Eric Martin Rossmuller v Q-COMP

Date of decision: 24 July 2009, IM Strofield

Ms Anderson of Counsel, instructed by Shine Lawyers for the appellant

Mr Watson of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP

Key words – truck driver – 41 – Injury Type: psychological – Appeal Outcome: appeal dismissed – Significant sections considered: –

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

Head Note

Mr Rossmuller was employed by Queensland Rail (a self-insurer) as a truck driver. On 16 February 2007, Mr Rossmuller lodged an application for compensation with Queensland Rail for a psychological injury sustained over a period of time between April and December 2006.

Queensland Rail rejected Mr Rossmuller’s application for compensation, and Mr Rossmuller applied to Q-COMP for review of this decision. On 11 December 2007, Q-COMP made a decision to confirm Queensland Rail’s decision to reject the application. The Review Officer determined that while Mr Rossmuller sustained a personal injury that arose in the course of employment and employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury, the injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

On appeal to the Industrial Magistrates Court, it was not in dispute that Mr Rossmuller sustained a personal injury in the form of a psychiatric or psychological disorder. IM Strofield addressed 10 stressors alleged by Mr Rossmuller to have caused his injury. These included being unsuccessful in a selection process for fulltime permanent positions, management’s response and alleged reprisals in relation to his attempts to query or complain about the selection process, an alleged assault on Mr Rossmuller by a manager, unreasonable shift changes, and alleged maladministration in relation to Mr Rossmuller’s workers’ compensation claim for a physical injury.

In general, IM Strofield accepted the evidence of witnesses for the respondent over the evidence of Mr Rossmuller and his supporting witnesses. IM Strofield variously found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate Mr Rossmuller’s allegations, or that his injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way, his perception or expectation of reasonable management action taken against him, and actions taken by Queensland Rail in connection with his application for compensation for the physical injury.

IM Strofield therefore concluded that Mr Rossmuller’s condition was excluded from the definition of ‘injury’ within section 32 and dismissed the appeal.

This decision has been appealed to the Industrial Court.