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

Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2019] QIRC 51

Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2019] QIRC 51

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 051

PARTIES:

Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership)

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NOS:

WC/2017/108 and WC/2017/163

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2019

HEARING DATES:

7 February 2019

18 February 2019 (Appellant's Submissions)

1 March 2019 (Quelch's Submissions)

7 March 2019 (Appellant's Reply Submissions)

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Thompson IC

Brisbane

ORDERS:

  1. Application granted.
  1. Pursuant to s 556 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, Linda Quelch is required to submit to a medical examination with either Dr Prue Fitzpatrick, Orthopaedic Surgeon or Dr Brett Halliday, Orthopaedic Surgeon at a time and place to be determined.
  1. The Applicant is required to make the arrangements regarding the appointment and in doing so provide reasonable notice to Linda Quelch of the date, time and location of the appointment.
  1. The costs of the medical examination including all reasonable travel costs to and from the medical examination are to be met by the Applicant.
  1. If without reasonable excuse Linda Quelch does not attend the medical examination with either Dr Prue Fitzpatrick or Dr Brett Halliday on the date, at the time and location determined, she will be required to reimburse the Applicant for costs reasonably incurred in relation to the medical examination.
  1. The report provided at the conclusion of the examination is to be provided to the Regulator no later than seven days after such report has been received.
  1. The party's costs of this application be reserved to the Member hearing the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL AGAINST DECISION INDUSTRIAL LAW - Application in existing proceedings - Medical examination - Legislation - Application granted pursuant to conditions of Order.

LEGISLATION:

CASE:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 108, s 552, s 556

Charters Towers Regional Council v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 027

APPEARANCES:

Mr S. Gray of Counsel, instructed by Hentys Lawyers for the Appellant.

Ms A. Schultz of the Workers' Compensation Regulator, Respondent.

Ms L. Quelch.

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    An Application in Existing Proceedings was lodged with the Industrial Registrar on 17 December 2018 by Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership)(applicant) in which they sought pursuant to s 556 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) that the worker Linda Quelch (Quelch) submit to a medical examination with either Dr Prue Fitzpatrick (Dr Fitzpatrick), Orthopaedic Surgeon or Dr Brett Halliday (Dr Halliday), Orthopaedic Surgeon, on a date, at a time and at a location as set out in Annexure 1.
  1. [2]
    The costs of the workers' medical examination with either medical specialist including reasonable travel costs, incurred by the worker, to and from the medical examination be paid by the applicant.
  1. [3]
    If the worker without reasonable excuse does not attend the medical examination with either medical practitioner at the date, time and location then the worker be required to reimburse the applicant for costs reasonably incurred in relation to the medical examination.
  1. [4]
    The grounds relied upon were identified as:
  • extent of causal link, if any, between the worker's nominated employment factors and the development of her alleged medical condition, is an issue, relevant to the applicant's appeal against the Regulator's review decision;
  • medical evidence does not address, adequately or at all, whether there is a sufficient causal link between the worker's initial claim for wrist and shoulder injury and the existing medical condition to her cervical spine, to the extent required to verify her claim;
  • medical evidence insofar as it relates to the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate is inconsistent in its diagnosis;
  • medical evidence is ambiguous to the extent of the differentiation between the assessments of the percentage of whole person impairment attributable to the worker's injury/condition, as reported by Orthopaedic Surgeons Dr Neil Cochrane (Dr Cochrane) and Dr Angus Nicoll (Dr Nicoll); and
  • evidence as to the accuracy of the dates on which the worker alleges she suffered the initial injury is questionable.

Directions Order

  1. [5]
    On 8 February 2019 a Directions Order was issued, following a conference held on 7 February 2019, that required the following:
  • Applicant to file written submissions by 4.00 pm on 15 February 2019;
  • Respondent to file written submissions by 4.00 pm on 1 March 2019;
  • Applicant to file written submissions in reply by 4.00 pm on 8 March 2019.

The application was to be dealt with on the papers.

Submissions

Applicant

Relief sought

  1. [6]
    The applicant sought an Order that the worker submit to a medical examination pursuant to s 556 of the Act with either:
  • Dr Fitzpatrick - Orthopaedic Surgeon; or
  • Dr Halliday - Orthopaedic Surgeon.

