Elizabeth Cotter v Q-COMP

2 March 2010, I.M. G O’Driscoll

Ms Lisa Wilson of Counsel, instructed by Parker Simmonds Lawyers for the Appellant

Mr Peter Rashleigh of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP

Police officer - 60 –psychological –appeal dismissed: –

s32(5) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker ’s employment

Head Note

Elizabeth Cotter (Appellant) lodged an application for compensation with the Insurer on 4 July 2008 for a psychological injury. The Appellant stated that her injury was caused by ‘inappropriate actions of supervisors’ over a period of time. At the time of the injury, the Appellant was working as a police officer.

The Insurer investigated the circumstances surrounding the application for compensation. The Insurer subsequently decided to accept the claim on the basis that the Appellant’s psychological injury did not arise out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Introduce the worker and the employer, including the worker’s position

If the worker is the review applicant, refer to the worker as the “Applicant”. If the employer is the review applicant, refer to the employer as the “Applicant” and the worker as the “Claimant”.

Date of incident

Nature of the injury

Cause of the injury

Date application for compensation lodged

General statement that the claim was investigated by the Insurer but not the details of that investigation

The Employer lodged a review with Q-COMP who decided to set aside the Insurer’s decision to accept the claim. The Review officer decided that the Appellant’s injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The Appellant’s injury was therefore excluded from the definition of injury pursuant to section 32(5) of the Act.

The Appellant’s stressors were as follows:

• Demeaning treatment at the workplace
• Unfairly refusing the Appellant the opportunity to attend seminars
• Unfairly refusing the Appellant to learn a software program without training
• Requiring the Appellant to work unrealistic deadlines in preparing advertising.

An appeal was lodged with the Industrial Magistrate Court. His Honour accepted that:

• the Appellant suffered a permanent injury in the line of duty and this pre-existing physical injury prevented her from performing some duties
• the Appellant was granted a permanent exemption from undertaking the operational skills and tactics qualifications
• the Appellant performed non operational police duties
• the procedures within the recruiting section were changing, and the need for the appellant and other officers to attend events was reduced
• the mandatory requirement for firearms and OST training was introduced for Queensland Police officers
• the interpretation by management that the OST qualification was a very important factor in respect to a reduction of risk in the workplace is reasonable
• the identification of potential risk to the appellant when travelling to or when attending recruitment events at various locations to be a reasonable and proper exercise of the employer’s duty of care
• it was unreasonable to compare injuries and duties of the appellant with another officer as their circumstances were completely different
• the Appellant was not discriminated in the workplace because of her prior physical injury by being restricted to recruiting events nor in respect to being permanently exempt from OST qualifications.

The Magistrate accepted the evidence of the witnesses called by Q-COMP. His Honour was satisfied that the management action in respect to the Appellant to be fair and reasonable in respect of all issues of concern or complaint raised by the Appellant. His Honour was not satisfied that the Appellant had discharged her onus of proof. He therefore determined that the Appellant’s injury was withdrawn by section 32(5) of the Act.