injury arose out of, or in the course of, the Appellant's employment – whether his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury – Appellant bears onus of proof on the balance of probabilities

CASES:

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32

Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 680

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100

Newman v Blackwood [2015] ICQ 014

Nilsson v Q-Comp (2008) 189 QGIG 523

Q-COMP v Hetherington [2004] QIC 47, (2004) 176 QGIG 493

Rossmuller v Q-COMP (C/2009/36) - decision http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au

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

APPEARANCES:

Mr P. Cullinane, Counsel, instructed by Taylors Solicitors, for the Appellant.

Mr N. Jarro, Counsel, instructed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator, the Respondent.

Decision

  1. [1]
    Mark Stanislaus Zalar ("the Appellant") claims that, in mid-November 2014, he injured his back while driving a bulldozer in the course of his employment at the Millennium Coal Mine site.  In December 2014, WorkCover Queensland decided not to accept his application for compensation.
  1. [2]
    The Appellant asked the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Respondent") to review that decision.  In a decision dated 22 April 2015 and sent to the Appellant by letter dated 27 April 2015, a review officer of the Respondent confirmed the decision of WorkCover to reject his application for compensation.
  1. [3]
    The Appellant appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") against the Respondent's decision.  He has asked the Commission to allow his appeal and set aside the Respondent's decision.

Background

  1. [4]
    The Appellant was born in January 1969 and, at the time of the alleged incident, was 45 years of age.
  1. [5]
    He left school before finishing Year 8, with limited formal education and literacy skills.  He has been employed in various occupations including approximately 20 years in the mining industry, with about four of those years in coalmining.  He did courses involving the production machinery side of mining (excavators, graders, loaders, and dozers, but not drills) and obtained four tickets.
  1. [6]
    The Appellant worked at the Millennium Coal Mine for about two years as a Level IV all round operator.  He used bulldozers almost all of the time, but sometimes worked on excavators, graders and trucks.  His bulldozing work involved removing overburden down to ore level, pushing waste forward along a slot.  After he had deposited the waste dirt and rock, he would reverse the dozer along the slot.  The process was repeated along a series of slots (each the width of a dozer blade) across an area of overburden almost 60 metres wide.
  1. [7]
    He worked regular seven day "swing shifts," with seven days off work between shifts.  On 13 November 2014, he commenced a swing shift starting at 6.00 pm each day.  The Appellant claims that, on the second or third night of that swing shift, while reversing a D11 dozer, the dozer hit a large rock.  As a result of the impact, the Appellant's back was jarred.  That gave rise to the injury which is the subject of this appeal.
  1. [8]
    The Appellant has not worked since he sustained his injury.  He considers that he will be unable to return to work on a dozer. 

Legal requirements

  1. [9]
    The appeal has to be resolved by reference to the relevant criteria in s 32(1) of the Act.  That subsection provides, in part:

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

  1. (a)
    for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder- the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; …"
  1. [10]
    The appeal was conducted as a hearing de novo.  In other words, the Commission must decide the matter afresh on the evidence before it.[1]  The Appellant carries the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that he has an "injury" within the meaning of the Act.[2]
  1. [11]
    Although the onus to be discharged is on the balance of probabilities, the Commission, in dealing with the matter, must feel an actual persuasion before the alleged facts can be found to exist.  The mere possibility of an appellant suffering an injury on mere conjecture is not enough.  Inference must be carefully distinguished from conjecture or speculation.  There can be no inference unless there are objective facts from which to infer the other facts which it is sought to establish.[3]
  1. [12]
    While there is room for intuitive reasoning when determining whether a worker has suffered an injury within the meaning of the Act, in the process of determining that question of fact, the Commission cannot substitute speculation for satisfaction on the balance of probabilities.[4]
  1. [13]
    In a case where expert medical evidence is led, before any such expert medical evidence can be of value, the facts upon which it is founded must be proved by admissible evidence.[5] 

Issues

  1. [14]
    The parties agree that, at the time of the alleged incident, the Appellant was a "worker" for the purpose of the Act, and that he was working shifts at the Millennium Coal Mine at the relevant time. 
  1. [15]
    Consequently, the key issues that the Commission must decide in this case are whether:
  1. (a)
    the Appellant sustained an injury to his back;
  1. (b)
    the Appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment; and
  1. (c)
    his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.

Lay evidence

  1. [16]
    The Appellant and his two immediate supervisors gave evidence in relation to matters relevant to the determination of this appeal.
  1. [17]
    Appellant's evidence: The Appellant's oral evidence, supplemented by earlier documents that he signed or wrote by hand, concerned the incident which he alleges gave rise to his back injury, the symptoms he experienced after that incident, the extent to which he reported the incident, and the nature and treatment of a subsequent injury to one of his eyes. 
  1. [18]
    Back injury incident:  On the second or third night of his November 2014 night shift, shortly before the first smoko at about 11.30 pm, the Appellant was performing a dozer push on a D11 bulldozer.  There were some lights in the area where he was working, and lights on the dozer.  Having unloaded waste at the edge of a wall, he reversed the dozer.  He was sitting in the driver's seat at an angle, looking back over his right shoulder.  The dozer was travelling at approximately 6 km/h.  It struck a rock on the left side and "the dozer came up … it just lifted me straight up and jarred me.  Threw me on an angle because of the way I was looking back."  Although the Appellant was restrained by a seatbelt, and remained within the operator's seat, the impact "sort of threw me back and back, you know, like, to a side." 
  1. [19]
    The Appellant did not see the rock before the dozer hit it. 
  1. [20]
    The Appellant drove forward, stopped, remained in the dozer for about a minute (having been a "little bit in shock"), put everything down, got out and walked around the dozer.  The rock was about half a metre high (up to the Appellant's knees) and one metre wide.  The Appellant re-entered the dozer, trammed forward, reversed back around the rock, pushed the rock out of the way, and continued working.
  1. [21]
    No co-workers or any other persons were in the vicinity when the alleged incident occurred. 
  1. [22]
    When asked in cross-examination why he would not have seen or removed the rock when driving forward initially, the Appellant stated:

"You've got two windrows each side of you.  That's the width of your dozer so what you take through is it's building your windrow up and it's gathering material as it goes through.  So it's not going to - unless you lift your blade for some reason, which you can't most times because you've got too much dirt and material in front of you, you can't lift your blade.  That's the only way a rock will go under your - under your dozer."  (T1: 31)

He also stated that "You don't need a big rock to rock your dozer." 

