Wilson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 24

Bennedick v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 240

Ms S. Anderson of counsel instructed by East Coast Injury Lawyers for the Appellant

Mr P. Rashleigh of counsel directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator

[1] Mr Troy Wilson ('the Appellant') was employed as an Engineering Trainer with Outsource Institute of Technology ('the Employer'). He was required to attend various workplaces where he would assess apprentices and others who were being trained.[1]

[2] In his role, Mr Wilson was required to liaise with Mr Carl Quarterman, the Managing Director of Queensland Gaskets Pty Ltd. On 7 March 2023, Mr Wilson decided to cancel a training session at Queensland Gaskets.[2] Mr Wilson says that he cancelled the training because the students were not prepared for the session.[3]

[3] Mr Quarterman sent an email to Mr Wilson regarding his decision to cancel the training session. The email was carbon copied to the following people at Mr Wilson's employer: Mr Joe Spruce (General Manager), Mr Carl Spruce (Director), and Ms Jennifer Bishop (Human Resources).[4]

[4] Mr Wilson attended Queensland Gaskets on 19 April 2023 to deliver training. On that same day, Mr Quarterman left a voicemail on Mr Wilson's work phone.[5]

[5] Sometime after the voicemail had been left on Mr Wilson's phone, he noticed that he had two missed calls. Mr Wilson did not know who the missed calls were from but returned the call, nonetheless. What ensued was a telephone conversation with Mr Quarterman. The phone call ended with Mr Wilson becoming upset and stating words to the effect of 'I can't do this, I can't do this, you need to talk to [Mr] Carl Spruce'.

[6] Mr Wilson lodged his claim with WorkCover Queensland ('WorkCover') on 26 April 2023.

[7] It is not in dispute that Mr Wilson is a worker for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('WCRA'). His application for compensation benefits was lodged in time.

[8] The Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') says that Mr Wilson suffered and continues to suffer depression and anxiety since 2010 and that this is unrelated to his work with the Employer.[6] The Regulator also says that Mr Wilson is overly sensitive and not as resilient has he should be.[7]

[9] However, the Regulator accepts that Mr Wilson has suffered a personal injury. The Regulator also accepts that Mr Wilson's injury arose from or in the course of his employment.

[10] At the conclusion of the hearing, there was no suggestion that management action was a factor in the injury.

[11] Therefore, the only matter for my consideration in this appeal is whether Mr Wilson's employment was a significant contributing factor causing his injury.[8] Mr Wilson specifically points to the events which occurred on 19 April 2023 as the stressors which led to his injury.

[12] There was evidence before the Commission which provided some context for the events of 19 April 2023.[9] I will not refer to that evidence in detail, as it is the stressors of 19 April 2023 which are contended to be a significant contributing factor to the injury.

[13] Mr Wilson recalled that on 19 April 2023, he attended upon Queensland Gaskets to provide training but was unable to deliver the practical training both because the students had not completed the necessary theory components and because the Computer Numerical Control ('CNC') router - the machine the students were to train on - was not available.[10]

[14] Mr Wilson said that he had previously advised Mr Quarterman that the CNC router would be required for training. At about 8.30am, one of the students informed Mr Wilson that the machine would not be available until around 2.00pm. Mr Wilson said that he worked through the theory components of the student's workbooks until about 2.30pm.[11]

[15] Mr Wilson's evidence was that he was scheduled to be at Queensland Gaskets from 8.00am until 1.00pm on the day. He said that he did not commence working with the students until 8.30am. Mr Wilson said that even though he was scheduled to leave at 1.00pm, he stayed until 2.30pm '...finalising the last little bits of their units to make sure that the next time that I visited, things would go to plan'.[12]

[16] Mr Quarterman had a different recollection and says that he told Mr Wilson that when he required the machine, he should let the operator know. Mr Quarterman recalled going to check to see what was happening with the machine.[13] He said that he only found out Mr Wilson had left and did not do the practical training when he received an email after Mr Wilson had left.[14]