Legislation

  1. [7]
    The relevant legislation is as follows:

556 Additional medical evidence

  1. (1)
    This section applies if -
  1. (a)
    the condition of a claimant or worker who has, or is said to have, sustained an injury is relevant to the appeal; or
  1. (b)
    the cause, nature or extent of the injury or incapacity arising from the injury is relevant to the appeal.
  1. (2)
    The appeal body may, at any time before or after the start of the hearing, order the claimant or worker to submit to a personal examination by 1 or more specified registered persons.
  1. (3)
    The appeal body may also, as the appeal body considers appropriate, make an order about -
  1. (a)
    the way, time and place of the examination; and
  1. (b)
    costs of the application for the order and of the examination.
  1. (4)
    An opinion formed on the examination must be given to the respondent and the respondent must make the opinion available to the appellant.
  1. (5)
    Subsection (6) applies if the claimant or worker -
  1. (a)
    fails, without reasonable excuse, to attend for the examination at the time and place ordered by the appeal body; or
  1. (b)
    having attended, refuses to be examined by a registered person; or
  1. (c)
    obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, the examination.
  1. (6)
    Any entitlement the claimant or worker may have to compensation is suspended until the claimant or worker undergoes the examination.

Grounds in support of application

  1. [8]
    The grounds outlined in the application, at paragraph [4] of this decision, supported the application.

Regulator's Response

  1. [9]
    The Workers' Compensation Regulator (Regulator) neither consented to nor opposed the application, stating that it was for the applicant to satisfy the Commission that an Order should be made.

Worker's response to the request that she submit to a personal examination

  1. [10]
    Lawyers acting for the applicant forwarded correspondence to the worker (dated 19 September 2018) requesting consent for her to undertake an independent medical examination which was declined on 29 September 2018.
  1. [11]
    On 5 February 2019 the worker provided a statutory declaration in response to the application which stated amongst other things:
  • she had already undergone two independent medical evaluations with Dr Cochrane, Neurosurgeon and Dr Michael Maguire (Dr Maguire), Orthopaedic Surgeon;
  • the doctors had specialist knowledge in spinal injuries and upper limb injuries, respectively;
  • the worker was trying to move on with her life and had found part-time administration work with a small company that accommodates her injury;
  • her hours of work can vary day-to-day and she is generally given 24 hours' notice of being required to start work on any given day;
  • to attend a further independent medical evaluation would be very arduous in circumstances where she was trying not to compromise her relationship with her employer for reasons relating to her previous workplace injury; and
  • a further medical examination would be wholly unnecessary having already been assessed for her injuries.
  1. [12]
    In terms of the workers' reference to having undergone "two independent medical evaluations with Drs Cochrane and Maguire" it was evident from the evidence that:
  • the workers' treating General Practitioner, Dr Haseeb Alam (Dr Alam) had referred her to Dr Michael Graze (Dr Graze) Orthopaedic Surgeon for treatment of her condition;
  • as recorded in WorkCover's decision (4 May 2017) the worker sought a second opinion and was referred to Dr Maguire;
  • the worker attended upon Dr Maguire for treatment and was referred to by Dr Cochrane for assessment and management of her C5 disc prolapse and C6 nerve root compression; and
  • worker was referred by WorkCover to Dr Nicoll, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon for "the purposes of evaluating this claimant's permanent impairment alone".
  1. [13]
    The Regulator had identified that in the forthcoming trial their intention was to call Drs Maguire, Cochrane and Alam.  The description of Drs Cochrane and Maguire as being "independent" is a misnomer and to date there had been no independent assessment of the worker's injury for the purpose of considering the necessary causal connection required by s 32(1) of the Act.
  1. [14]
    The Regulator acknowledged the limited evidence in WC/2017/163 with the Review Officer writing:

Both Dr Maguire and Dr Nicoll provided comments in relation [to] Mrs Quelch's neck injury however they did not state nor were they asked to comment on the relationship between the neck injury and the work-related injury.

  1. [15]
    The inconvenience described by the worker in attending any examination could be overcome by sufficient advanced notice to avoid any inconvenience or compromise in her relationship with her new employer, given that she receives at least 24 hours' notice before having to start work.

