Keywords: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, QIRC, workers’ compensation appeal, Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32 significant contributing factor, s 34, s 558 costs, musculoligamentous cervical strain, whiplash injury, dump truck hoist cylinder failure, operational data, Liebherr truck, Lake Vermont Coal Mine Dysart, de novo hearing, onus on employer, imaging not determinative, costs of the hearing
By Honest Grace Legal | Workers’ Compensation Law | Sep 2025
Subject
QIRC upholds compensation for dump truck driver’s whiplash injury after hoist failure
What Happened
- Ms Sandy Gray, a dump truck operator for Thiess at the Lake Vermont Coal Mine (Dysart), experienced a violent back and forward jolt when unloading on 4 May 2022. One of the two hoist cylinders failed during the 30 second unloading process. She felt immediate sharp neck pain but, believing the jolt was caused by falling rock, continued driving. Emergency response attended and an ambulance transported her for treatment.
- Background: Ms Gray had a prior assault related right arm brachialgia with a spinal cord stimulator implanted in 2020. Despite this, she had been medically assessed as fit for mine work by three doctors in 2020.
- WorkCover initially rejected the claim with the Workers’ Compensation Regulator setting that aside that decision to accept the claim. Thiess appealed to the QIRC.
Key Legal Issues
- Personal injury: Did Ms Gray suffer a compensable “personal injury” within s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)?
- Causation: Was her employment a significant contributing factor to that injury
- Factual contest: Whether a jolting force occurred during unloading, when it occurred within the 30 second cycle, and whether the OEM operational data disproved a jolt.
What the Court Decided
- Appeal dismissed.
- Regulator’s review decision (24 Nov 2022) confirmed.
- Thiess to pay the Regulator’s costs of the hearing (to be agreed or, failing agreement, on further application)
Key Findings
- Personal injury established: Ms Gray suffered a musculoligamentous strain of the cervical spine on 4 May 2022 with her employment being deemed as a significant contributing factor
- Jolting force accepted: The Commission found a jolting force occurred during unloading. Graphs showed a “huge spike” and oscillations in the left front suspension consistent with a substantial force on the side where the hoist failed, near the driver
- Operational data treated with caution: OEM analysis did not conclusively negate a jolt; the Commission noted logical inconsistency in saying a heavy mechanical failure caused no jolt and observed potential conflict in a manufacturer analysing its own equipment failure
- Credibility and contemporaneity: Ms Gray’s account was accepted as honest and consistent; her immediate neck pain reports, inability to relieve pain with her stimulator, ambulance callout, and site shutdown reinforced genuineness of injury. Continuing to drive briefly and delayed radio reporting (due to communication issues) did not undercut her account.
- Medical evidence: The Commission preferred Associate Professor Keys’ opinion that Ms Gray sustained a new axial neck (facetogenic/discogenic) injury from an acceleration/deceleration event; imaging can be normal in such injuries. Dr Labrom’s contrary view was given less weight (no examination; assumptions that minimised the incident)
- Preexisting condition not determinative: Prior brachialgia and stimulator did not prevent Ms Gray working heavy shifts/overtime. The court distinguished that her pre-existing condition was different in nature and location from the neck injury
- Costs principle: Costs ordinarily follow the event in such appeals but limited to “costs of the hearing” under s 558(3)
Outcome
The Commission dismissed Thiess’s appeal and on the balance of probabilities favoured Ms Gray’s version and causal link to work, on the basis of the following:
- A heavy truck’s hoist failure adjacent to the cab would likely produce a significant jolt; this aligned with both the suspension pressure spike and Ms Gray’s consistent description of sudden neck pain during unloading.
- The OEM operational data was not decisive against Ms Gray; interpreted holistically, it actually supported a substantial left side force during the relevant 30 seconds.
- Immediate onsite behaviour (attempting to modulate her implanted stimulator, ambulance attendance, mine shutdown) corroborated that a real injury occurred, notwithstanding a short continuation of driving and the absence of imaging abnormalities.
- On the medical evidence, the Commission preferred A/Prof Keys, who distinguished the new axial neck injury from Ms Gray’s prior neuropathic brachialgia and explained why imaging may be negative in soft tissue injury cases.
Why This Case Matters
- Operational data vs lived event: OEM data will not invariably defeat a worker’s account; tribunals may find a jolt occurred where the physical context and data spikes align with the worker’s description
- Imaging not determinative: Normal scans do not preclude a finding of soft tissue injury where credible evidence supports it
- Preexisting conditions: A prior condition does not bar recovery where the new injury is distinct and work is a significant contributing factor
- Reporting nuance: Brief continuation of work and delayed reporting (e.g., due to comms issues or job security concerns) will not necessarily undermine credibility
- Appeal settings and costs: In QIRC workers’ compensation appeals, the hearing is de novo with the employer bearing the onus to disprove injury; costs of the hearing generally follow the event (not costs of the entire appeal)