[17] Mr Wilson says that at 2.30pm, he made the decision that it would likely take another 60-90 minutes to perform the practice component. On that basis, he decided to reschedule for another day. Mr Wilson communicated this to the students and left Queensland Gaskets at 2.30pm.[15]

[18] Mr Wilson said he had the impression that Mr Quarterman expected him to stay there for an extended amount of time until the router was available and then to continue on that day. Mr Wilson believed Mr Quarterman was angry that he did not do that.[16]

[19] Mr Quarterman recalled that he had a conversation with Mr Wilson about 'staying longer to achieve the outcomes that we'd planned for the day' but that he understood the time allocated was between 8.00am and 1.00pm.[17]

[20] Mr Wilson says that after leaving Queensland Gaskets, he sat in his car and wrote an email to Mr Quarterman to summarise the events that occurred. He then called Mr Joe Spruce. Mr Wilson said that he explained to Mr Spruce that he felt uncomfortable with the interaction he had with Mr Quarterman and the training had, again, not been completed. Mr Wilson said that he had been confident that the practical training would have been done on this occasion and that some units could be signed off, but that this was not the case. Mr Wilson said that Mr Joe Spruce did not seem surprised by this.[18]

[21] The Regulator says that Mr Joe Spruce told Mr Wilson to leave the matter with him to handle. The Regulator says that Mr Joe Spruce contacted Mr Quarterman the following day to obtain his account of events. Mr Joe Spruce addressed the way that Mr Quarterman had spoken to Mr Wilson. Mr Quarterman agreed that he had expressed frustration that Mr Wilson had not personally informed him about the limited time available for training and the need for the CNC router throughout the day.[19]

[22] The Regulator says that Mr Joe Spruce clarified to Mr Quarterman that Mr Wilson had communicated start and finish times and the need for the router in an email dated 17 April 2023.[20]

[23] The Regulator says that Mr Quarterman had expressed frustration that Mr Wilson had not personally informed him about the limited timeframe and the need for the CNC router throughout the entire day. Mr Quarterman was of the view that Mr Wilson should have contacted him directly if he required access to the router.[21]

[24] Mr Wilson then drove to meet his father, Mr Bruce Wilson, for lunch at the Capalaba Shopping Centre. The lunch had been prearranged and he was running late.[22]

[25] While he was sitting with his father, Mr Wilson said that he noticed two missed calls on his work phone. Mr Wilson did not recognise the number, however, he returned the call and found that the caller had been Mr Quarterman.[23]

[26] Mr Wilson thought the duration of the phone call was a few minutes.[24] Mr Bruce Wilson thought the phone call went for 'a good 10 minutes'[25] but agreed that it could have been substantially less than that.[26] Mr Quarterman said he could not recall how long the phone call was but that he imagined it was 'not a very long call'.[27] Mr Quarterman said the phone call was definitely not 10 minutes and that he thought it would have been less than five minutes.[28]

[27] Mr Quarterman agrees that the phone call occurred. He said that he does not remember what he said or the manner or tone he used. However, Mr Quarterman said he was 'clearly disappointed' with what had happened with the training.[29] Mr Quarterman said that he would have been wanting to understand what prevented Mr Wilson from doing the training and wanting to understand the next time he could come and do the training.[30]

[28] Mr Wilson recalled Mr Quarterman saying 'something to the lines of that he was pissed...about the training...not going as planned'.[31] Mr Wilson said he did not recall exactly what Mr Quarterman said but that he could tell that Mr Quarterman was very annoyed and upset.[32]

[29] Mr Wilson said that Mr Quarterman was upset and that Mr Wilson found his tone to be aggressive, threatening and intimidating. Mr Wilson said the volume of Mr Quarterman's voice was loud and booming.[33] Mr Wilson said he felt uncomfortable. He said that while he can't remember the specific words that were said, he recalls shaking and saying 'I can't do this. I can't do this' and that he felt like he was under attack.[34] Mr Wilson described himself as 'just traumatised in the moment by the things that were happening and...just in disbelief'.[35] Mr Wilson said it felt 'very threatening'[36] and that Mr Quarterman was yelling.[37]

