Keywords
Workers’ compensation – psychiatric injury – post-traumatic stress disorder – notice of assessment – where schizophrenia was not specifically raised as a work-related injury until it was pleaded in the amended statement of claim.
Facts
The plaintiff was a boilermaker who sustained a head injury at work. He lodged a workers’ compensation claim for a laceration injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. The two injuries were accepted by WorkCover. The plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia.
In the Notice of Assessment, the Medical Assessment Tribunal outlined the plaintiff’s schizophrenia was not work-related. The schizophrenia condition was not included as an injury in the plaintiff’s Notice of Claim for Damages or Statement of Claim.
After proceedings had been commenced, the plaintiff obtained a report from Professor McFarlane who opined that there was a link between the accident and the onset of the plaintiff’s schizophrenic illness.
The plaintiff amended the Statement of Claim to include the schizophrenia as an accident-related injury.
The defendant pleaded in its Defence that the plaintiff was precluded from seeking damages for any aggravation or development of schizophrenia because WorkCover has not decided that his schizophrenia was an “injury” under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), nor had it issued a Notice of Assessment for that condition.
The plaintiff brought an application to strike out the relevant paragraphs of the defendant’s Defence. The primary judge dismissed the application.
The plaintiff appealed that decision on two grounds.
Decision
Bond and Boddice JJA and Crowley J, decision delivered 30 August 2024.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Ratio
The plaintiff submitted that the primary judge erred in finding that the Notice of Assessment for the PTSD did not also encompass an assessment of the plaintiff’s schizophrenia.
The plaintiff alleged that he had one “psychiatric injury” for which he had received a Notice of Assessment.
The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff’s PTSD and schizophrenia were one and the same condition or disorder.
Further, the Court of Appeal, relying on the decision of Costello v Queensland Rail, determined that an insurer is required to refer all psychiatric or psychological injuries for assessment. As a result, the plaintiff’s Notice of Assessment only covered his PTSD injury.
As an alternative argument, the plaintiff submitted that if his schizophrenia condition was not covered by the Notice of Assessment, it was instead a “secondary injury” to either his laceration injury or his PTSD.
The plaintiff relied on the Barraclough v WorkCover Queensland authority, whereby Durward DCJ held that a subsequent development of a condition is not a new injury when there is a progression of symptomology that has manifested itself in a developmental way and in a continuum.
The Court of Appeal, in agreement with the primary judge, were not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff’s schizophrenia could be regarded as a consequence of the laceration injury or PTSD.
Share this article