  1. [23]
    Later he stated:

"Well, you’ve got two windrows each side of you that are only the width of your tracks - your blade.  They're at two metres in height, to procedure.  If a rock is to fall down - yeah."  (T1: 52)

He made sure that it was safe to get out and inspect rock. 

  1. [24]
    Symptoms of his injury: The Appellant did not feel any pain immediately.  In his words, "I didn't feel any - anything at - wrong at that point."  It is not clear when the pain became apparent.  The Appellant gave evidence that he first felt discomfort "later on in that night," "before second smoko."  He rang his daughters that afternoon after speaking with his supervisor, Robin Howard, during the shift.  The Appellant also stated in his evidence in chief that he "first felt pain" during the following shift. 
  1. [25]
    In cross-examination he stated that he did not feel discomfort "straight up" and did not know when he first felt it.  Although it was "before smoko" (about 11.30 that night), he was "not sure" if he felt discomfort at that shift. However, he "knew it was after smoko when I was coming back with Robin Howard." He completed that shift and spoke to his daughters, then worked the next shift.
  1. [26]
    Four months later, the Appellant prepared a document titled "Nightshift Report" dated 12 March 2015 (Exhibit 5) in which he stated that, having stopped the dozer, trammed forward and reversed around the rock:

"I began to feel discomfort shortly after by not being able to sit comfortably in my seat and having to constantly re-adjust my back position.  The discomfort persisted throughout the night and the next day."

  1. [27]
    When cross-examined on that passage, the Appellant confirmed that he felt "discomfort" shortly after the incident, but not pain. 
  1. [28]
    Date of the incident:  There was some discussion during the hearing about when the alleged incident occurred.  For immediate purposes, it is sufficient to note that the Appellant gave different accounts on different occasions.  In particular:
  1. (a)
    in examination in chief he said the incident occurred on the second or third night of his mid-November 2014 night shift;
  1. (b)
    in cross-examination, he said that he sustained his injury "probably" on the second or third night of his swing shift that, he thought, commenced on 13 November 2014 (i.e., on 14 or 15 November 2014);
  1. (c)
    the Appellant said he "could have" told WorkCover that 17 November 2014 was the date and "probably did" but he did not recall;
  1. (d)
    the Appellant said that Dr Fryar and/or Dr Horwood wrote down the wrong date of the incident (17 November 2014) and that he knew "straightaway"[6] that the incident did not happen on 17 November 2014;
  1. (e)
    in a handwritten document dated 17 December 2014 prepared and signed by him, the Appellant wrote that he was on a dozer push on night shift on 14 or 15 November 2014 when the incident occurred (Exhibit 4);
  1. (f)
    in a typewritten document dated 12 March 2015 prepared by the Appellant and typed by his sister (Exhibit 2), he wrote that the "date of injury and claims made by my supervisor/s and employer, do not match the dates/times/events recorded in my diary regarding my injury," but his oral evidence to the Commission was that  he had "looked through every diary and it wasn't in there;"
  1. (g)
    the Appellant's explanation of that apparent discrepancy was that he had been looking at paperwork that had been sent to him (comprising the employer's computer printout of where he was working on that date) and he "was talking about that … referring [to] it as my diary;"[7]
  1. (h)
    in his "Nightshift Report" (Exhibit 5), the Appellant declared that the incident occurred on 15 November 2014.
  1. [29]
    The Appellant recalled "rattling off dates" to Dr Fryar, but denied nominating 17 November 2014 to him as the date of the incident. Rather, the Appellant suggested thinking that he left the site on 17 November 2014 and drove to Cairns. 
  1. [30]
    As is apparent from that list, the variation spans four days, all of which fall within the swing shift.  The implications of those variations are considered later in these reasons for decision.
  1. [31]
    Reporting of bulldozer incident:  According to the Appellant, he first told Mr Howard about the incident when they were driving back from the crib hut to the Appellant's dozer after the first smoko of the night shift on the day after the incident occurred.  Mr Howard was driving.  No one else was present.  By that stage, the Appellant had "noticed something was wrong" with his back.  He was "agitated" and "kept moving in my seat."  He asked Mr Howard to "get in touch with" Tony Rose, the supervisor at that time, and "let him know I had an incident.  I hit a rock and my back's tender."  According to the Appellant, Mr Howard said he would let Mr Rose know.  The Appellant was not present on any occasion when Mr Howard spoke to Mr Rose about the incident, and did not know whether such a conversation occurred.  The Appellant stated that he did not have any further conversations with Mr Howard about the incident involving the rock, or the condition of his back. 
  1. [32]
    The Appellant gave evidence that he spoke to Mr Rose at, or at least after, a toolbox meeting at the 6.00 pm start of the next shift.  The "whole crew" was present, including Mr Rose, Mr Howard, Joe Mahoney, Steve Wilson, Pep Chisholm, and another acting supervisor whose first name is John.  According to the Appellant, other workers were "egging me on to keep the toolbox going" but that didn't work.  He continued:

"as we were walking out - everybody was leaving I said to Tony Rose, I said, Tony, can I have a talk to you.  It's about my - me having an incident hitting the rock and my back's a bit tender.  And he said, yeah.  I'll see you outside.  And, yeah: He - he got caught up talking to Joe Mahoney.  Rob - that's when Robin Howard called out to me and told me to jump in his car and take me to work. …  After that, the only time I seen him [i.e., Mr Rose] was when he came down to pick me up … for another incident … for my eye." (T1: 18-19, see also 54-55)  

  1. [33]
    In his handwritten and signed statement dated 17 December 2014 (Exhibit 4), the Appellant wrote:

"I reported to Rob Howard and he reported to Tony Rose who which I had to tell again because he had put me back on dozer 16/11/14 after Ex 2 went down.  I had told a number of people that I had injured my back and that I was very tender and it was reported.