Appeal number WC/2017/108

  1. [16]
    On or about 25 October 2016 the worker lodged an application for workers' compensation for an injury described as:

Left wrist tenosynovitis left elbow olecranon bursitis and left shoulder, bursitis - as per med cert issued 24/10/19.

  1. [17]
    The injury was said to have occurred on 17 October 2016 with the application accepted by WorkCover on 21 December 2016.
  1. [18]
    The applicant sought a review of the decision on 17 March 2017 and the Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover on 26 May 2017.
  1. [19]
    The appeal was lodged against the decision on 13 June 2017.

Appeal number WC/2017/163

  1. [20]
    WorkCover advised the employer on 4 May 2017 that it had determined to accept the worker's claim for a secondary injury, aggravation of pre-existing degenerate condition of C5/C6 cervical spondylosis.  The Regulator confirmed WorkCover's decision to accept the secondary injury on 28 August 2017 with an appeal filed by the applicant on 5 September 2017.

Consideration of the relevant medical evidence

  1. [21]
    There is ambiguity in respect of both the nature and extent of the injury suffered by the worker:
  • the worker had declined an ultrasound guided sub acromial bursa injection of cortisone on the grounds that she did not feel her symptoms were related to the bursar or rotator cuff despite Dr Graze having described the diagnosis as appearing that of "bursitis plus/minus cuff tear".  Dr Graze had on 17 January 2017 commented on an x-ray and MRI of the worker's left shoulder:

As such I would recommend two sub acromial cortisone injections at six week intervals given that these have not been trialled to date.  In conjunction with the cortisone injections she will also undertake physiotherapy.

  • at some stage even the worker had some doubts as to the nature of her injury;
  • Dr Maguire in a report to WorkCover on 16 February 2017 did not explain how the diagnosed injury related to the injuries which were the subject of the application for compensation;
  • Dr Cochrane in his report of 28 February 2017 described how he explained to the worker that "neck pain is probably more complex and multifactorial"; and
  • Dr Cochrane reported to WorkCover on 31 March 2017 that the specific injury had not occurred on one day.

Issues in dispute in the appeal

  1. [22]
    It was apparent from the Statements of Facts and Contentions filed by both parties that the issues in dispute include:
  • nature of the duties undertaken by the worker;
  • whether the worker was able to perform those duties without restriction; and
  • whether there was a causal connection between the worker's duties and the claimed injuries.
  1. [23]
    The applicant acknowledges that the factual disputes will not be resolved by the requested independent medical examination however as far as the dispute about relevant medical evidence is concerned, it should be noted that the Review Officer had written:

I note that the evidence available at review about the specific nature of Mrs Quelch's injury is somewhat inconsistent.  However, it is sufficiently consistent for me to be satisfied that Mrs Quelch sustained a left shoulder injury.

  1. [24]
    The Regulator had contended there was no medical evidence to support the contention that the work duties performed by the worker on 11 October 2016 were not of a nature to cause an injury to her left shoulder.
  1. [25]
    The Regulator had also accepted that in relation to the secondary injury there were issues with the medical evidence said to support the claim.

Conclusion

  1. [26]
    The matters at issue in the appeals, include the cause, nature and extent of the injuries as claimed by the worker were the very issues contemplated by s 556(1) of the Act.
  1. [27]
    The following Orders were sought:
  • Pursuant to section 556 of the Worker's Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the Worker submit to a medical examination with either Dr Prue Fitzpatrick, Orthopaedic Surgeon or Dr Brett Halliday, Orthopaedic Surgeon.
  • The costs of the Worker's medical examination with either Dr Fitzpatrick or Dr Halliday, including the Worker's reasonable travel costs to and from the medical examination be paid by the Applicant.
  • If, without reasonable excuse, the Worker does not attend the medical examination with either Dr Fitzpatrick or Dr Halliday, on the date, at the time, and at the location determined, the Worker be required to reimburse the Applicant for costs reasonably incurred by it in relation to the medical examination.
  • The parties' costs of this application be reserved to the Commissioner hearing the appeal.

Worker

  1. [28]
    The worker firstly addressed the Orders that had been sought in the application and the grounds that had been specified in support of the application.