[30] Mr Wilson said that he did not respond directly to what Mr Quarterman was saying to him. Mr Wilson said he was a 'shaking mess by that stage'. Mr Wilson recalled that in addition to saying 'I can't do this, I can't do this', he also told Mr Quarterman that if he had concerns, he should raise them directly with Messrs Carl Spruce and Joe Spruce.[38]

[31] Mr Bruce Wilson recalled that he could hear Mr Quarterman's voice coming through the phone even though Mr Wilson was holding his mobile phone up to his ear. Mr Bruce Wilson described it as 'an argument sort of yelling and all that'.[39] Mr Bruce Wilson said that Mr Wilson was not yelling but was 'trying to, sort of, complete his talk'.[40] Mr Bruce Wilson had trouble recollecting exactly what was being said to Mr Wilson by Mr Quarterman.[41] He said there was some 'swear words' and that Mr Quarterman was 'going on about Troy not completing the task or something'.[42]

[32] Mr Bruce Wilson said that the phone call was 'abusive'. When asked what he meant by that, he said 'Well, it was yelling and carrying on, and it was like he was trying to drag Troy through the phone and sort of...strangle him...'.[43] Bruce Wilson said that Mr Quarterman was being 'over forceful'.[44]

[33] Mr Quarterman said it was not his practice to swear at people on the telephone. He said that he does not yell, but he is 'certainly...able to convey... [his] position on things'.[45] Mr Quarterman accepted that it was possible that Mr Bruce Wilson could have heard the conversation even though Mr Wilson had the phone up to his ear but denied yelling and said this could be a result of the volume settings on the phone.[46]

[34] Mr Quarterman was asked about him saying he was 'pissed' or 'pissed off'. Mr Quarterman said:[47]

Yeah. It's just me demonstrating my frustration at someone being in my workplace and me being there and them leaving without saying hello to me or saying goodbye to me or when - when I've been very clear in the conversation earlier on that we needed something to happen.

[35] Mr Quarterman recalled that when Mr Wilson rang him, he was frustrated and 'super pissed'. When asked if 'super pissed' is another way of saying 'angry', he answered 'if you'd like'.[48] Mr Quarterman agreed that it was possible he used the term 'super pissed' during the phone call.[49]

[36] Mr Quarterman said that he did not recall the conversation at all and that he would find it hard to believe that he yelled at Mr Wilson.[50] He said that he could not recall the tone of his voice, but that he is 'not one to raise it generally'.[51] However, Mr Quarterman did agree that he was angry and that he was speaking to the person who he thought had caused the problem. Mr Quarterman also agreed that when he gets angry from time to time, he might raise his voice.[52] Mr Quarterman later agreed that he had been angry during the phone call[53] and that it was possible that his voice was raised and his tone was angry.[54]

[37] Mr Quarterman agreed that during the phone call he was not just angry with Mr Wilson about the events of 19 April 2023 but also that about the way he had provided customer service. Mr Quarterman agreed that he did not see Mr Wilson as someone who was fulfilling his commitments to his company.[55] Mr Quarterman agreed that he 'may have been stern in my conversation' but repeated that he is not one to yell.

[38] While Mr Quarterman did not recall the content of the phone call, he did remember that Mr Wilson said to him 'I can't do this. You have to bring it up with Carl Spruce'. He said he thought the conversation would have ended when the conversation was finished and said that he did not recall who hung up first.[56]

[39] Mr Quarterman was asked if he could hear in Mr Wilson's voice that he was upset by the conversation. He agreed and said, 'I think he was'. He did not recall Mr Wilson's voice trembling or shaking but he remembered feeling that Mr Wilson was upset by it.[57]

[40] When asked what it was about the phone call that had upset him so much, Mr Wilson said that he felt attacked and like there had been aggression. He also said he felt he had failed in his role. Mr Wilson said that working as a trainer and assessor had been a dream role for him. He said that there were no other clients who treated him in the way Mr Quarterman had.[58]

