//
[2026] QIRC 11
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
2026-01-21
Original judgment source is linked above.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL - Application by Appellant for an order that the claimant worker submit for medical examination - consideration of section 556 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) - whether Commission should exercise its discretion to make an order pursuant to section 556.
Atlas Marine International Pty Ltd v Q-COMP [2013] QIRC 61
Bridges Health & Community Care Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 9
Jetcrete Oz Pty Ltd AND Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) & Anor [2013] QIRC 186
SAMI Bitumen Technologies Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 290
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010
[1] Sovereign Distribution Pty Ltd ('the Applicant') operates within the marine industry from the Boat Works Marina and Boatyard. The Applicant at all relevant times employed Ms Lisa Cetinic ('the Interested-Party') as an Administration Officer.
[2] On 11 January 2025 Ms Cetinic completed a hand-written application for compensation in respect of a work-related psychological injury.
[3] WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') issued reasons for decision dated 6 March 2025 which accepted Ms Cetinic's application. The claim was accepted by WorkCover on the basis of workload and harassment or bullying of Ms Cetinic by her immediate supervisor, Mr Todd Holzapfel.
[4] The Applicant lodged an application for review with the Respondent on 3 June 2025. The Respondent by reasons for decision dated 22 August 2025 confirmed WorkCover's decision to accept the application for compensation.
[5] In the review decision[1] the Respondent's review officer confirmed:
[6] The Applicant lodged an Appeal Notice with the Commission on 14 October 2025 seeking the Commission to make orders pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the WCR Act setting aside the review decision and substituting a decision to reject the claim.
[8] The form of the orders sought by the Appellant in the application were as follows:
7.1. that the Worker submit to a personal examination by one (1) of the following registered persons to be selected by the Respondent (alternatively as agreed):
a) Dr Wasim Shaikh, Psychiatrist;
b) Dr Benjamin Duke, Psychiatrist;
c) Dr Ghazala Watt, Psychiatrist;
7.2. that the way, time and place of the examination be as agreed between the parties, failing which as nominated by the registered person;
7.2. that the registered person's costs of and incidental to the examination and expert report be borne by the Applicant;
7.3. that there be no order as to costs of and incidental to the hearing of this application.
[9] Section 556 of the WCR Act provides as follows:
(a) the condition of a claimant or worker who has, or is said to have, sustained an injury is relevant to the appeal; or
(b) the cause, nature or extent of the injury or incapacity arising from the injury is relevant to the appeal.
(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.
(3) The appeal body may also, as the appeal body considers appropriate, make an order about -
(a) the way, time and place of the examination; and
(b) costs of the application for the order and of the examination.
[10] In the application the Applicant notes that it appeals the review decision on various grounds, including that:
3.1. the Worker did not sustain an injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment with the Applicant as a significant contributing factor (within the meaning of section 32 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("WCRA")).
3.2. alternatively, any injury arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the Worker's employment.
3.3. further/alternatively, any injury arose out of or in the course of the Worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker.
[11] The Applicant therefore contends that accordingly:
[12] In support of the application, the Applicant filed an affidavit of Todd William Holzapfel who is the sole Director of the Appellant.[2]
7.1. the Worker did not sustain an injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment with the Applicant as a significant contributing factor (within the meaning of section 32 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ("WCRA")).
7.2. alternatively, any injury arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the Worker's employment.
7.3. further/alternatively, any injury arose out of or in the course of the Worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker.[5]
Position of the Respondent and Interested Party
[14] By an email dated 3 December 2025, the Respondent foreshadowed that it would neither consent to, nor oppose, the application.[7]
[15] The matter was called on for mention on 19 January 2026. At the mention both the Respondent and the Interested-Party confirmed that they did not oppose the order that the Interested-Party undergo an independent medical examination.
