Boyles v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 56

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Boyles v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 056 PARTIES: Boyles, John (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent) CASE NO: WC/2023/142 PROCEEDING: Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator DELIVERED ON: 27 February 2026 HEARING DATES: 20 November 2024 21 November 2024 MEMBER: Caddie IC HEARD AT: Brisbane ORDERS: 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the review decision dated 18 September 2023 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation is one for acceptance. 3. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission. -- 1 of 24 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION – PHYSICAL INJURY - Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator – where a factual dispute over date of incident exists – where dispute exists in medical evidence regarding causation of injury – date of incident confirmed – where the Appellant's appeal upheld. LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS: Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 11, 32, 558 CASES: Austin v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 110 Goodman Fielder and Workcover (No. C73 of 2003) [2004] ICQ 8 MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland [2001] ICQ 20 (2001) 167 QGIG 100 APPEARANCES: Mr G.J. Cross of Counsel, instructed by Patinos Personal Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr P.B. Rashleigh of Counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent. Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] Mr John Boyles, a Trades Assistant working in the Building, Engineering and Maintenance division of the Logan Hospital, claimed he was injured at work on 5 November 2021 pulling a heavy air compressor stuck in the gap at the front of a lift. He claimed he immediately felt pain in his chest. The event and report of pain was confirmed by his then colleague Mr Damien Salmon (HVAC Technician) who had collected the compressor with him from Total Tools and had witnessed Mr Boyles pulling the compressor to free it. [2] On 11 November 2021, Mr Salmon, who was also the elected Health and Safety Representative ('HSR'), assisted Mr Boyles complete a Riskman report in which the -- 2 of 24 -- 3 incident date was listed as 11 November 2021. 1 In the Riskman report it records 'what happened' as follows: Summary: moving air compressor out of lift 4, wheel of compressor stuck in the door gap as he pulled harder to get compressor to move felt strain in chest muscle Details: moving air compressor out of lift 4, wheel of compressor stuck in the door gap as he pulled harder to get compressor to move felt strain in chest muscle Action taken at time: seen doctor on Monday 8/11/2021 reported to HSR, Ean Dixion and Murray Pocock [3] On 18 September 2023, the Workers Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') upheld the rejection of Mr Boyles' compensation claim, finding the injury did not arise out of employment or that employment was not a significant contributing factor based on equivocal medical evidence. 2 [4] The Regulator's case in the fresh hearing of this matter is that the reported incident occurred on 11 November 2021 and the medical appointment on 8 November demonstrated the pain experienced by Mr Boyles was unrelated to any incident at work. Rather, it was most likely a continuation of chest pain he had purportedly been experiencing since his open-heart surgery in 2019. [5] The Regulator squarely put to Mr Boyles at Hearing that it was only when he was told he would need surgery to rectify a loose sternum wire some 7 months after the incident on 11 November 2021 that he determined to fabricate the earlier timeline enabling him to link the compressor incident to the chest pain he reported to the Doctor on 8 November 2021. [6] For Mr Boyles' appeal to succeed he must persuade me that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence presented shows it was more likely than not that the incident occurred on 5 November 2021. This requires more than establishing mere possibility.3 [7] In closing submissions, the Regulator contended I must be satisfied the incident happened on 5 November 2021, and conceded that if I find that it did, Mr Boyles' case is established on the evidence. 4 [8] For the reasons that follow, I am so persuaded and having considered all the requirements pursuant to s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) find Mr Boyles' appeal is one for acceptance. 1 Comprehensive Report Incident Id 3823499. Exhibit 1, Appeal Book Part E, 6. This will be referred to as the 'Riskman Report'. 2 Review Decision of 18 September 2023, 6. 3 MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland [2001] ICQ 20 (2001) 167 QGIG 100, 101. 