I reported to Rob first and then to Tony also said was very tender on back."

  1. [34]
    In cross-examination, the Appellant identified by name three people (including Pep Chisholm) as people who he told that he had injured his back.  He was "pretty sure I would have told the other digger operator," who he also named.  In prospect of Mr Chisholm giving evidence, the Appellant said that he had not approached him about providing a statement that the Appellant had hurt his back in an incident in the dozer push.  The Appellant said he had not seen Mr Chisholm since, and had not told him to say anything.  He seemed to confirm that the people who were egging him on to hold up the tool box meeting included Mr Chisholm. 
  1. [35]
    In his "Nightshift Report" (Exhibit 5), the Appellant wrote:

"First smoko next shift (16/11/14) I mentioned to acting supervisor Robbin Howard that I was feeling 'tender in the back' whereupon he indicated to me he would inform the supervisor Tony Rose about my problem.  After hearing Robbin Howard say this I proceeded to go about my duties for that shift[8] leaving Robbin to sort out the situation with Tony."

  1. [36]
    In cross-examination, the Appellant agreed that he participated in induction and training when he commenced at Millennium Mine, and that the training would have included knowledge of the process of reporting workplace incidents and injuries.  He recalled going through his obligations under relevant legislation, and was trained about the obligation to give information to protect others from risk of injury. 
  1. [37]
    Although he did not recall the documents titled Standard Incident Notification, Investigation & Reporting; Standard HSE Reporting; Standard Incident Investigation and Form Incident Witness Statement (Exhibit 6) being part of his induction, the Appellant agreed that his employer wanted to ensure all injuries were reported and investigated to identify root causes, and that appropriate preventative and risk elimination or reduction measures were implemented.  He accepted that the standard applied to all Peabody Energy mining operations and personnel.  He knew of the requirement to report incidents, but did not report his incident immediately. 
  1. [38]
    In cross-examination, the Appellant said that it was "not necessarily" the case that, if he had reported the incident to Mr Howard and Mr Rose, there would have been appropriate documentation about the incident.  He explained that, at the time of the incident:

"I didn't think it serious at all. …  I didn't feel - just irritated.  That's all.  I was moving in my seat.  I knew something was wrong but I thought that with my week off, that was it.  It'd be right.  I'd go - it'd go."  (T1: 34)

  1. [39]
    Eye incident:  This incident occurred during the shift following the tool box meeting referred to above.  The Appellant gave evidence that he was operating an excavator and loading coal onto the trucks.  The build-up from that coal in the cab "just got too much.  It was all through the whole cab."  The excavator was rocking when the Appellant went to load a bucket.  Dirt came down on him and some went into one of his eyes.  He could not see out of that eye.  Mr Howard picked up the Appellant, who went to the crib hut for smoko and washed his eye.  At that stage, the Appellant's eye "felt all right."  Later that night, "it got really bad.…  I couldn't see." 
  1. [40]
    Mr Rose brought the Appellant back to work after smoko and told the Appellant that, if it got worse, he should call Mr Rose.  The Appellant did that because "it wasn't long after, yeah, that my eye started playing up again." Dallas Hoey attended to the Appellant.  Twice he tried to flush the object out of the Appellant's eye, but was unsuccessful.  Mr Hoey and Mr Rose said something about the Appellant going to the medical centre in Moranbah, but Mr Hoey thought that it would be against regulations because the Appellant would be too fatigued.  He recommended that the Appellant contact the medical centre if his eye remained irritated.  The Appellant did not return to work during that shift.  Nor did he go to the Moranbah medical centre.
  1. [41]
    In his "Nightshift Report" (Exhibit 5), the Appellant gave an account which linked his reporting of his back condition and the eye incident.  Having noted that he washed out his eye and it felt better, he continued:

"After second smoko I finally got to see Tony Rose the site supervisor who was now relocating me back to dozer push.  Tony drove me to the dozer and before I got out of the car I informed him of my back being tender from reversing into a decent sized rock.  Tony advised me to see how I went and if I needed him I was to call him (via 2-way radio) and he would come and get me.  Within an hour I called him but it was not related to my back problem but to do with my eye, as by this time I had difficulty seeing what I was doing.  When Tony arrived I advised him that it was not my back but my eye that was troubling me as a result of the object in my eye.  Tony then called the on-site medical person, Dallas, and we met him in his office where he attended to my eye.  He flushed out my eye twice but failed to dislodge the object.  Dallas advised that I should go to a medical centre to be attended to because the object was scratching the eyeball.  Dallas informed me that I was unable to go back to work and, together with Tony Rose, decided I should take the rest of 'swing' off.  Within 10 metres of walking out of the medical office with Tony Rose I told him that 'I won't worry about doing a report on my back'."

  1. [42]
    The Appellant confirmed that evidence during cross-examination.
  1. [43]
    The Appellant gave evidence that he did not mention anything about his back to Mr Hoey. 
  1. [44]
    As noted earlier, the Appellant did not think his back condition was serious at that time.  By contrast, he sought treatment for his eye because "I couldn't see."  He explained:

"that's why I said to Tony Rose as we left the paramedic, I won't worry about doing - reporting my back.  I will do it for my eye, and which I did."  (T1: 34)

  1. [45]
    The Appellant also suggested that:
  1. (a)
    he did not prepare a report in relation to his back because "I was saving my boss which was with me and his job" and with "two incidents under his supervision … he'd lose his job;" (T1: 35, 57)  and
  1. (b)
    he did not report the incident immediately because he was "thinking about my job, more than anything. …  When you got everybody getting laid off you think about your job, mate."  (T1: 52-53)
  1. [46]
    In the same "Nightshift Report", the Appellant also wrote:

"At first I thought it was the mattress on my bed causing difficulty in rising in the morning and sitting and standing in one spot for too long.  I tried sleeping on a thin mattress on the floor and the couch to see if they made any difference, but to no avail.  In effort to find out what was wrong with my back I finally saw two doctors which resulted in being referred for an MRI scan …"

