WorkCover Queensland v Yang
[2022] QCA 196 · Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Crow J
Mr Yang, a 49-year-old painter who ran a small painting business with his wife, suffered a stroke at work in August 2020 after working long hours. WorkCover first rejected his workers' compensation claim, but the independent Workers' Compensation Regulator overturned that and accepted the claim. WorkCover then obtained a fresh medical opinion suggesting the stroke was caused by pre-existing high blood pressure rather than work stress, and tried to terminate his payments using a section of the workers' compensation law allowing review of entitlements.
The legal question was whether that review power let WorkCover effectively reverse the Regulator's acceptance of the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed WorkCover's appeal by majority, holding that the review power only allows an insurer to change an existing entitlement going forward, not to decide the entitlement never existed. This meant Mr Yang's accepted claim stood and WorkCover could not cut off his benefits on that basis.
Incident & injury
Worker suffered a haemorrhagic stroke (right basal ganglia haemorrhage) at work, allegedly caused by work-related stress from extended working hours
- Body regions
- Brain / head, Head
- Diagnoses
- Right basal ganglia haemorrhage, Haemorrhagic stroke, Left hemiplegia
- Incident date
- 17 August 2020
- Location
- Brisbane
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 11 October 2022
- Claim type
- WCRA Statutory
- Proceeding
- Appeal
- Plaintiff outcome
- Successful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 49
- Occupation
- Painter and manager of painting and decorating business Technician / Trade Worker
- Liability
- Stay / procedural
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
WorkCover's appeal was dismissed (by majority, McMurdo JA and Crow J; Morrison JA dissenting). The Court held that s 168 of the WCRA does not empower an insurer to terminate a worker's compensation entitlement on the basis that the entitlement never existed; the insurer could not override the Regulator's decision to accept Mr Yang's claim based on a later differing medical opinion.
Key issues
WorkCover Queensland v Yang [2022] QCA 196
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.