4 T2-62 ll 1-7. -- 3 of 24 -- 4 What happened on 5 November 2021? [9] Mr Salmon's evidence is that he received a high priority work order on 5 November 2021 to conduct compressor repairs or replacement. This is confirmed in the details of the work order tendered as part of the documentary evidence, including for example, the job start date of 5 November 2021.5 Mr Salmon stated the task had some urgency as the compressor (that had experienced issues overnight) was feeding the Day Procedure Unit (DPU) Endoscopy drying racks. Without the compressor and the drying units working the Endoscopy section would shut down.6 [10] After diagnosing that the compressor had failed, a replacement compressor was required. Mr Salmon gave evidence that he picked Mr Boyles to assist him to pick up the replacement compressor from Total Tools. Mr Boyles in his evidence confirms he was to accompany Mr Salmon on this urgent job and stated he got the credit card or credit card details from Donna in the office, in order to make the payment and effect the collection of the machine. [11] Mr Salmon and Mr Boyles collected and paid for the compressor from Total Tools, had it lifted onto their flatbed ute by forklift, tied it down and drove back to the Hospital to unload and then install the machine. They both estimate the compressor weighed between 150 – 200 kg. [12] Tax invoice 542370 issued by Total Tools to Queensland Health dated 5 November 2021 records that 'Compressor Belt 320L/M 3. OHP 90L Cast W 3CYL 10BAR IRONAIR' was to be delivered to the Hospital.7 It shows the balance owing is $0.00. There is a hand- written note – 'W/O 47404832' - which Mr Boyles indicated he wrote on the invoice to enable the office to link it back to the originating work order. [13] The originating work order document contained the following note: Delivery docket uploaded – AK 05.11.2021. [14] The Hospital work order and the Total Tools invoices are not documents created by Mr Boyles or Mr Salmon. The invoices are business documents created by Total Tools. They confirm that a compressor was invoiced and paid for on 5 November 2021. The Work Order indicates the delivery docket was uploaded on 5 November 2021. These documents confirm the oral evidence that the compressor collection occurred on 5 November 2021. [15] In addition, I note Mr Boyles referred to a hand-written entry in his work diary for 5 November 2021 as follows: 8 47404882 TOTAL TOOLS pick up parts 2 5 Exhibit 1, Appeal Book Part E, 1. Order # 47404832. 6 T1-31. 7 Exhibit 1. Part E, 2. Invoice from Total Tools. 8 Exhibit 2. -- 4 of 24 -- 5 [16] Having found the collection and delivery of the compressor happened on 5 November 2021, I find it is a matter of commonsense and high probability that the events said to be linked to the delivery of the compressor also occurred on the date the compressor was delivered. The relevant events [17] The testimony of Mr Boyles and Mr Salmon is that upon arrival back at the Hospital they unloaded the compressor in the loading dock where there was an adjustable platform so that the machine could be pushed out of the ute at level. Mr Salmon went to park the vehicle, and Mr Boyles started to wheel the compressor the approximate 10 metres towards the doors to enter the hospital building and approximate further 10-15 metres towards the lift. The compressor was equipped with wheels and handles. 9 [18] Mr Boyles gave evidence at Hearing about the moment he asserts the injury was sustained: When I – I can't remember if I was going in the lift or getting out the lift, the wheel had jumped and I, like, reefed and when I reefed 10 I felt something pop and I got instant pain and I went, "Oh", and Damien came and he says, "Oh". I said, "Mate, I'm in agony", and after that I was unable to assist with the wheeling and that. Damien wheeled it and then I went downstairs, reported it, that I'd hurt myself... 11 And did you get the compressor to the lift by yourself? Yeah. All right. And Mr Salmon returned at some stage? Yeah. All right. And when you were putting it in the lift, you're obviously taking it up to a particular floor? Up to level 1. And what happened with the compressor in the lift? The – as you go across the lift, there's a bit of unevenness and one of the wheels had stuck, so I went to just give it an extra pull and I reefed it and that's when the chest popped. Was Mr Salmon present when you did that activity? I can’t remember if he was there when I did it or just after it, but he was there when… 12 [19] Mr Salmon recalled Mr Boyles manoeuvring the compressor into the elevator, recounting the following: 13 And from the loading dock to where it was going to be positioned, what distance is that? How many – is it upstairs, downstairs?---There's pretty well flat corridor, so from the loading dock five, 10 metres to the corridor, maybe another 10 or 15 metres down to where the lift was. So by the time I'd parked the ute, I’d met John basically at, um, the lift. He'd started to wheel it because it was – one end had two wheels and a grab handle on it. So when you returned from parking the truck or the van or the ute or whatever it is, at what 9 T1-13 ll 19-49 . 10 Reefed is described as a pulling motion. 11 T1-11 34-43. 12 T1-13 ll 38-49. 13 T1-32 ll 4-45. -- 5 of 24 -- 6 stage was Mr Boyle up to with the compressor?