In making my decision that this is an appropriate occasion where the worker, Mr Kent, should be directed to attend a medical assessment I also noted the fact that Dr Ljubisavljevic is (now) the only medical practitioner who is not treating Mr Kent. While the Employer might have (and might still) seek his re-consideration of his earlier reports in light of any new and additional material which the Employer might draw to his attention, it is also the case that there is some merit in having a fresh clinical psychiatrist, armed with the potential matters in dispute, to undertake an assessment of the type proposed. This is because, at the end of the day, such an assessment is likely to lead to less disputation between the parties to the foreshadowed appeal proceedings.[9] (Emphasis added)
[17] In Jetcrete Oz Pty Ltd AND Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) & Anor,[10] Deputy President O'Connor (as His Honour then was) granted an application pursuant to s 556 of the WCR Act. In doing so His Honour observed that he did not consider it unreasonable that the Applicant would seek to obtain its own evidence and not be limited to the doctor engaged by the First Respondent and over which the Applicant had no role in choosing.[11]
[21] The order for an independent medical examination is sought because in the process of review associated with Ms Walters' compensation claim, a report about causation has never been obtained from a psychiatrist who had possession of and considered the relevant facts and circumstances. That is, a medico legal report has not been obtained from a consultant psychiatrist who had elicited a relevant history from Ms Walters, undertaken an examination and who has reviewed the clinical records.
[22] On the issues giving rise to a consideration of the application of s32(5), it is important to know whether the decompensation occurred prior to, contemporaneously with, or subsequent to the activities in the workplace asserted by Appellant to be reasonable management action reasonably taken.
[24] It is incumbent on the Appellant to establish, on the requisite standard, that Ms Walters application for compensation is not one for acceptance. In order to discharge that onus, the Appellant needs the ability to obtain expert evidence to establish that Ms Walters injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment, or that her employment was not the significant contributing factor to her psychological or psychiatric injury.[13]
[19] In the more recent decision of SAMI Bitumen Technologies Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator,[14] Industrial Commissioner Pratt undertook a thorough review of the decisions from the Commission which have considered s 556 of the WCR Act applications. Following that review, Industrial Commissioner Pratt identified the following principles as being relevant to such an application:
[34] The following principles can be summarised from the case law referred to above. Section 556 creates a two-stage test for an order requiring a claimant or worker to submit to a personal examination. The first stage requires that one of the two types of potential facts in issue contemplated in sections 556(1)(a) and (b) must be relevant to the appeal before the power for an order requiring a claimant to submit to a personal examination is enlivened. The first type of potential fact in issue is the condition of the claimant or worker who has, or is said to have, sustained an injury. The second type of potential fact in issue is the cause, nature or extent of the injury or incapacity arising from the injury.
[35] The words 'relevant to the appeal' require that there be a real, even if slight, possibility that the potential fact in issue may actually become a fact in issue in the appeal. It is, however, not enough to argue that the mere fact it is an appeal of a workers' compensation claim means that evidence of the fact of injury or of cause, nature and extent of the injury arising from the injury are relevant. An argument that a potential fact in issue is relevant to the appeal must show how the potential fact in issue could become an actual fact in issue in the appeal.
[36] The second stage of the test is contained in Section 556(2). The second stage enlivens a discretion for making the orders. This discretion is broad and the factors that should be taken into account depend on the circumstances of the specific application. Yet, as I see it, in exercising the discretion the Commission should be guided by the need to achieve a balance between the need for sufficient and clear evidence underpinning the potential facts in issue and the medical autonomy of the claimant or worker.
[37] The two-stage test is, altogether, not an onerous one. Put simply, for an application of this nature to be refused, further medical evidence must really be unnecessary for the purposes of the appeal.
[20] I accept the correctness of the observations of Industrial Commissioner Pratt and adopt those observations for the purpose of determining the present application.
[21] I also note the observations of President Martin J in Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey,[15] in the context of a workers' compensation appeal and in considering the adequacy of the medical evidence relied upon by the claimant, being a report from Dr Chau, Psychiatrist. His Honour said:
Such a report should, at a minimum, discuss, and offer an opinion on:
(b) what the subject told the psychiatrist about the employment, and
(c) the causal relationship (if any) between the employment and the condition.
In the process of doing that, the psychiatrist should specifically consider the stressors nominated by the subject and express a view, on the assumption that they will be established, as to any causal relationship.[16]
[22] In the present matter the Commission does not at this time have the benefit of Statements of Facts and Contentions filed by the Appellant and the Respondent delineating the scope of their respective cases.
[23] From the Appellant's Notice of Appeal it appears clear that the Appellant intends to mount a challenge as to whether any psychiatric injury suffered by Ms Cetinic arises out of, or in the course of her former employment relationship with the Appellant.
[24] The Appellant will also challenge whether Ms Cetinic's employment with the Appellant was a significant contributing factor to her psychological injury.
[25] In the 'Facts relied upon' section of the Notice of Appeal the Appellant raises some events in the Appellant's personal life and appears to link those events with the Appellant routinely exhausting her sick leave entitlements with the Appellant.