[41] Mr Wilson recalled that directly after the phone call, he sat down with his father but that he did not feel like he could eat the lunch his father had bought for him. Mr Wilson said he was 'a shaking mess' and was 'completely rattled'.[59]

[42] Mr Bruce Wilson recalled that after the phone call ended, Mr Wilson was 'shaking like anything' and saying that he did not know what he had done wrong and that he had tried his best.[60] Mr Bruce Wilson said that Mr Wilson was shaking for 'a fair while'. He said that they sat down and Mr Wilson had 'tears welling up in his eyes and all this sort of thing'. Bruce Wilson said that the tears were welling up and started running down Mr Wilson's face.[61] He described Mr Wilson as having 'that voice that sort of vibrates when you're upset'.[62] Mr Bruce Wilson said that he was upset to see Mr Wilson like that and that he was upset for him as his child.[63]

[43] Mr Joe Spruce agreed that Mr Wilson sent him an email and phoned him. Mr Spruce agreed that Mr Wilson apprised him of the events which had occurred that day.[64] Mr Spruce recalled Mr Wilson writing that when he attempted to discuss the CNC router access with Mr Quarterman, he abruptly left the room and refused to acknowledge Mr Wilson.[65]

[44] Mr Spruce did not independently recall some aspects of the questions asked of him. However, he readily agreed that if he had said something in his contemporaneous statement to WorkCover, that it would be correct. On that basis, Mr Spruce's evidence is that when Mr Wilson phoned him after his conversation with Mr Quarterman, he was upset and anxious.

[45] Mr Spruce recalled Mr Wilson phoning him to say he had returned a missed call to find it was Mr Quarterman. He agreed that the email Mr Wilson sent him said '...I returned the call just prior to the last email Carl sent only to be sworn at and verbally abused. After explaining the scenario that unfolded, my only response was 'I'm not going to do this. You can address this with Carl and Joe'.[66]

[46] Mr Wilson says that later than night he noticed that Mr Quarterman also left a voice message on his work phone.[67] Mr Wilson said that he listened to the message potentially that night or the following day.[68]

[47] The evidence demonstrates that the voice message was left at 3.16pm on 19 April 2023 and it appears clear that it was left as a result of the missed calls and so the message had been recorded before Mr Wilson rang Mr Quarterman back and they had the interaction canvassed from paragraphs [25]-[40] of these[69]easons for decision.69

[48] The Commission heard the voicemail.[70] During that voicemail Mr Quarterman says:[71]

Troy, Carl. I am super super pissed mate. I can't believe that you reckon the machines weren't available. You could have told me while I was here. I'd really really like to understand where our miscommunication has happened here.

[49] Mr Wilson said that compared to the tone of voice in the voicemail, Mr Quarterman's tone of voice in the phone call was 'a lot more angry-sounding...he was using expletives'.[72]

[50] Mr Quarterman said that in the voicemail, he was trying to understand what had happened because he had made it clear to Mr Wilson that when Mr Wilson was at Queensland Gaskets, he needed him to be 'training the guys on the machines... or be in the factory with the guys'.[73]

[51] Mr Quarterman said that he did not recall any situation where the machine was not going to be available until 2.00pm. He says he recalls telling the machine operator to make the machine available to Mr Wilson if he needed it.[74]

[52] Mr Wilson said that he went to the doctor in the following days because he felt like he was 'not coping'.[75] Mr Wilson received a Worker's Compensation Medical Certificate dated 24 April 2023.[76] The diagnosis in that certificate is 'anxiety, situational stress issues' and includes that Mr Wilson had stated that his date of injury was 19th April 2023.

[53] Mr Wilson agreed that he had encountered emotional symptoms of that type before and that he had received treatment for those symptoms by way of antidepressants and speaking with a psychologist. Mr Wilson said that at the time of the events, he had not had treatment for psychological symptoms for some six to twelve months.[77] Mr Wilson agreed that he had taken Lexapro and that he had taken medication 'across time'. Mr Wilson said that he was not taking Lexapro immediately before the incident in April 2023.[78]

[54] Mr Wilson filed his application for workers' compensation on 26 April 2023.