---He was starting to enter into the lift – I think it was lift 4 from rough memory, um, and it kind of buckled in the, um, in the door. There's a bit of a gap, I suppose, in the lift opening. What did you observe at that point in time?---As John was trying to pull it in, it got stuck, um, and then he kind of gave it a bit of a pull and then I kind of lent in to give it a bit of a push after that and then we went up the lift and then organised a – um, waited for a few other people to come and assist us. [20] Mr Salmon stated Mr Boyles mentioned a 'niggle' in the chest area immediately following the incident: At any stage, did Mr Boyles complain of any type of injury?---At that point, when we were going up in the lift, he mentioned that he felt a bit of a niggle in his chest area. Um, and I said, "Are you okay? You know, are you fine?" And he said, "Yes", at that point. Okay. And did others assist you with the compressor after that?---Yeah. So once we got to the bottom of the stairs, we got another two guys at that point to then, on a trolley basically, lift the compressor up a flight of stairs up to the plant room in which it - - - Did you – at that stage, you were a safety officer?---Yes. I was a HSR at that point. 14 [21] Mr Salmon explained that as the HSR, he followed up on the day by speaking to Mr Boyles in the afternoon to check how everything was going, recalling Mr Boyles indicated he was 'okay to continue'.15 [22] Following Mr Salmon wheeling the compressor, Mr Boyles stated he went downstairs to report he had hurt himself to Maintenance Manager Murray Pocock and Mr Ean Dixon.16 Mr Pocock does not recollect this interaction. [23] While the Regulator contended there is an issue of credit in relation to the testimony of Mr Boyles, that cannot be said of Mr Salmon who was vouched for by his Manager Mr Pocock, witness for the Regulator, as a highly respected tradesperson and a person of honesty and integrity. [24] With the exception of the description of the intensity of pain at the time of the incident, Mr Boyles' account of the incident is directly corroborated by Mr Salmon - including that it occurred on Friday 5 November. What is the basis of the factual dispute? 14 T1-32 ll 4-45. 15 1-32 ll 47-49 - – T1-33 ll 1-5. 16 T1-11 33-47 – T1-12 ll 1-5. -- 6 of 24 -- 7 [25] The basis for the persistent factual dispute is twofold. First, the Riskman Report of the incident (3823499) completed on 11 November 2021, by Mr Salmon on behalf of Mr Boyles recorded the date of incident as 11 November 2021. [26] The second basis is the notes from the doctor's appointment on 8 November 2021 which do not record Mr Boyles advising of the work-related incident on 5 November 2021. [27] I will deal with these issues in turn. The Riskman report [28] It is not disputed that the Riskman report of the incident was completed on 11 January 2021. [29] The incident is reported as having occurred to Mr Boyles who was 60 years and 8 months old at the time. The form specifies it is not being completed by the injured person. The injury is described as having arisen out of 'manual handling'. The affected part of the body is identified in the Report as 'breast right', with the primary nature of injury described as 'sprains strains'. The Report also records that no other persons were involved and identifies that no WorkCover claim is intended to be lodged. The details of the incident were as follows: What happened? Summary: moving air compressor out of lift 4, wheel of compressor stuck in the door gap as he pulled harder to get compressor to move felt strain in chest muscle Details: moving air compressor out of lift 4, wheel of compressor stuck in the door gap as he pulled harder to get compressor to move felt strain in chest muscle Action taken at time: seen doctor on Monday 8/11/2021 reported to HSR, Ean Dixion and Murray Pocock [30] Significantly, in the 'when did it occur' section of the report, it records that the incident occurred at 8.30am on 11 November 2021 in a lift in Building 1 of the Hospital. [31] The Respondent contended this is evidence that the incident did not occur on 5 November 2021, so that the visit by Mr Boyles to the Doctor on 8 November 2021 reveals he was experiencing chest pain prior to the incident that the Respondent says really occurred on 11 November 2021. [32] The Appellant's case is that this was a simple administrative mistake whereby the report form prefilled the information with the incorrect date or they made a mistake. 17 17 Ms Prinsloo (Logan Hospital Senior H&S Adviser) in her evidence attested that the date of injury would not pre-populate and would need to be entered. The Respondent submitted this deals with the 'lame' pre-population excuse put forward by Mr Salmon. -- 7 of 24 -- 8 [33] Mr Boyles' evidence was that he had 'no clue' how to complete the Riskman Report and so he requested Mr Salmon fill it in for him. Mr Boyles recalled as follows: Whose computer do you use?‑‑‑Damien's – well, it's – it's one in – there's about eight in the workshop and that was the one in the HVAC area where Damien works. All right. And did you ask him to assist you?