Craig Anthony Gibbons v Q-COMP

Date of decision: 8 January 2010, Acting I.M. Finger

Mr M Pope of Counsel, instructed by Derek & Dwyer Lawyers for the appellant

Mr S Sapsford of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP

Key words – Machine Operator - 40 – Injury Type: physical - shoulder – Appeal Outcome: appeal dismissed - Significant sections considered: –

s32(1) an injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury

s144A When weekly payments of compensation stop

s144B When payment of medical treatment, hospitalisation and expenses stops

Head Note

Mr Gibbons lodged an application for compensation for a work related right shoulder injury. WorkCover Queensland (“the Insurer”) accepted the claim and benefits were paid accordingly. The Insurer later decided to cease paying benefits on the claim on the basis that the effects of the work related injury had stopped and no further medical treatment was necessary. Mr Gibbons sought a review of that decision with Q-COMP. The Review Unit decision confirmed the decision of the Insurer to terminate the claim. Mr Gibbons lodged a notice of appeal in relation to that decision.

Mr Gibbons lodged a second application for compensation for a work related left shoulder injury. The Insurer rejected that application, which was confirmed by the Q-COMP upon review. Mr Gibbons lodged a further notice of appeal in relation to that decision to reject his claim.

Both appeals were heard and determined together.

The appellant gave evidence that he sustained both injuries in February 2007, however he did not report the injuries to his supervisor until March and did not seek medical treatment for either injury until after August 2007 as he said he was ‘too busy at work’. It was also clear from the evidence that he not only provided an inconsistent version of events to his treating medical specialists, but differing versions in his evidence at the hearing.

His Honour found that having regard to the totality of the evidence, the medical evidence suggested that both shoulder conditions were as a result of the ageing process, rather than an injury or aggravation of the condition sustained at work.

His Honour confirmed that the claim for the right shoulder injury should be terminated, and the claim for the left shoulder injury should be rejected.

These decisions have been appealed to the Queensland Industrial Court.