Background

  1. [29]
    On 19 September 2018 the worker had received correspondence from lawyers acting for the applicant, requesting her consent to undergo an independent medical examination.  The correspondence had stated:

In order to assist in the assessment and evaluation of your medical condition, we are instructed to seek your consent and request your attendance at an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

  1. [30]
    There had been no particulars provided as to why any further medical opinions were necessary to assist in the assessment and evaluation of her medical condition.  The worker forwarded an email on 26 September 2018 to the applicant's lawyers in respect of their reference in the correspondence to s 556 of the Act because she was unclear of the relevance of the proposed medical examination, having already been examined by Drs Cochrane and Maguire who were both suitably qualified experts to assess her injuries.
  1. [31]
    There had been no response to email of 26 September 2018 prior to the formal application being received on 12 December 2018.

Legislation

  1. [32]
    Section 32(1) of the Act defines the meaning of "injury" as:
  1. (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…

Medical Evidence

Appeal number WC/2017/108

  1. [33]
    Dr Alam a General Practitioner on 24 October 2016 had diagnosed a "left wrist tenosynovitis, olecranon bursitis and sub deltoid bursitis".  Dr Alam had discussions with WorkCover on or around 13 December and had stated:
  • that on the history provided by the worker she had been performing normal duties with a co-worker but on 24 October 2016 had been working more as the co-worker was on suitable duties; and
  • contributing cause of the injury was "definitely repetitive movements".

Appeal number WC/2017/163

  1. [34]
    On 10 February 2017, Dr Alam diagnosed a "C5/6 disc bulge with potential compression of the C6 existing nerve root".

Appeal number WC/2017/108

  1. [35]
    In a medical report dated 20 December 2016 Dr Graze an Orthopaedic Surgeon noted that the "onset of the shoulder complaint was 2 1/2 months ago" when she engaged in heavy lifting throughout a night shift.
  1. [36]
    Dr Maguire in a report dated 16 February 2017 recorded that the work-related injury of the worker involved quite a repetitive process.  Since the incident of 11 October 2016, she had experienced ongoing problems.

Appeal number WC/2017/163

  1. [37]
    On 16 February 2016 Dr Maguire diagnosed a "C5/6 disc bulge with potential compression of the C6 exiting nerve root on the left side".

Appeal number WC/2017/108

  1. [38]
    Dr Cochrane in a report dated 28 February 2017 had recorded information involving the lifting of food products up to 12 kilograms at a time on the date of the injury.  Dr Cochrane diagnosed on 3 April 2017 in a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate that the worker suffered an "L shoulder injury" on 11 October 2016.

Appeal number WC/2017/163

  1. [39]
    Dr Cochrane in a report dated 3 March 2017 diagnosed "aggravation of C5/6 cervical spondylosis resulting in active left V6 radiculopathy".  On 3 March 2017 Dr Cochrane also opined that the worker sustained "an aggravation of pre-existing degenerative condition in the cervical spine, that is aggravation of C5/6 cervical spondylosis resulting in active left radiculopathy".  In responding to an enquiry by WorkCover about her work duties being a mechanism of injury he had said the condition was more of a chronic degenerative nature but also confirmed that the nature of conditions at work would have contributed 50 per cent to the development of the degeneration.

Appeal number WC/2017/108

  1. [40]
    Dr Nicoll in response to a WorkCover request for permanent impairment assessment provided a report in which he diagnosed "aggravation of pre-existing degenerative changes of the cervical spine region".

Summary

  1. [41]
    The worker had not initially wanted to make a WorkCover claim until Drs Alam, Cochrane, Graze and Maguire had consistently supported the conclusion that her employment with the applicant was a significant contributing factor to her left shoulder and neck injury.
  1. [42]
    Whilst the worker denied any prior symptoms in her left shoulder or neck, s 108 of the Act allows for an aggravation to be compensable.  The matter of aggravation is not for consideration in this application.
  1. [43]
    The appeal commenced with a filing on or around 13 June 2017 and in the 20 months that had elapsed the applicant had ample time to contact any of her existing medical specialists to seek clarification of their opinions.  The worker does not consider it necessary or beneficial that a further medical opinion be obtained in circumstances where existing specialists have already addressed the issues that the applicant is challenging.
  1. [44]
    The worker still retained concerns about issues with her current employer if required to undertake the medical examination and of compromising her current employment prospects.