‑‑‑No. I asked him to fill it in. Why?‑‑‑Because I don't have a clue how to use it. Okay. And what you put in that RiskMan, was that the truth?‑‑‑Yeah. It identifies the date as the 11 th of November if you go to page 6?‑‑‑Yeah. That's not the date, is it?‑‑‑No. That's the date we filled the RiskMan in. 18 [34] During cross-examination of Mr Boyles, he maintained that the incident occurred on 5 November 2021: All right. See, I'll make no bones about this. What I'm suggesting to you is, Mr Boyles, that no incident happened on the 5 th at all?‑‑‑It did. You went to the doctor on the 8 th of November. You've had pain in your chest for a while. You then go, on the 11 th , some days after that, and speak about an incident happening with a compressor, don't you?‑‑‑There was an incident that happened on the 5th of November when I strained myself moving a compressor. Then things go along until the June 2022 when you find out that you've got to have the sternal wires removed. It's only then that you report any incident to any medical practitioner that's attended upon you. Correct?‑‑‑No. Incorrect. I'll make no bones about it, Mr Boyles. You didn't suffer an incident on the 5 th of November at all?‑‑‑Oh, I did.19 [35] Mr Salmon gave evidence that following the incident on the Friday there was the intervening weekend and that Mr Boyles had a day off on Monday 8 November. He recalled Mr Boyles advised him he was sore throughout the weekend and during that week. He asked Mr Salmon to assist with completing the Riskman Report. The report was completed on Thursday 11 November 2021. 20 18 T1-15 ll 26-27. 19 T1-27 ll 6-21. 20 T1-33 – T1-34. -- 8 of 24 -- 9 [36] Mr Salmon described Mr Boyles sitting next to him so that they could discuss the answers to the questions in the Riskman report. 21 Mr Salmon explained the discrepancy in the listed date of injury as follows: 22 Why did you put the incident date as 11 November ’21?---Um, that's basically the moment you open RiskMan that's the date that gets entered into RiskMan, from my recollection of it. Um, that was the day we entered the – this into RiskMan, so it auto populated date and time. Do you have any doubt the incident that he was referring to occurred on the 5th of November '21?---I have no doubt at all. It definitely happened on that Friday. [37] In cross-examination, Mr Salmon maintained that the date of the incident was 5 November 2021: ...you've put 11 November 2021 in there?---Yeah. Or, as you can see there, it says date entered into RiskMan was the 11th of November. That’s right. I’m talking about the incident date at the top?---Yeah. I’m – I'm assuming that I've either forgotten to change that date or it wouldn't allow me to put the date back. I can't recall what happened with that particular part of this document. Might it have been the fact that you entered the date of the 11th of November, rather than the 5th?---No. Well, that's what it says in the documents here, Mr - - -?---But it could've potentially pre-populated because it's the date that we were filling the incident report out. But why would it be pre-populate the date of the incident?---I'm – I don’t recall. That's unlikely, surely?---I – I couldn't speak to - - - ... So you can't explain why it's the 11th of November 2021?---No. 23 Riskman incident assessment and follow up [38] As part of the required managerial review of the incident, further details were added into the Riskman report (3823499) by Mr Pocock. 24 [39] The updated report recorded that Mr Pocock had: spoken to John and reinforced the need to risk assess all tasks and the availability of aides in physical activity when moving heavy objects are concerned.25 21 T1-33 ll 25-28. 22 T1-34 ll 27 – 34. 23 T1-40 ll 6-34. 24 T2-26 ll 35-41. 25 Exhibit 1. Part E, 20. -- 9 of 24 -- 10 [40] This supports there was a direct conversation between Mr Boyles and Mr Pocock following the incident. Mr Pocock could not recollect this, believing he had only had a direct conversation with Mr Salmon. He conceded the report suggests otherwise.26 [41] The report records that Mr Pocock had provided face to face feedback to the reporter Mr Salmon on 14 November 2021 – a Sunday, on which Mr Salmon indicated he did not work. Finally, it indicates there was no requirement for an investigation as it was a simple manual handling incident and no need for further health and safety review as the Manager had followed up. [42] Mr Pocock could not remember the date of the incident, and referred back to the Riskman Report, stating the date of the incident would have been 'as per' the Riskman. He also mentioned there was an invoice from Total Tools that 'would have had a date on it as well'. 27 In practical terms this response means the incident occurred on 11 November 2021, as per the Riskman and 5 November 2021 as per the Total Tools Invoice. [43] When asked if he asked any questions about the date of the Riskman, Mr Pocock responded as follows: 28 All right. And did you – did you ask anybody about the date that the incident occurred?