Kalecinski v Mercy Community

[2024] QSC 49 · Crow J

In plain language

Mr Kalecinski worked as a maintenance assistant and said he hurt his back lifting a heavy tent at work in Rockhampton in 2018, leaving him with a permanent right foot drop. His workers' compensation claim was rejected by WorkCover, and his appeal to the Workers' Compensation Regulator was also rejected. He did not take the next step of appealing to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission within the required time because he could not afford his lawyers. Around three years later, representing himself, he filed a damages claim in the Supreme Court seeking close to two million dollars. The court explained that under the workers' compensation laws a worker can only sue for damages if certain steps have been completed, including obtaining a formal assessment of injury. Because his claim had been rejected and could not now be revived, he had no legal right to sue his employer, and the claim was also brought too late. The court set the claim aside.

Incident & injury

Back injury sustained lifting a heavy tent in the course of employment

Diagnoses
L4/5 canal stenosis, right foot drop from nerve root injury, secondary psychiatric injury due to chronic pain
Incident date
18 May 2018
Location
Rockhampton

Quick facts

Date of judgment
28 March 2024
Proceeding
Interlocutory
Plaintiff outcome
Unsuccessful
Occupation
maintenance assistant Labourer

Outcome

The plaintiff's WorkCover statutory claim had been rejected and he failed to appeal the Regulator's decision to the QIRC within time. Because no notice of assessment had issued and could not now issue, the plaintiff had no title to sue under s 237 WCRA, and his claim was also time-barred with no prospect of a s 31 extension. The court set aside the claim.

Key issues

📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

Kalecinski v Mercy Community [2024] QSC 49

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

← Back to the case archive