  1. [47]
    When cross-examined about that passage, the Appellant confirmed that he had thought that his back difficulties had been caused by the way he slept on a very hard mattress.  However, he did not think a mattress would "put my back out like this."  Nor did he agree that sitting and standing in the one spot for too long was the cause of his back problems. 
  1. [48]
    In conclusion, the Appellant was firm, in cross-examination, in stating that the incident occurred, he reported it to Mr Howard first, and he told Mr Rose that he was "tender" (those were his "exact words"[9]) not "stiff." 
  1. [49]
    Mr Howard's evidence:  In November 2014, Mr Howard was employed by Peabody Energy as a step up, second-in-charge under a supervisor at the Millennium Coal Mine.  For many years previously he was a dozer driver.
  1. [50]
    Mr Howard gave evidence that the last time he saw the Appellant at work was on the occasion when the Appellant left the site with an eye injury. The first time Mr Howard became aware of the Appellant's back injury was after the Appellant lodged his workers' compensation claim, following the incident when the Appellant had something in his eye.
  1. [51]
    Mr Howard refuted some of the Appellant's statements.  In particular, Mr Howard stated that:
  1. (a)
    it was "not correct" to say that during a crib break during a night shift in November 2014, the Appellant approached him and said he had struck a rock while operating dozer during previous shift and that his back was tender - rather "It never happened;"
  1. (b)
    it was "not correct" to say that Mr Howard told the Appellant that he would tell Mr Rose about the Appellant's back injury incident, and rather, if the Appellant had told him that he had a sore or tender back, the Appellant would not have gone back to work - indeed the Appellant would have been "stopped immediately" and taken to the first aid place where the first aid officer would have assessed him "straightaway."
  1. [52]
    Mr Howard gave evidence that dozers, diggers and trucks "can be rough."  If the Appellant was driving a dozer and his back was tender, the Appellant had an obligation to stop "there and then and call someone, but Mark never did." 
  1. [53]
    At the time of the hearing, Mr Howard had his own business and was not employed at Millennium Mine.
  1. [54]
    Mr Rose's evidence: In November 2014, Mr Rose was employed by Peabody Energy as the OCE supervisor at the Millennium Coal Mine.  At the time of the hearing he was employed at another mine that is not connected with the Millennium Coal Mine.
  1. [55]
    Mr Rose gave evidence about the safety and health management system in place in November 2014, particularly by reference to the documents comprising Exhibit 6.  He gave evidence that employees are made aware of those policies as part of induction programs, particularly onsite training.  Procedures are made readily accessible to all coal miners at all times, including online.  Each coal mine employee is obliged to keep up-to-date with procedures.
  1. [56]
    According to Mr Rose, if someone reports something to do with their back, they "don't do anything further.  It's just pull up, stop" and there is a full investigation process.  He explained that back injury is taken very seriously in the mining industry where there is a lot of work related vibration and jarring, especially with dozers and diggers.  He stated that "if you've got a serious back injury, that's something you don't want to be doing." 
  1. [57]
    Mr Rose gave evidence about the Appellant's back condition by reference to four conversations.
  1. (a)
    On the first crib on the second last night shift, Mr Rose asked the Appellant to do the middle stint in a dozer.[10]  The conversation took place at or near the crib room where the Appellant was sitting.  According to Mr Rose:

"At that time, he said to me, oh, yeah, I'll take it slow, I'm a bit stiff.  And I said, oh, are you all right, what's going on?  And he goes, no, I'm just a bit stiff.  And I then said to him … do you want to jump on a truck or go on the digger, or are you right?  And he said, no – no, I'm good to go.  And - anyway, so he went down in the dozer."  (T2: 7)

Mr Rose said that his response in such situations was always to work through if the person has any concerns about what they are doing, and in this case he asked the Appellant if he was okay to operate the dozer.  In order to give context to his appreciation of the Appellant being "a bit stiff," Mr Rose said that feeling stiff was not uncommon.  Mr Rose drove a Ford Ranger for 12 hours a day and every time he got out of it he felt stiff.  Mr Rose drew a distinction between an incident involving somebody's back and somebody saying they are a bit stiff.  However, he agreed that if a person's back was tender, that would "send up a red flag".   Had the Appellant said that he did something to his back in a dozer shift, that would be a "whole new story completely". 

  1. (b)
    A couple of hours later, the Appellant rang Mr Rose on a handheld two-way and said that he had dust in his eye.  The Appellant was brought to the first aid room.  Mr Rose saw Mr Hoey (a driller and also emergency response person) who tended to the Appellant's eye (that was "visibly red") by squirting liquid to wash it.  Mr Hoey completed the paperwork for the dust in the Appellant's eye (Exhibit 7) and Mr Rose filled out an incident report.  The Appellant returned to work, and Mr Rose said to him that if there are "any dramas … give us a bell, and … we'll have to get you to see the paramedics or the doctor, or whatever."
  1. (c)
    According to Mr Rose, the following afternoon he received a call from the Appellant saying the Appellant had gone to the doctors at Moranbah and, after waiting for three hours, they had not seen him.  Mr Rose asked him to ensure he obtained a medical certificate.  The Appellant went on leave, and the following week was the week off after the swing shift.
  1. (d)
    Mr Rose first became aware of the Appellant's issues with his back when the Appellant called him by telephone the week after the Appellant had gone on leave.  The Appellant told Mr Rose that he had put in an application about his back injury. 
  1. [58]
    Mr Rose also refuted some of the Appellant's statements.  In particular, Mr Rose stated that:
  1. (a)
    he disagreed "100 per cent" with the Appellant's statement that, at a toolbox meeting, he told Mr Rose about discomfort in his back or said that he wanted to talk to Mr Rose about his back ("a complete fabrication.  Never happened.");
  1. (b)
    if the Appellant had a sore back and was unable to operate equipment because of his sore back, he had an obligation not to be at work (as one has to turn up to work fit to perform your duty); and
  1. (c)
    if the Appellant had spoken to him about his back, a process would have been put in place straight away and "there's no way he would have been operating any machinery after that fact."
  1. [59]
    Mr Rose volunteered that he was "not going to turn around and say that Mark is lying because I've got nothing against Mark. … I'm here because I've come to give some evidence about my recollection."  He continued:

"At the end of the day, I - knowing the process that I follow - knowing my obligations, if Mark had approached me and said, hey, my back's buggered, this is what happened, there is no way come hell or high water I would have just gone, yeah, no worries, go back to work.