---Damien notified me, and he's our workplace health and safety rep, and he's one of the most diligent tradies we got, he knows the process, so he filled out the RiskMan and I never questioned it, because I trust Damien with his account of things, so ‑ ‑ - [44] Mr Pocock agreed Mr Salmon was a 'man of honesty and integrity'.29 His evidence was that it did appear that the demand for the compressor was of high priority and in those types of scenarios, it would have been 'followed up straight away' or 'as soon as practicable'. 30 [45] Given my finding that the compressor was collected on 5 November 2021 it would be improbable that movement of it to the DPU for installation would be delayed until the following Thursday. Given the acknowledged urgency of the task, installation would have occurred on the date of collection, and the date of collection was 5 November 2021. [46] While Mr Pocock also agreed that he would expect Mr Salmon to accurately input the date of the incident, I consider Mr Salmon making an honest mistake is more aligned to his reported good character and the urgency of the compressor replacement.31 I find it probable that the 11 November date reflected the day the form was completed and was incorrectly inserted into the report as date of injury. That date has then been erroneously 26 T2-32 ll 40-48. 27 T2-27 ll 17-25. 28 T2-26 ll 41-46. 29 T2-29 l 20. 30 T2-30 ll 18-42. 31 T2-35 ll 9-11. -- 10 of 24 -- 11 (but understandably) relied on by various participants in the events that unfolded, including by Mr Boyles and Mr Salmon. [47] I am further encouraged in that view by the section of the report indicating that the action taken at the time of the incident included Mr Boyles seeing the doctor on 8 November 2021 which predated the incorrect date of injury of 11 November 2021. The entry in context tends to confirm the doctor's visit on 8 November 2021 arose from the incident that had already occurred. Otherwise, the entry is completely nonsensical. Attendance at Meadowbrook Medical Centre on 8 November 2021 [48] It is not in dispute that on 8 November 2021, Mr Boyles attended the Meadowbrook Medical Centre due to chest pain. The description of the Appellant's complaint in the notes of Dr Sara Sabery Raieni, recorded 8 November 2021, is as follows: Chest pain sharp for a few days. It worsens with movement of right arm and constantly in the right side of chest. No dyspnoea No palpitation no faint … [49] Mr Boyles underwent an ECG performed by Dr Raieni, who concluded no heart attack had occurred. [50] Dr Raieni gave evidence at Hearing for the Regulator. Dr Raieni's evidence was that Mr Boyles made no mention of any work-related injury during the consult on 8 November 2021,32 and, if Mr Boyles had mentioned this, she would have taken care to record this in her notes. 33 Dr Raieni was adamant on this point.34 [51] While the standard time for a consult in a bulk-billing practice is ten minutes generally, Dr Raieni gave evidence at hearing that she saw Mr Boyles for twenty minutes on 8 November 2021. [52] I note that Dr Raieni confirmed she was reliant upon her notes to inform her recollection of Mr Boyles as a patient.35 [53] Mr Boyles asserts he informed Dr Raieni it was a work-related injury. 36 However, the medical notes dated 8 November 2021 do not reflect this. The notes in fact, do not capture any discussion regarding possible causes for the sharp chest pain Mr Boyles presented with that he reported he had experienced for a few days. 32 T2-44 ll 39-46. 33 T2-48 ll 6-10. 34 See T2-47 ll 29-47. 35 T2-47 l 49 – T2-48 ll 1-2. 36 T1-14 ll 41-45. -- 11 of 24 -- 12 [54] Mr Boyles' case is that this attendance is consistent with the injury having been sustained on 5 November 2021. I agree the report of pain for a few days that is captured in the doctor's notes objectively brings the onset of pain to 5 November 2021. I say objectively, as Monday is a few days from Friday and remains so irrespective of any disclosure or non-disclosure by Mr Boyles of a work-related incident. [55] The question then is whether Mr Boyles reefing the compressor was the cause of the injury or had the sternum pain in fact been experienced on an ongoing basis since the surgery in 2019. I will address that question later in this decision. What happened after mid-November 2021 and the finalisation of the initial incident? Further attendances at Meadowbrook Medical Centre [56] The Appellant attended Dr Raieni again on 1 June 2022, with the notes from the consult recording that: Generally fie (sic) Came for a script for his cholestrole medication (sic) Will see cardiologist again next week for exercise stress test Experiences sharp pain central hey believe it is related to some wire If stress test is okay then will need to be referred to surgeon to fix it Also been advised to take medication for gord [57] The Appellant next attended a phone consult with Dr Raieni on 8 June 2022, where results from pathology were discussed. [58] A surgery consultation between the Appellant and Dr Edgar Chan Wong is recorded as having occurred on 20 June 2022. The notes recorded by Dr Wong on the same day are