Remedy

  1. [45]
    It was submitted that no Order be made requiring her to submit to a medical examination with either Drs Fitzpatrick or Halliday.

Applicant in Reply

Background

  1. [46]
    The submission regarding the lack of full particulars no longer has relevance as full particulars were provided in the application and the worker was still not prepared to consent to an examination.

Medical Evidence

  1. [47]
    The applicant did not propose to respond to matters raised by the worker regarding medical evidence as that had already been dealt with in the primary submission.

Summary

  1. [48]
    The submission was wrong about the Commission not having to determine the cause, nature or extent of the injury suffered by the worker, particularly whether the injury was a discrete injury or an aggravation of a pre-existing condition and its causal connection with the work duties performed by the worker on a single day.
  1. [49]
    There was an inconsistency in the various medical opinions and as contemplated by s 556 of the Act the Commission may make an Order that the worker submits to a medical examination.
  1. [50]
    On the matter of being able to cross-examine the witnesses called by the Regulator, it is the applicant who bears the onus of having to prove the worker does not have an injury.  See Charters Towers Regional Council v Workers' Compensation Regulator[1].
  1. [51]
    In order to discharge that obligation, the applicant requires the assistance of additional medical evidence, the subject of this application.  A failure to do so will inevitably result in a similar observation to that made by O'Connor VP in Charters Towers Regional Council v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2]:

Mr Smith has an entitlement for compensation for industrial deafness in accordance with s 125 of the Act. The onus was on the appellant to establish, on the requisite standard that Mr Smith's application for compensation was not one for acceptance. It had the ability to call expert evidence to establish that Mr Smith’s industrial deafness did not arise out of or in the course of his employment, or that his employment was not the significant contributing factor to his industrial deafness. It did not do so.

  1. [52]
    The Order should be made in accordance with the application.

Conclusion

  1. [53]
    In determining whether an Order should be made requiring the worker to undertake an independent medical examination in the terms sought by the application, it is necessary as a threshold issue to satisfy the provisions of s 556(1)(a) or (b) of the Act:
  1. (1)
    This section applies if -
  1. (a)
    the condition of a claimant or worker who has, or is said to have, sustained an injury is relevant to the appeal; or
  1. (b)
    the cause, nature or extent of the injury or incapacity arising from the injury is relevant to the appeal.

Background

  1. [54]
    The worker in this matter had made two applications for workers' compensation which were accepted by WorkCover as being compensable.  The applicant (in this proceeding) had in respect of each of the accepted claims for compensation sought that a Review be undertaken by the Regulator which in each case saw the decision of WorkCover confirmed.  The chronology in respect to each claim was as follows:

WC/2017/108

  • application for compensation lodged - 25 October 2016;
  • application accepted - 21 December 2016;
  • a Review of the decision sought - 17 March 2017;
  • Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover - 26 May 2017; and
  • appeal to the Commission lodged - 13 June 2017.

WC/2017/163

  • applicant advised by WorkCover that a claim for a secondary injury had been accepted - 4 May 2017;
  • Regulator confirmed the decision of WorkCover - 28 August 2017; and
  • appeal to the Commission lodged - 5 September 2017.
  1. [55]
    I am satisfied upon examination of the material relating to each of the accepted claims that the provisions of s 556(1)(b) of the Act are enlivened on the basis that the cause, nature or extent of the injuries are relevant to the appeals for the reasons they are the subject of contest between the parties.

Medical Evidence and Causation

  1. [56]
    In support of the Order being sought whereby the worker would be directed to undergo an independent medical examination, the applicant had raised a number of concerns in regard to the ambiguity of the existing medical evidence relevant to the appeals.  Such evidence included:
  • the diagnosis made by Dr Graze on 20 December 2016 of an injury that appeared to be "bursitis plus/minus cuff tear" and on 17 January 2017 when he observed that an MRI had not identified a full thickness tear within the cuff.  In any event the worker had declined to have the ultrasound guided treatment on the basis of not agreeing that her symptoms were related to bursar or rotator cuff;
  • in February 2017 injury diagnosed without explanation how the injury related to the application for compensation; and
  • Dr Cochrane's opinions that "the neck pain is probably more complex and multifactorial" and that the specific injury had not occurred on one day.
  1. [57]
    The medical evidence in dispute was acknowledged in the Regulator's decision relating to the left arm shoulder injury in the following terms:

I note that the evidence available at review about the specific nature of Mrs Quelch's injury is somewhat inconsistent.