[55] Mr Quarterman recalled that Mr Joe Spruce called him directly after 19 April 2023 to discuss his alleged behaviour on the phone call. Mr Quarterman could not recall Mr Spruce telling him that Mr Wilson had been upset about the interactions with Mr Quarterman on the phone after he left Queensland Gaskets.[79] Mr Quarterman could not recall Mr Spruce telling him that Mr Quarterman could not express his frustration in the way that he did on the phone call with Mr Wilson.[80]

[56] Mr Joe Spruce recalled that Mr Wilson believed he had been spoken to inappropriately by Mr Quarterman. He agreed that he raised this with Mr Quarterman.[81] Mr Spruce said the purpose of his phone call was to follow-up on the report that had been made to him by Mr Wilson and to find out Mr Quarterman's side of the story. He said that nothing Mr Quarterman said stood out to him and that the conversation quickly moved to how to proceed.[82]

[57] Mr Spruce said that he 'laid out an expectation that our staff can't be spoken to inappropriately'.[83]

[58] Mr Spruce could not recall if Mr Quarterman had confirmed or denied that he spoke inappropriately to Mr Wilson.[84] Mr Spruce agreed that if Mr Quarterman had confirmed or denied swearing and verbally abusing Mr Wilson, he would have included this in his statement to WorkCover.[85]

[59] The Regulator's position is that Mr Wilson's version of events is in direct conflict with the Employer's dealings with Mr Quarterman. The Regulator says that Mr Wilson's reaction to the phone call is because of his pre-existing depression and anxiety, together with his oversensitivity and lack of resilience.[86]

[60] The Regulator agrees that Mr Quarterman left a voicemail for Mr Wilson but says it was innocuous, other than Mr Quarterman expressed that he was 'pissed off'.

The medical evidence - Dr Andrew Shaw - Psychiatrist

[61] Mr Wilson went to see Dr Shaw for an assessment for the purposes of this matter. Mr Wilson's evidence is that when he saw Dr Shaw, he did his best to tell the truth to him.[87]

[62] Dr Shaw provided a report dated 23 October 2024 and an Addendum Report dated 12 November 2024.[88] Dr Shaw confirmed that had since been provided with additional records related to Mr Wilson's history.[89] Dr Wilson confirmed that the additional records did not change the opinion expressed in the reports.[90]

[63] Dr Shaw's unequivocal view is that the events of 19 April 2023 were significant contributing factors to Mr Wilson's injury.[91]

[64] Dr Shaw agreed that Mr Wilson had a significant past psychiatric history with depressive episodes. He said that the medical records were 'actually consistent with the tempo and chronicity of illness that Mr Wilson himself described with very significant difficulties - multiple mentions of presentations to...doctors from 2010, when he first presented with psychiatric conditions, up until, approximately 12 months before the subject incident...'.[92]

[65] Dr Shaw disagreed that Mr Wilson was 'in a parlous state' or 'prone to react the way he did because of factors unrelated to what happened...on 19 April'.[93] Dr Shaw noted that Mr Wilson had been continuing to work up until the time of the incident on 19 April.[94]

[66] Dr Shaw said that there was 'no doubt that there was anticipatory anxiety prior to him...attending on that particular date, and that was due to his - according to his own history that he gave me - his previous experiences with Mr Quarterman...'.[95]

[67] While Dr Shaw gave his evidence there was some discussion as to the nature of the voicemail, which Dr Shaw had heard, and the phone call, which had been reported to him. There was discussion as to the fact that different people can have different reactions to the same event.[96] Dr Shaw said that he has found that it can be 'more the meaning behind the traumatic circumstance than its objective nature'.[97]

[68] I asked Dr Shaw whether it was his view, having undertaken the examination and looked at all of the records that regardless of how others might interpret the message, he accepted Mr Wilson's reaction.[98] Dr Shaw said:[99]

Well, I think it was - it's clinically plausible. And even outside of that particular message, once again - um - you know, people react to things in - in different ways, and - and sometimes it's very difficult to understand why people have developed trauma disorders. You know, Mr Wilson's - uh - situation, it's quite understandable. But even so, he wasn't - you know, he wasn't blown up or shot at. But such a - you know, such an insult like that could've led to him developing that. And I would say even in the absence of his - his predisposing factors, sometimes this happens that nobody's got any. So somebody has no predisposing factors that we're able to find even with collateral information, and it's a - and - and why they develop those, I - it - it's - it's quite perplexing.