reproduced below: 37 1M Had seen cardiologist at the PAH He had a sternotomy wire – poking out from the inside They are going to remove the wires About 6 months ago he came to see dr sara Had an issue with his sternum at work Was lifting a pump – hurt his sternum And was also moving a fence not long before that In 2019 he had a CABG and recently SIM cardiologist at PAH And tests done/scans 37 Exhibit 1. Part B of Appeal Book, 198 – 199. -- 12 of 24 -- 13 The wire appears to be loose/poking out and he will have surgery to remove it Given the injury happened at work and with the impending time off work required for the surgery he's hoping now to claim work cover Work cover cert issued Advised he may not have this approved given the injury occurred in November 2021 and I am unable to ascertain whether this injury directly contributed to the loosening of the sternotomy wire OE: Sternotomy scar Tender at mid sternum at the left and right borders This reproduces the sharp pains he has been experiencing Plan 1. Work Cover cert 2. Review in 4 weeks Reason for visit: Workers' compensation Actions: Letter printed Letter written re. Qld Work capacity certificate [59] The WorkCover claim form completed 23 June 2022 records the date of injury as 8 November 2021, as the date he was first seen by a medical practitioner following the workplace incident. 38 Mr Boyles disputes the accuracy of date of injury recorded in the claim form, contending the date of injury was 5 November 2021. 39 [60] Mr Boyles explained the apparent delay between the incident in 2021 and lodging a WorkCover claim for compensation in 2022 as follows: 40 Why did you put up with it, may I ask that question, for so long?‑‑‑Um, I'd been and seen the surgical team and that's when I found out what was up with the sternum. When I went and seen Sara, she just said, "You haven't had a heart attack", so I knew that I had an appointment coming up with the cardiologist team at Logan Hospital and when I went there he was the one that says, "Oh, you need to go and see the surgical team at the PA", and when I seen the surgical team they said, "Oh, yes. One of the sternum wires has come loose and it needs to come out." And they ended up – they were trying to get me into surgery the following week and they couldn't get me in and it was, like, 12 months later before they could get me in. So I just had to suffer the pain for 12 months, and that's why I went to see the doctor, to tell him what I'd found out and to fill out the WorkCover form. 38 Exhibit 1. Part F, Claim Form, 4. 39 Closing submissions of the Appellant, 21 November 2024, 8. 40 T1-16 ll 38-48. -- 13 of 24 -- 14 Occupational Health and Safety Investigation [61] A new Riskman Report was lodged by Ean Dixon following advice from Mr Boyles that he had seen his doctor on 20 June 2022 as his chest pain was getting worse. Mr Dixon lodged the report on behalf of Mr Boyles on 21 June 2022. The Riskman indicated there would be a WorkCover claim lodged which led to the initiation of a Health and Safety Investigation undertaken by Ms Monika Prinsloo, who was a Senior Safety Advisor at the Hospital. Ms Prinsloo was called as a witness for the Respondent. [62] At Hearing Ms Prinsloo explained that she was called upon to undertake an investigation in 2022 into a Riskman Report (4308490) 41 involving Mr Boyles said to have dated back to an earlier incident on 11 November 2021. Ms Prinsloo at Hearing read from the Riskman report and advised the date and time of incident was listed in the report as 10.30 21 June 2022.42 This is the date the Riskman report was created, not the date of incident. In the details it referred to the earlier Riskman report. [63] The report of Ms Prinsloo's investigation is summarised below: 43 • the injury related to Mr Boyles; • the type of injury was 'manual handling – LH sternum'; • a witness to the incident was Damien Salmon; • Mr Boyles, Mr Salmon, Mr Pocock and Mr Dixon were interviewed; and • the date of injury is not recorded. [64] The report records that Mr Pocock was interviewed on 22 June 2022, during which he explained that Mr Boyles informed him on 11 November 2021 that he lifted the compressor and had pain in his chest. 44 Mr Pocock confirmed the events as described did occur. [65] Mr Ean Dixon, Logan Engineering Trades Supervisor, was also interviewed on 23 June 2022, with the report recording that 'he was informed of the incident after it happened on 11 November 2021.' Mr Dixon confirmed the events as described did occur. [66] The report records Mr Salmon stating that on 11 November 2021 he and Mr Boyles were working on a cabinet in the Day Procedure Unit when they were required to collect a compressor from Total Tools. 41 This Riskman number was generated from the report on 21 June 2022 by Mr Dixon. This document was not tendered. 42 T2-16 ll 1-5. 43 Exhibit 1. Part E, OH&S Workplace Incident Investigation Form, dated 27 June 2022, 9. 