[26] It therefore appears that the Appellant will attempt to establish that the psychological injury has been caused by personal stressors rather than work-related events or stressors, and potentially, whether there was some pre-existing psychological or psychiatric injury that pre-dated the work related events.
[27] The issue of whether there may be a pre-existing injury is in my view a matter that goes to the condition of a claimant or worker, within the meaning of s 556(1)(a) of the WCR Act.
[28] The issue of whether the psychological or psychiatric injury has been caused by personal stressors very much raises factual and legal questions regarding the causation of Ms Cetinic's injury which will be relevant to s 556(1)(b) of the WCR Act.
[29] The parties have not sought to put any medical evidence before the Commission. From the review decision, it appears that the medical evidence available to the Insurer, WorkCover, and to the Respondent (for the purposes of determining the review application) consisted of:
[30] I also note that the Appellant has filed a number of Notices of Non-Party Disclosure with the Commission seeking disclosure of Ms Cetinic's clinical files from a number of treating doctors and medical practices, from Ms Stewart and the Gold Coast University Hospital.
[31] It does not appear that any of the above medical evidence was before either the Insurer or the Respondent, but it will be highly relevant to any medico-legal report prepared by an independent psychiatric expert.
[32] From the analysis of the limited material available to the Commission at this time, I am satisfied that Ms Cetinic's condition, as well as the factual events that have caused the psychiatric injury are going to be disputed issues in the hearing. In my view, the Applicant has established that both limbs of s 556(1) of the WCR Act have been satisfied and the discretion for the Commission to order that Ms Cetinic undertakes an independent medical examination has been enlivened.
[33] I further accept that at this time, that Ms Cetinic has not been examined by a Psychiatric specialist for the purposes of the preparation of a medico-legal report.
[34] To the extent of the material that the parties have put before the Commission, the current medical evidence all appears to emanate from Ms Cetinic's treating practitioners.
[35] This is not a case, like some of the authorities, where there were already a number of expert reports available to the parties, and therefore to the Commission. In this case there is in fact no specialist psychiatric evidence currently available.
[36] I am also satisfied that the Applicant as the Appellant in the substantive appeal bears the onus of establishing, to the requisite standard, that Ms Cetinic's application for compensation is not one for acceptance. Given that it appears that the Appellant seeks to establish that there is a non-work related cause for the psychological or psychiatric injury, it will be incumbent upon the Appellant to call medical evidence to establish this.
[37] I also adopt the observations of Deputy President O'Connor (as His Honour then was) in Jetcrete Oz Pty Ltd AND Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) & Anor,[17] mentioned at paragraph [17] above, that it is not unreasonable for an employer like the present Appellant to seek to obtain its own medical evidence and not be limited to relying on the evidence of treating medical practitioners.
[38] In my view, the Commission in considering the appeal should have the benefit of a specialist psychiatric report.
[40] I grant the application and I make the following orders:
Pursuant to section 556 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, Ms Lisa Cetinic must submit to a medical examination by to be conducted by one of the following Psychiatrists for the purposes of that doctor preparing a medico-legal report to be used in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in proceedings WC/2025/238:
Ms Cetinic must make an election in writing about which Psychiatrist she wishes to conduct within five (days) of the release of this decision to the parties. Sovereign Distribution Pty Ltd and the Workers' Compensation Regulator should be informed of the election by the specified time.
If Ms Cetinic fails to make the election referred to in Order 2, Ms Cetinic must submit to a medical examination to be conducted by Dr Wasim Shaikh, Psychiatrist on a date to be arranged by the Appellant's solicitors.
The Appellant is to provide at least one week's notice to Ms Cetinic of the date and time of the medical examination report appointment referred to above in order 1, or in the alternative, order 3.
The cost of the medical examination report appointment, production of any report and any of Ms Cetinic's reasonable travel costs to and from such appointment are to be paid by the Appellant.
[1] The reasons for decision of the Worker's Compensation Regulator dated 2 September 2025 and attached to the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant on 14 October 2025.
[2] Affidavit of Todd William Holzapfel filed 22 December 2025, [1].
[7] Ibid, exhibit 'TWH-2' - email from the Respondent dated 3 December 2025.
[8] [2013] QIRC 61, [21] ('Atlas Marine').
[13] Ibid [21]-[22] and [24], O'Connor VP.
Sovereign Distribution Pty Ltd
Workers' Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 11