[69] Dr Shaw described a 'complex interplay between the individual and what objectively happened'. He said that objectively, there was a voicemail message and there was a phone call and that those were distressing things for Mr Wilson.[100]

... So there's a temporal relationship between that decline in his function. There's the - um the fact that his nightmares and his intrusive - ah - thoughts all reference that situation, on that particular day. The presentation to his general practitioner is consistent with that. The work - um - the WorkCover claim that's opened and the - the mental health care plan reference what actually happened on that particular day, rather than anything preceding that.

From a clinical perspective - and that's all I can talk about with any authority - Mr Wilson is a gentleman who went on to develop a trauma disorder, and the symptoms of that trauma disorder reference subject events on the 19th of April 2023. They don't reference anything before that, going back - back as far in the - in reference to anything from his childhood.

[72] Dr Shaw said that he could not identify anything else that would have caused Mr Wilson's injury, especially given that his symptoms reference those incidents on that day. He said that from a clinical perspective, he believed that those events were the most likely thing to have caused the injury.

[73] Nothing in the extensive cross-examination of Dr Shaw changed the opinion expressed in his report. The report is 55-pages long. However, I specifically note the following:[103]

It is my clinical opinion that Mr Wilson's psychiatric injuries arose in the context of the interactions with Mr Quarterman, the Managing Director of Queensland Gaskets, in the course of his work as a trainer and assessor in mechanical engineering.

I note that prior to these interactions, Mr Wilson was struggling with his work and was experiencing "stress''. He sought the help of a psychologist or counsellor with the Employer Assistance Program (EAP) on a handful of occasions prior to the subject incidents. Despite this, Mr Wilson continued to work extremely long hours; continuing to function and perform his role prior to the subject incidents. He described the work as his "dream job'', especially having wanted to stop working as a fitter and turner due to the physical demands of the role. Mr Wilson does not appear to meet the diagnostic threshold for the diagnosis of any psychiatric condition prior to the subject incidents of 19 April 2023.

I note that following the interactions with Mr Quarterman on 19 April 2023, Mr Wilson experienced such extreme anxiety, and also depressed mood, to the extent that he was unable to return to his substantive role within the Outsource Institute of Technology.

I note that Mr Wilson's psychiatric symptoms arose immediately following the subject incidents on 19 April 2023.

I was unable to identify any other potential cause for the emergence of such symptoms.

I note that Mr Wilson's symptoms that arose, continuous with his current symptoms, relate to the subject incidents directly or the nature of those incidents.

I therefore conclude that it is more likely than not that Mr Wilson's psychiatric injuries arose in the context of interactions with Mr Quarterman, the Managing Director of Queensland Gaskets, particularly on 19 April 2023.

I accept that Mr Wilson suffered an injury within the meaning of the WCRA

[74] The Regulator has directed me to Vice-President O'Connor's decision in Bennedick v Workers' Compensation Regulator.[104] In that decision, his Honour has regard to case authorities and states that:[105]

The question whether the Appellant has suffered an 'injury' within the meaning of the Act is a question of mixed fact and law on which medical evidence is often helpful, but not necessarily decisive.

[75] In that decision, Vice-President O'Connor was satisfied that the evidence before the Commission demonstrated that the Appellant had been exposed to the conditions which he said were the cause of his injury. He went on to note that two of the medical experts indicated a likelihood of a causal link higher than mere possibility.