  1. [58]
    In the Regulator's Statement of Facts and Contentions it was asserted in respect of the claimed injury:

There is no medical evidence to support the contention that the work duties that Mrs Quelch performed on 11 October 2016 were not of a nature to cause an injury to her left shoulder.

  1. [59]
    The worker was content with the medical evidence currently available in that it supported not only the injuries but also that the injuries were sustained in the course of her employment with Dr Cochrane in a report dated 28 February 2017 noting:

Typically, the second half of her shift is involved with filing the chiller with refrigerated food products and on the date of injury, as another worker was on light-duties due to a work related injuries [sic], she herself had to lift he majority of chilled goods, lifting up to 12 kg at a time.

  1. [60]
    In relation to the issue of permanent impairment a report had been provided by Dr Nicoll which had diagnosed an "aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative changes of the cervical spine".  Also relating to the same circumstance Dr Cochrane had found whilst the condition was more of a chronic degenerative nature of which the conditions of her work would have contributed to approximately 50 per cent to the development of the degeneration.
  1. [61]
    I am satisfied the applicant has established that in terms of the medical evidence currently available to the Commission there are legitimate concerns held about the consistency of that evidence that would support the application being granted.

Issues for determination in the appeals

  1. [62]
    The applicant relevantly identified the issues in dispute between the parties as:
  • nature of the duties undertaken by the worker;
  • whether the worker was able to perform those duties without restriction; and
  • whether there was a causal connection between the worker's duties and the claimed injuries.
  1. [63]
    Clearly any additional evidence of a medical nature that may be gleaned from the worker having an independent medical examination would likely have the effect of benefiting the overall consideration of the appeals by the Commission.

Compromise of worker's current employment prospects

  1. [64]
    In terms of resisting the application for the independent medical examination being sought by the applicant the worker stated in her appeal:

I do have genuine concerns that if I inform my employer that I will be absent from work for reasons relating to the assessment of a prior injury that I will compromise my current employment prospects.

  1. [65]
    The concerns held by the worker, as genuine as they may be, are not grounds that could favourably be viewed as a reason not to grant the application.  In any event the worker most likely will be required to absent herself from work at a later date for the conduct of the substantive proceedings.
  1. [66]
    Further the applicant in arranging the worker's attendance at any examination would be required to provide timeframes where adequate notice was given to the worker in attending the examination.

Finding

  1. [67]
    On consideration of the submission and material placed before the proceedings I have decided to exercise the discretion of the Commission to grant the application causing the worker to present for an independent medical examination pursuant to the conditions of a subsequent Order made by the Commission.
  1. [68]
    In making such Order I note that whilst the worker opposed the application in its totality there was an absence in respect to any concern that either of the Orthopaedic Surgeons nominated were unacceptable should the application be granted.
  1. [69]
    The application is granted and the Commission makes the following Orders:
  • Pursuant to s 556 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, Linda Quelch is required to submit to a medical examination with either Dr Prue Fitzpatrick, Orthopaedic Surgeon or Dr Brett Halliday, Orthopaedic Surgeon at a time and place to be determined;
  • the Applicant is required to make the arrangements regarding the appointment and in doing so provide reasonable notice to Linda Quelch of the date, time and location of the appointment;
  • the costs of the medical examination including all reasonable travel costs to and from the medical examination are to be met by the Applicant;
  • if without reasonable excuse Linda Quelch does not attend the medical examination with either Dr Prue Fitzpatrick or Dr Brett Halliday on the date, at the time and location determined, she will be required to reimburse the Applicant for costs reasonably incurred in relation to the medical examination;
  • the report provided at the conclusion of the examination is to be provided to the Regulator no later than seven days after such report has been received; and
  • the party's costs of this application be reserved to the Member hearing the appeal.
  1. [70]
    The Regulator is requested to inform the worker of the decision of the Commission and the subsequent Order.
  1. [71]
    I so order.

Footnotes

[1] Charters Towers Regional Council v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 027

[2] Charters Towers Regional Council v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 027

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2019] QIRC 51

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Thompson IC

  • Date:

    25 Mar 2019

Appeal Status

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

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.