You just don't recall so, do you? --- I don't recall because it never happened.

So you're quite certain about it now? --- I am 100 per cent positive that it never happened.  That's why I don't recall it." (T: 14)

  1. [60]
    Mr Rose also denied that, when he was dropping the Appellant back after he had a crib break because of his eye problem and had attempted to wash the object from his eye, the Appellant had raised with him that he had sustained an injury to his back.  According to Mr Rose "that never happened. ...  It's a nice story but that's completely untrue."  The Appellant did not complain about his eye until he called Mr Rose on the two-way after the crib break.  Mr Rose got the Appellant out of the dozer, and Mr Hoey attended to the Appellant's eye." 
  1. [61]
    Absence of other witnesses: In his handwritten statement dated 17 December 2014 (Exhibit 14) and in his oral evidence, the Appellant stated that he told specified individuals in the workplace about the bulldozer incident.  The Respondent called two of those people (Mr Rose and Mr Howard) to give evidence.  The Appellant did not call any of the others as witnesses. His explanations for not doing so were:
  1. (a)
    in the case of one man, because "he's going through a marriage separation at the moment;"
  1. (b)
    in the case of another, because "he asked not to be mentioned;" and
  1. (c)
    in the case of a third man, because "he is a good mate with the supervisors." 
  1. [62]
    The Appellant had planned to call Pep Chisholm to give evidence at the start of Day 2 of the hearing.  On Day 1, the Appellant gave evidence that Mr Chisholm was at the Toolbox meeting when he raised the issue of his back.[11]  At the start of Day 2, counsel for the Appellant advised the Commission that Mr Chisholm would not be called because he was not at the mine site during the relevant swing shift.

Expert medical evidence

  1. [63]
    The only medical evidence was given by Dr Dale Andrew Fryar, a general practitioner at the Redlynch Medical Centre in Cairns. Dr Fryar saw the Appellant on 25 November 2014.  He has seen and treated him subsequently.  Dr Fryar gave evidence about the nature of the Appellant's injury and its possible cause.  He also recorded the Appellant's accounts of when the bulldozer incident occurred.
  1. [64]
    Nature of injury: Dr Fryar's Patient Progress Notes record that the Appellant had woken with pain radiating down his anterolateral left leg.  His lumbar spine was normal, and he was tender at T10.  Dr Fryar queried a disc lesion and wrote "but seems wrong level."  He noted a proposed progress review in one week with another doctor, as he would be absent (Exhibit 1).  In his oral evidence, Dr Fryar stated that the tenderness in the lower thoracic segment "doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of anatomy" when compared with the symptom of having pain radiating down the front part of the Appellant's leg.  Rather, he would expect that if there was a nerve problem getting pain down the front of the leg, the lesion would be further down the spine, in the lumbar segment.  That diagnosis was consistent with the eventual MRI results. 
  1. [65]
    On the basis of that consultation, Dr Fryar prepared a Worker's Compensation Medical Certificate dated 25 November 2014 that described the Appellant as suffering from "lumbar and thoracic spine strain, and possibly lumbar disc lesion" (Exhibit 1).  That provisional diagnosis was made before he had the benefit of MRI images or other information.
  1. [66]
    An MRI of the Appellant's spine in January 2015 showed a "mild circumferential bulge" at L4/5 and a "moderate size left foraminal disc protrusion" at L5/S1.  The conclusion was "Left sided L5/S1 disc protrusion contacting with both the L5 and S1 nerves" (Exhibit 1).
  1. [67]
    Another doctor saw the Appellant on 23 December 2015 and noted that he had "2 bulging discs with some nerve impingement but no neurological sx" (Exhibit 1).
  1. [68]
    Cause of injury: Dr Fryar's consultation notes for Tuesday, 25 November 2014 record:

"Back injury at work

Driving bulldozer

Hit a rock, dozer jerked up

Felt pain in back at time

Has increased since.  1 week."  (Exhibit 1)

  1. [69]
    On the Worker's Compensation Medical Certificate dated 25 November 2014, Dr Fryar recorded the Appellant's stated cause of injury as: "Driving bulldozer Hit a large rock whilst reversing, resulted in upward jolt jarring of spine.  Pain felt immediately, but has increased since" (Exhibit 1).
  1. [70]
    In a Windsor Income Protection form dated 11 May 2015, Dr Fryar wrote "Uncertain" in response to the question "In your professional opinion, do you believe his condition is work related?"  (Exhibit 1).  In cross-examination, Dr Fryar referred to a "general clinical uncertainty".  He said that "there's no way of me to be able to … know that that disc lesion was definitely due to … an injury in the back on any particular day."
  1. [71]
    In a report from the OPSC and MD Service[12] dated 28 July 2015, the Appellant was described as a quiet person "from whom it was not easy to gain a history.  He vaguely reports pain onset in about November 2014 whilst driving a dozer in the mine.  He did not continue work, but that was to do with an eye injury not his back problem, which occurred shortly after" (Exhibit 1).
  1. [72]
    Date of injury: The medical records prepared by Dr Fryar and Dr William Horwood (another doctor at the Redlynch Medical Centre who the Appellant consulted in Dr Fryar's absence) include different dates on which the alleged incident occurred.  In particular:
  1. (a)
    in his consultation notes of the Appellant's visit on 25 November 2014, Dr Fryar recorded the circumstances that resulted in the injury and noted "1 week", suggesting that the incident occurred one week before that consultation (Exhibit 1);
  1. (b)
    in a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 25 November 2014, Dr Fryar recorded the worker's stated date of injury as 17 November 2014 (Exhibit 1);
  1. (c)
    in his evidence in chief, Dr Fryar stated that "a date would have been put down as to being the best estimate;"
  1. (d)
    when cross-examined about the reason why he nominated 17 November 2014 as the date of the incident, Dr Fryar stated that the date is "an estimate" and "we would have arrived at a conclusion that that would be a date reasonable to nominate as a day the injury occurred;"
  1. (e)
    the Appellant consulted Dr Horwood on 2 December 2014 and the Consultation Notes referred to "Back injury while driving a bulldozer on 17/11/2014" (Exhibit 1);
  1. (f)
    a Centrelink Medical Certificate completed by Dr Fryar on 24 February 2015 recorded the date of onset as "Around Nov 14" (Exhibit 1);
  1. (g)
    on 30 March 2015, the Appellant consulted Dr Fryar, whose notes record:

"Mark has come in concerned that the wrong date was on the WC cert in relation to date of injury - we had it down at 17th Nov

He is pretty sure it was either the 14th or 15th Nov." (Exhibit 1)

  1. [73]
    Although Dr Fryar had no independent recollection of his initial consultations with the Appellant, he observed that (based on his recollection and interpretation of his note) his general impression of the Appellant "would be of a relatively unsophisticated and relatively disorganised person." 

Submissions

  1. [74]
    Appellant's submissions: In summary, the Appellant submits that:
  1. (a)
    he is a credible witness;
  1. (b)
    the bulldozer incident occurred in the way he described;
  1. (c)
    the incident caused his mid to lower back injury; and
  1. (d)
    he reported the incident to colleagues in the workplace.
  1. [75]
    In relation to the nature of the Appellant's injury, it was submitted that there can be some debate about whether it is a strain or muscular ligamentous injury or whether it is mainly a disc protrusion.  However, the Appellant submits, for present purposes it is not necessary to describe the injury more specifically than a "mid to lower back injury." 
  1. [76]
    As to the cause of his injury, the Appellant relies on:
  1. (a)
    his report to Dr Fryar on 25 November 2014 that he had experienced back pain since an event on 17 November 2014; and
  1. (b)
    subsequent investigations which identified a disc protrusion in that area of his spine complained of.
  1. [77]
    The Appellant submits that he sustained his injury in the course of his employment, and that has been his clear and unequivocal position from the time he first attended on Dr Fryar until the hearing of his appeal, as reflected in various documents he created in the intervening period.  In the absence of a finding that he has invented what happened, the Commission has to find that the Appellant sustained an injury that arose out of, or in the course of, his employment.
  1. [78]
    He submits further that Dr Fryar's entry in the Windsor Income Protection form dated 11 May 2015 that he was "uncertain" whether the Appellant's condition was work-related must be considered in the context of:
  1. (a)
    Dr Fryar's consultation notes and Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 25 November 2014; and
  1. (b)
    the entry in the Windsor Income Protection form noting that the Appellant's workers' compensation application had not been accepted.
  1. [79]
    The Appellant conceded that there is some uncertainty as to the exact date of the back injury incident, in particular whether it was on 14, 15 or 17 November 2014.  However he submitted that the incident complained of occurred during the swing shift of seven consecutive night shifts that commenced on 13 November 2014.  The fact that there is a difference of two or three days between some of those dates is not material, and certainly not fatal to the success of his appeal, particularly having regard to the Appellant's limited education and the fact that he is a disorganised individual. 
  1. [80]
    The Appellant concedes that he did not provide a written incident report in relation to his back injury, but submits that there is evidence capable of supporting his position that he complained of, or reported, suffering pain following an incident.  Specifically, Mr Rose recalled the Appellant referring to being stiff.  In the Appellant's submission, that is enough to lend support to, or corroborate, the Appellant's position (although, in other respects, Mr Rose was an unsatisfactory witness).  The Appellant gave an explanation as to why at least one other witness did not give evidence that he told them about his back injury.  He submits that any failure by him to report the incident in strict compliance with the relevant procedures or protocol is not fatal to his appeal.  Indeed, the Commission does not have to decide whether the incident was reported in order to find that the incident occurred. 
  1. [81]
    In support of a finding that the Appellant was an honest witness, it was also submitted that:
  1. (a)
    he was not capable or sophisticated enough to maintain a false version of events for almost two years; and
  1. (b)
    although he has been working in manual labour as well as in the mining industry for many years, doing work that Mr Rose and Mr Howard described as involving vibration and jarring to the back, he had never brought a workers' compensation application previously. 
  1. [82]
    Respondent's submissions:  In summary, the Respondent submits that:
  1. (a)
    the case is about the credit of the Appellant;
  1. (b)
    the alleged bulldozer incident did not occur;
  1. (c)
    there was no evidence about the precise nature of the injury, and the Appellant had not discharged the onus of proof of establishing the injury;
  1. (d)
    the medical evidence relied on the history and symptomology given by the Appellant to his medical practitioners;
  1. (e)
    there is no causal link between the alleged incident and the Appellant's injury.
  1. [83]
    The Respondent notes that some "fundamental issues" about which the Appellant gave oral evidence, namely:
  1. (a)
    the Appellant getting out of the dozer to inspect the rock; and
  1. (b)
    the toolbox meeting where he first reported the incident to Mr Rose,

 were not mentioned in any of the more contemporaneous documents written to support his claim. 

  1. [84]
    Because two independent[13] witnesses gave evidence that:
  1. (a)
    the Appellant did not report the incident; and
  1. (b)
    had he done so, certain steps outlined in procedure documents would have been taken,

 the Respondent submits that no incident occurred in the manner asserted by the Appellant.  Indeed, the Respondent submits that there was no incident involving the Appellant's back.  The only thing that occurred in the workplace around that time related to the Appellant's eye - an event that was documented and about which there was corroborating oral evidence. 