[76] Dr Shaw's is the only expert medical opinion before the Commission. On 12 November 2024, he provided an Addendum Report where he confirmed his opinion that the events of 19 April 2023 were significant contributing factors to Mr Wilson's psychiatric injury. Dr Shaw was later provided with further medical records and confirmed that those records did not cause him to change his opinion.

[77] This is not a situation where the medical evidence is undermined because the things that Mr Wilson told Dr Shaw have not been made out on the evidence. This is not a situation where there are competing medical expert opinions.

[78] Mr Wilson reported to Dr Shaw that he had felt intimidated by the phone message Mr Quarterman had left for him. While I have a view that the content of the phone message and the way in which it was delivered seemed reasonably innocuous, I accept that Dr Shaw had a different view. I also accept that the test is not how other people may have interpreted the voice message. The question is how Mr Wilson interpreted the voice message. Considering he did not listen to it until after the verbally abusive phone call, I accept that he heard it in a very different context to it being played years later in a hearing at the Commission, separated from other events.

[79] Mr Wilson reported to Dr Shaw that Mr Quarterman had verbally abused him during the phone call. One of the disputes before the Commission was to what extent I can be satisfied that the phone call was verbally abusive.

[80] I have had regard to the submissions made for the Regulator regarding the veracity of evidence provided by Mr Wilson and Bruce Wilson regarding what occurred during the phone call. While both men could not recall the detail of what was said in the phone call, they recalled the tone and tenor of the phone call. They recalled when it occurred, they recalled the words Mr Wilson said as the phone call came to an end. Importantly, the recalled the impact the phone call had on Mr Wilson. I did not have the impression that Mr Wilson or Bruce Wilson were being anything but truthful in their account of the phone call.

[81] Mr Quarterman may not have recalled the detail of the conversation, but I found him to be forthright in his views about the matters. He did not deny being angry and frustrated during the conversation. He also openly recalled that Mr Wilson was upset during the phone call, said 'I can't do this' and referred him to Carl or Joe Spruce. While there were some disagreements in their recollections, ultimately, Mr Quarterman's and Mr Wilson's evidence about the events appeared to reach reasonable alignment.

[82] In determining what most likely happened during the phone call, I am assisted by taking not only Mr Wilson's evidence, but that of his father who witnessed the conversation, Mr Quarterman who was a part of the conversation, and Mr Joe Spruce who received a report of the phone call soon after it happened.

[83] The Regulator submits that I have to accept what Mr Wilson says in order to find that the employment is a significant and contributing factor.[106] I accept that the phone call was most likely aggressive and verbally abusive in nature and that it is established as a stressor which is a significant contributor to Mr Wilson's injury. The above analysis of the evidence, when taken together with the following considerations, satisfies me of this:

• a precursor to the phone call was the voicemail in which Mr Quarterman expresses that he is 'super super pissed'. While the voicemail did not involve Mr Quarterman raising his voice, and I disagree with Dr Shaw's assessment that the voicemail sounds as though Mr Quarterman is 'seething' and can barely control his anger, it is the case that Mr Quarterman is expressing displeasure. Mr Quarterman himself said that it would be unusual for him to use the term 'super, super pissed'.

• Mr Quarterman's evidence was that he was angry and frustrated about events.

• Mr Wilson says that he does not recall the actual words said to him but does recall that he became physically shaken and upset and said to Mr Quarterman that he could not have the conversation and Mr Quarterman would have to call Joe or Carl Spruce to discuss matters.

• Dr Shaw's opinion is that Mr Wilson's distress would be a reason he could not recall the content of the phone call in detail.

• Mr Wilson's father recalls the phone call. He said that he was distressed at the impact the call was having on his son. He said that he could hear the nature of the call and while he could not recall the actual words said, he described Mr Quarterman as sounding as though 'he wanted to throttle Troy through the phone'.
• Mr Quarterman agrees that a phone call took place. Mr Quarterman also does not recall the words actually said during the phone call.

