Keywords: Workers' compensation, psychiatric injury, chronic pain, Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, s 32 WCRA, secondary psychological injury, WorkCover Queensland, visual merchandiser injury
By Honest Grace Legal | Motor Vehicle Injury Law | May 2025
Subject
Chronic Pain and Mental Health: Work Injury-Related Psychiatric Claims Recognised
What Happened
Erin Dodd, a visual merchandising worker for CGL Retail Services, developed a neck injury through repetitive, physically demanding work. Over time, she claimed the ongoing pain and inability to work triggered or worsened a psychiatric condition. WorkCover Queensland initially denied that her mental health issues were work-related, arguing they were primarily due to her marriage breakdown and frustrations with the compensation process. Ms Dodd appealed.
Key Legal Issues
- Was Ms Dodd’s accepted physical injury a significant contributing factor to her psychiatric condition?
- Was her mental injury excluded under s 32(5)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA), which bars claims arising from insurer or regulator actions?
- What stressors materially contributed to her psychological condition?
What the Court Decided
The Commission held that Ms Dodd’s psychological condition was compensable under the WCRA. It ruled that:
- Her physical injury and its ongoing consequences were significant contributing factors to her psychiatric condition.
- Although frustration with the WorkCover process contributed, it was not significant enough to exclude her claim under s 32(5)(c).
- Her marriage breakdown, while impactful, was a non-work-related stressor and not central to the legal decision.
Key Findings
- The date of psychological injury was determined as 8 March 2022, when Ms Dodd sought psychological help and a mental health plan was prepared.
- Her chronic pain and resulting incapacity - not administrative disputes or family stress—were found to be the primary drivers of her mental health deterioration.
- The court adopted a beneficial interpretation of the WCRA, allowing claims where multiple contributing factors exist but the work injury remains materially significant.
Outcome
The original decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator was set aside. The Commission substituted a new decision: that Ms Dodd had suffered a compensable injury under s 32, not excluded by s 32(5)(c).
Why This Case Matters
This case reinforces the importance of recognising secondary psychological injuries that stem from physical workplace injuries - even when personal or administrative frustrations also play a role.
For injured workers in Queensland:
- It affirms that psychological distress need not be the sole result of employment—it only needs to be significantly linked.
- It narrows the scope of s 32(5)(c), protecting workers from unfair exclusions when their mental injuries stem largely from pain and disability, not the claim process itself.
For employers and insurers:
- It highlights the need for early psychological support and careful consideration of the real drivers of psychiatric harm, beyond administrative interactions.
Source
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QIRC24-273.pdf