  1. [85]
    The Respondent also notes that nowhere in the evidence of Dr Fryar does he say that the injury (whatever it is) arose out of employment or that employment was a significant contributing factor. 
  1. [86]
    The Respondent places some emphasis on the different dates that the Appellant nominated (on separate occasions and in different documents) as the date on which the alleged bulldozer incident occurred.  In chronological order:
  1. (a)
    Dr Fryar's consultation notes refer to "1 week," apparently the period since the incident;
  1. (b)
    the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate issued by Dr Fryar on 25 November 2015 states that the date of the injury was 17 November 2014 (Exhibit 1);
  1. (c)
    in a handwritten signed statement dated 17 December 2014 (Exhibit 4), the Appellant wrote that the incident occurred on 14 or 15 November 2014;
  1. (d)
    in a typed statement dated 12 March 2015 (Exhibit 2), the Appellant stated: "The date of injury and claim made by my supervisor/s and employer, do not match the dates/times/events recorded in my diary regarding my injury;"
  1. (e)
    in his typed "Nightshift Report" dated 12 March 2015 (Exhibit 5), the Appellant declared that on 15 November 2014 he was asked to perform a dozer push during the course of which the injury to his back occurred when he "came in contact with a decent sized rock under my left hand side track of the dozer."
  1. [87]
    The Respondent also submits that, although in a written statement (Exhibit 4) the Appellant states that he told a number of people that he injured his back and he named those persons in his oral evidence, none of those persons were called to give evidence on his behalf.  The absence of that evidence should be regarded as going against the weight of the Appellant's evidence, and an inference should be drawn that the evidence would not have assisted the Appellant.[14]
  1. [88]
    The Respondent accepts that the existence or absence of a report about the back injury incident does not necessarily determine whether the incident occurred, but submits that an adverse finding in relation to the Appellant's account goes to his credit as a witness, particularly about whether the incident occurred. 

Consideration and conclusions

  1. [89]
    As noted earlier, the issues that the Commission must decide in this case are whether:
  1. (a)
    the Appellant sustained an injury to his back;
  1. (b)
    the Appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment; and
  1. (c)
    his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.
  1. [90]
    Six aspects of the Appellant's case require careful consideration.  First, there was an issue about the nature of the Appellant's injury (see [75], [82](c)).  I do not accept that there can be some debate whether it is a strain or muscular ligamentous injury or mainly a disc protrusion.  Nor do I consider it is sufficient in this case to find merely that the Appellant has a mid to lower back injury. 
  1. [91]
    Having regard to the medical evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the Appellant sustained an injury to his back that is best described as moderate disc protrusions at L4/5 and L5/S1 with some nerve impingement.
  1. [92]
    Second, there is no medical evidence to demonstrate a definite or likely causal link between the alleged jarring of the Appellant's back and those protrusions or bulges.  Dr Fryar's original consultation notes and his Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate record what the Appellant told him and Dr Fryar's preliminary diagnosis.  The later MRI identified the nature of the injury.  Dr Fryar's evidence was that he was not able to know whether the disc lesion was definitely due to an injury in the Appellant's back on any particular day.  He was not asked for, and did not volunteer, his opinion whether there might be a causal link between the alleged mechanism of injury and the particular condition of the Appellant's lower back. 
  1. [93]
    Although it is ultimately for the Commission to decide whether a causal link can be established between an alleged mechanism and the subject injury, usually the Commission is assisted by the evidence of one or more medical experts as to both the nature and the cause of an injury.  In this case, the evidence from Dr Fryar was imprecise on both counts.  Essentially, the Commission is being asked to speculate that the identified condition of the Appellant's lower back was necessarily caused by the alleged incident.
  1. [94]
    Third, there is limited evidence about the alleged incident.  The Appellant's explanation of why he did not see or remove the rock when driving forward was unclear.  I infer from his oral evidence (see [22] and [23]) that the rock could have been in the windrow at the side of the dozer as he drove forward, and the rock fell onto the slot after the dozer passed.
  1. [95]
    Fourth, as noted earlier, there was much evidence concerning the date on which the incident involving the bulldozer hitting the rock was said to have occurred.  It is not necessary to repeat the evidence summarised at [28], [29] and [72].
  1. [96]
    I note, however, the sentence quoted earlier from Exhibit 2, that the date of injury nominated by the Appellant's supervisor/s and employer did not match his diary.  The Appellant gave oral evidence that he could find no record of the date of the injury in any of his diary notes.  Therefore, his evidence was clearly that those documents did not contain the requisite information.  Rather, it appeared (although this was the by no means certain) that the statement was based on, or referred to, information from his employer about the times and dates he worked in mid-November 2014.  That information was contained in an email dated 31 March 2015 (Exhibit 3), a fortnight after his typed statements of 12 March 2015. 
  1. [97]
    At the hearing, the Appellant appeared to identify and accept the dates and times that he operated machines between 14 and 19 November 2014 as set out in Exhibit 3.  Indeed, he agreed that he referred to it as part of his diary.  The list shows that, as part of Crew A, on:
  1. (a)
    14 November 2014, the Appellant worked on dump all night;
  1. (b)
    15 November 2014, the Appellant worked on the digger floor;
  1. (c)
    16 November 2014, the Appellant worked on dozer push for 1.5 hours, then worked on the dump for the rest of the night;
  1. (d)
    17 November 2014, the Appellant worked on the digger floor;
  1. (e)
    18 November 2014, the Appellant worked on the digger floor; and
  1. (f)
    19 November 2014, the Appellant worked on the dozer push for three hours.
  1. [98]
    No evidence was called in relation to that list.  In particular, no evidence was given about whether, having regard to the activities recorded for each date, the incident described by the Appellant could (or could not) have occurred on a specific night or nights during that swing.  I note, however, that the list does not include an entry for 13 November 2014, and does not record the Appellant or his crew working on a dozer push for a complete night shift.
  1. [99]
    The Patient Report Form prepared by Mr Hoey in relation to his examination and flushing of the Appellant's eye is dated 19 November 2014 at 2.45 (Exhibit 7).  That is the only contemporaneous document in evidence about an incident referred to in these proceedings.  Working back from that date, and relying only on the Appellant's evidence, it is possible to deduce that the alleged back incident occurred on 17 November 2014.  As is clear from his evidence summarised earlier, the Appellant resiled from that date. It is not necessary for me to make a finding about the date on which the alleged incident occurred.
  1. [100]
    The apparent imprecision as to the date of the alleged back incident is not in itself fatal to the appeal.  I accept that, in circumstances where someone is working alone on successive nights throughout a swing shift, and in the absence of any personal or official written records of an incident such as the one alleged by the Appellant, it can be difficult to accurately recall the precise date on which such an incident occurred.
  1. [101]
    Fifth, I also agree that the absence of an official incident investigation report is not fatal to the appeal succeeding.  However, taken together:
  1. (a)
    the lack of any witnesses (apart from the equivocal evidence of Mr Rose) to substantively corroborate the Appellant's assertions that he told at least six named co-workers about the incident or the condition of his back;
  1. (b)
    the explanation by the Appellant's counsel that one person who was to be called to give evidence (that the Appellant had told him about his injured back and that he was at the tool box meeting) was not called as a witness because he was not at the mine site during the relevant swing shift; and
  1. (c)
    the robust and unequivocal rebuttal by Mr Howard and Mr Rose of key assertions by the Appellant that he told them about his back on specific occasions at specified locations,