44 Exhibit 1. Part E, OH&S Workplace Incident Investigation Form, dated 27 June 2022, 10. -- 14 of 24 -- 15 [67] The report recommended that WorkCover follow up with the 'injured workers' GP regarding a pre-existing medical condition that may have contributed to the injury'. [68] During cross-examination, Ms Prinsloo explained her understanding of the date discrepancy as follows: Ms Prinsloo, the evidence before the court is, both from Mr Boyle and Mr Salmon – is that they collected the relevant compressor on the 5 th of November 2021. Did you confirm, as part of your investigations, that the compressor was picked up by Mr Salmon and Mr Boyles on the 5 th of November 2021?‑‑‑I cannot confirm that. At that stage, there were industrial, um, um – industrial action being taken place, and the workers were informed not to make any notes, comments, reports, document anything at that stage, so I could not get a document to confirm it. I could get a document to say that it was purchased by the A&A finance office and that it was ready for collection. From my discussion with Mr Boyle and Mr Damien, they verbally informed me that they collected it on the 11 th of the 11 th .45 [69] Mr Salmon explained in cross-examination that during the interview he would have simply reverted back to the Riskman report and relied on the dates it contained. 46 He couldn't be more specific as the interview had happened a considerable time in the past. I accept this explanation. It is consistent with the evidence of the Regulator's witness, Mr Pocock, who also relied on the dates in the report. Mr Boyles expressly rejected the contention of the Regulator that he said 11 November because that is when the incident actually happened. [70] The reference to 11 November 2021 in late June 2022 by Mr Salmon and Mr Boyles does not advance the case theory of the Regulator that a scheme was hatched by Mr Boyles (somehow roping in the trustworthy Mr Salmon) when he realised he would need surgery to remove the sternum wires. The evidence shows Mr Boyles had been aware of the likelihood of surgery since he reported that to Dr Raieni on 1 June 2022. By 20 June 2022 when he saw Dr Wong he explicitly says because of the surgery he is hopeful of claiming compensation through WorkCover. The time to insert the manufactured earlier date would surely have been in the internal investigation of the events said to be causative of the injury, particularly as industrial action would impede any investigation of the earlier date claim. Mr Boyles would by this account be completely inept at execution of the scheme. [71] This investigation evidence with its reference back to the incident date of 11 November 2021 does not persuade me that the relevant events occurred on 11 November 2021. The independent documentary evidence supported the testimony of Mr Boyles and Mr Salmon that the event occurred on 5 November 2021. As already found, a human error was made when the Riskman Report was completed on 11 November 2021 to insert the date of completion into date of injury. Mr Dixon was not called as a witness and his Riskman report was not tendered but it appears he too has inserted date of completion 45 T2-9 ll 3-12. 46 T1-41 l 35. -- 15 of 24 -- 16 into the date of incident field. Human error and ongoing reference back to the earlier Riskman report are more probable than a conspiracy master-minded by Mr Boyles. I dismiss the proposition that Mr Boyles conspired to manufacture the earlier date. [72] What is uncontested in the evidence of all the workplace witnesses is that the compressor -related events did occur and resulted in a chest strain being reported by Mr Boyles. Mr Boyles did attend Dr Raieni on 8 November and reported sharp chest pain that he had been experiencing for a few days, which logically would link back to the uncontested events that occurred on 5 November, even though the notes do not record any discussion of possible reasons for onset of the sharp pain at that time. Was the chest pain a continuation of previous chest pain? [73] The Regulator contends the medical evidence reveals Mr Boyles in fact experienced pain following the coronary surgery in December 2019 up to the date of removal of the sternal wires on 2 May 2023. This is primarily based on the medical evidence of Dr Vidushu Lal. The evidence of Dr Lal [74] Dr Lal was the Cardiothoracic Surgery PHO for Dr Anand Lyer, Cardiothoracic Surgery Senior Staff Specialist.47 Dr Lal appeared as a witness for the Regulator. [75] Dr Lal's report of 12 July 2022 described the following (my emphasis): … He had CABG x 4 under Dr Mundy in 2019. Since his operation, he reports a sharp discomfort in his chest and describes this as a poking feeling in the exact same spot. He has been worked up appropriately by his cardiologist and has had a negative stress echocardiogram… On examination today, his sternum is stable. There is mild induration of the left side of his mid- sternum, but I am unable to feel any wire here. However, the pain he is describing is typical of sternal wire pain, so we have booked and consented him for sternal wire removal… [76] Mr Boyles' case is that this is untrue, and that apart from the incident with the fence, Mr Boyles did not experience any chest pain until 5 November 2021. 