• Mr Quarterman agreed that he was angry during the phone call.[107]

• Mr Quarterman does remember Mr Wilson saying that he could not participate further in the phone call, agreed that he sounded upset and recalled that Mr Wilson told him he would have to talk to Joe or Carl.[108]

• After the phone call, Mr Wilson called Joe Spruce and discussed what had occurred.

• Joe Spruce followed up the next day with a phone call to Mr Quarterman. Mr Spruce's evidence was that he told Mr Quarterman that Mr Wilson had reported the nature of the conversation and that he told Mr Quarterman that the interaction had been inappropriate and that he was not to speak to employees of Outsource in that manner.

• Joe Spruce does not recall Mr Quarterman confirming or denying that he had spoken inappropriately to Mr Wilson.

• It is my view, on the basis of the evidence, that had Mr Quarterman disagreed that he had spoken inappropriately to Mr Wilson, he would have raised this with Mr Spruce. Instead, Mr Spruce recalls that the conversation moved on to discussing a way forward with the training.

• Ms Bishop gave evidence that she had also experienced Mr Quarterman being aggressive, rude and abrupt with her on the phone.[109] While Joe Spruce had no memory of this,[110] and Mr Quarterman recalled Ms Bishop but had no memory of talking with her on the phone,[111] I have no reason to doubt her evidence.

• Mr Wilson went to the doctor in the days following 19 April 2023 and by 26 April 2023, had filed his application for Workers' Compensation.[112]

• Mr Wilson gave evidence that he has been less social since the events of 19 April 2023, and this was confirmed by his friend Ms Belinda Gilbert.[113] I have no reason to doubt the evidence on this point.[114]

[84] I am satisfied that the phone conversation was such that Mr Wilson found it to be verbally abusive. It matters not whether he was 'resilient' or came to the phone call experiencing some anxiety about Mr Quarterman based on his previous interactions with him. What matters is that the phone call caused Mr Wilson to become distressed.

[85] There is no evidence before the Commission regarding any other events on 19 April 2023 which may have contributed to Mr Wilson's psychological injury. The interactions with Mr Quarterman are the only reported stressors.

[86] Mr Wilson sought medical attention soon thereafter and reported to his General Practitioner that it was those events of 19 April 2023 which were the stressors causing his injury. This is recorded in the medical certificate.

[87] Mr Wilson's claim for compensation has always been based on his interaction with Mr Quarterman on 19 April 2023.

[88] I am satisfied that the interactions with Mr Quarterman occurred and that they reflect Mr Wilson's version of events.

[89] The only expert evidence before the Commission is that of Dr Shaw who provided an extensive report which had regard to Mr Wilson's history of mental health issues including depression. Dr Shaw confirmed at the hearing that after he had provided his reports, he had been provided with further medical evidence of Mr Wilson's attendances upon General Practitioners. Dr Shaw confirmed that his opinion had not changed as a result of those records. Dr Shaw's opinion is that the events of 19 April 2026 are the significant contributing factor to Mr Wilson's injury.

[90] A medical expert may provide an opinion as to the significance of contributing factors to an injury. Ultimately, however, this is a question for the Commission. In considering whether the claimed stressors are a significant contributing factor, the Commission is to have regard to all of the evidence, including the opinion of medical experts.

[91] I am satisfied that the events Mr Wilson says have caused his injury occurred. I accept the medical opinion before the Commission that the events of 19 April 2023 are a significant contributing factor to the injury sustained by Mr Wilson.

1. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), the Review Decision dated 20 May 2024 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation, the subject of this appeal, is one for acceptance.

1. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission.

[6] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed in the Industrial Registry on 6 January 2025 [10](a).

[8] s 32(1) of the WCRA.

[9] For example: T1-8-T1-11; T1-30-T1-35; T2-15-T2-26; T2-43; T2-45-T2-48.

[19] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed in the Industrial Registry on 6 January 2025 [17].

[86] Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions filed in the Industrial Registry on 6 January 2025 [14](d).

[104] [2025] QIRC 240.

[105] T2-67 ll19-27; Vice President O'Connor citing Wolverson v Todman [2016] 2 Qd R [107].