undermine the veracity of the Appellant's account of what he told others.  In other words, while the existence or absence of an official report about the incident need not conclusively determine whether the incident occurred, the doubt cast on his evidence about whether or what he told others also calls into question his account of the incident.

  1. [102]
    Sixth, I am satisfied that, had the Appellant indicated clearly to Mr Howard or Mr Rose (or both of them) that he had significant back pain or that the alleged incident had occurred (or both things), some appropriate action would have been taken by his supervisor (or supervisors).  The evidence about the applicable procedures and their practical application demonstrates that, had a "red flag" been raised, a supervisor would have ensured that the Appellant received appropriate medical or paramedical attention and would have been prevented from operating a bulldozer or similar heavy machinery until his condition had been diagnosed and, if necessary, treated.  The incident and any injury would have been reported in writing.
  1. [103]
    With those conclusions in mind, it is appropriate to have regard to the evidence as a whole in order to decide whether the appeal should succeed.
  1. [104]
    At its highest, the Appellant's case is that:
  1. (a)
    on a night in mid-November 2014, in the course of his employment, he reversed a bulldozer into a large rock with consequent jarring to his back;
  1. (b)
    he did not experience immediate pain, but later during that shift and over the next few days he experienced persistent and irritating discomfort;
  1. (c)
    when he saw Dr Fryar on 25 November 2014 he described the incident and Dr Fryar made a preliminary diagnosis of lumbar and thoracic spine strain and possibly lumbar disc lesion;
  1. (d)
    later investigation, including an MRI, established that he had disc bulges or protrusions in his lower back;
  1. (e)
    the medical evidence supports a finding that the Appellant had a mid to lower back injury;
  1. (f)
    although Dr Fryer gave no evidence at the hearing that the Appellant's back injury or condition arose out of, or in the course of, his employment or that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury, the Commission should conclude, in the absence of any other explanation, that the Appellant's injury must be work-related.
  1. [105]
    Earlier in these reasons for decision (see [9] to [13]) I set out the legal criteria which must be satisfied before the appeal can succeed.  I am not satisfied that the Appellant has discharged his onus of proof.  The possibility of him suffering a compensable injury is not enough.  There is insufficient evidence in the form of objective facts from which to infer the other facts which the Appellant sought to establish.  The Commission cannot substitute speculation for satisfaction on the balance of probabilities.
  1. [106]
    I am not persuaded that the evidence supports a finding that the Appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment, or that his employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.             

Orders

  1. [107]
    For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the appeal cannot succeed.
  1. [108]
    Accordingly:
  1. (a)
    the appeal is dismissed.
  1. (b)
    the decision of the Respondent is confirmed.
  1. (c)
    the Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject of a further application to the Commission.
  1. [109]
    Order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1] See e.g. Q-COMP v Hetherington [2004] QIC 47, (2004) 176 QGIG 493 (Hall P). 

[2] See Rossmuller v Q-COMP (C/2009/36) - decision http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au, [2]; State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v QComp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447.

[3] See MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100, 101 (Hall P) and cases cited.

[4] Nilsson v Q-Comp (2008) 189 QGIG 523, 526 (Hall P).

[5] Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 680, 681 (Hall P); see also Newman v Blackwood [2015] ICQ 014, [4], [7] (Martin J).

[6] It is not clear, however, when he read the date that his doctor or doctors had nominated as the date of the incident. 

[7] The data which the Appellant identified as being part of his diary was contained in an email dated 31 March 2015 (Exhibit 3), some weeks after the Appellant's type written statement (Exhibit 2). 

[8] Those duties involved operating a new 550 tonne Hitachi excavator loading trucks with waste material (Exhibit 5).

[9] He continued, "I was tender.  No one likes to show their weak points, mate."  (T1: 50)

[10] The Appellant had been operating a 5500 that had not been long on the site.

[11] See his evidence summarised at [32] and [34].

[12] Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multidisciplinary Service at the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service.

[13] Independent in the sense that, at the time of the hearing they did not work for Peabody and did not have anything to gain from the outcome of the proceedings.

[14] See Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Zalar v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Zalar v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2016] QIRC 112

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Neate IC

  • Date:

    26 Oct 2016

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
Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 680
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 185 QGIG 680
Cite 2 - (2007) 185 QGIG 680
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1959) 101 CLR 298
Cite 2 - (1959) 101 CLR 298
MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Cite 2 - (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Newman v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 14
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] ICQ 14
Cite 2 - [2015] ICQ 14
Nilsson v Q-Comp (2008) 189 QGIG 523
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) 189 QGIG 523
Cite 2 - (2008) 189 QGIG 523
Q-Comp v Hetherington (2004) 176 QGIG 493
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 176 QGIG 493
Cite 2 - (2004) 176 QGIG 493
Q-Comp v Hetherington [2004] QIC 47
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QIC 47
Cite 2 - [2004] QIC 47
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

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.