48 [77] At Hearing, Dr Lal indicated this evidence was based on the history provided by Mr Boyles but agreed on cross-examination he could not speak to his prior medical history and would defer to the opinion of a qualified cardiac thoracic surgeon. 49 47 Exhibit 1, Part B, 3. 48 T1-17 ll 40-48. 49 T2-40 ll1-33. -- 16 of 24 -- 17 Prior Medical History [78] In 2019, Mr Boyles underwent open heart surgery at the Princess Alexandra Hospital after an angiogram identified three-vessel coronary artery disease. 50 [79] Dr Julie Mundy, Cardiothoracic Surgeon, conducted the surgery, in which sternal wires were applied to Mr Boyles' chest. [80] Mr Boyles made a good recovery and contends he experienced no pain in his chest following this surgery. The report of Dr Sanjay Dutta, Cardiothoracic Surgeon, dated 24 December 2019 indicates the recovery from surgery was satisfactory and the Appellant did not experience any complications.51 [81] On 20 January 2020, the Appellant was reviewed at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, with the report of Dr Bryan McManus opining that the Appellant: 52 …has recovered remarkably well. He has been walking in excess of 2km and had no exertional angina symptoms. [82] Three further attendances at various hospitals are recorded in the medical evidence: • On 28 February 2020 the Appellant attended Dr Jilani Latona, Cardiologist at Logan Hospital, where it was noted the Appellant was not experiencing chest pain or dizziness; • Dr Siobhan Boyle, Advanced Trainee in Cardiology, corresponded with Dr L S Bruno Jesuthasan, Staff Cardiologist, on 30 May 2020 and noted that the Appellant attended Professor Arun Dahiya in April 2020, who noted the Appellant recovered well from surgery with no symptoms; and • The Appellant suffered an electric shock to the right hand on 1 December 2020 unrelated to the employment. The notes from this attendance report that the Appellant did not experience chest pain, shortness of breath or palpitations. [83] The Appellant therefore contends that there was no history of chest pain subsequent to the cardiac surgery on 10 December 2019 until the incident that occurred on 5 November 2021. [84] I agree that the relevant medical evidence including specialist evidence confirms that Mr Boyles did not suffer 'sharp discomfort in his chest or poking feeling in the exact same spot' since his operation. The history rather indicates an excellent recovery. 50 Closing submissions of the Appellant, 21 November 2024, 3; T1-10 l 33-47. 51 Exhibit 1, Part B, 34. 52 Exhibit 1, Part B, Report of Dr Bryan McManus, dictated 20 January, 35. -- 17 of 24 -- 18 [85] This is also confirmed by Dr Alexander Rosalion, General and Cardiothoracic Surgeon who was called to give evidence for Mr Boyles. Dr Rosalion is a highly qualified General and Cardiothoracic Surgeon.53 [86] Dr Rosalion authored a file note signed 31 October 2024 and a report dated 4 November 2024. The evidence of Dr Rosalion on this point is in direct conflict with the evidence of Dr Lal. [87] The report of Dr Rosalion recorded that the Appellant experienced no ongoing problems following the surgery in December 2019 and that Dr Rosalions' review of the medical notes confirmed this. Dr Rosalion reaffirmed at Hearing that this was correct. 54 [88] When questioned about the possibility of the Appellant experiencing ongoing chest pain dating from December 2019 to 5 November 2021, Dr Rosalion affirmed that it was his understanding that the Appellant had not experienced ongoing chest pain post his return to work following the December surgery: 55 Dr Lai (sic) indicates in his report that this gentleman was having problems from the surgery onwards. From your observation – sorry about the long winded question – from your observations of the reports and the medical records provided to you, is it – was it your understanding or was it your review of the records indicating that he wasn't having problems after the original coronary surgery?‑‑‑Correct. He had pain, standard post- operative pain for about three months afterwards but subsequent to that had returned to work, normal activity, with no pain. [89] I prefer this evidence to that of Dr Lal, who by his own admission, did not have the benefit of the medical history. [90] The evidence shows that after the operation, Mr Boyles took a period of 3 months leave from work, following which he was cleared for full duties in March 2020. [91] In July 2020, after having been back at work for approximately 2 months, Mr Boyles 'pulled a temporary fence' and injured his sternum. He did not complete a Riskman report, and the pain was temporary, lasting approximately two weeks. [92] Mr Boyles denied he described having those symptoms since his surgery. He affirmed those symptoms occurred from the incident with the compressor and continued until the surgery to remove the sternum wires. Mr Salmon, who worked closely with Mr Boyles, confirmed that Mr Boyles had never complained of sternum pain until the incident on 5 November 2021. Mr Boyles confirmed at Hearing that except 'for the fencing incident' he had 'no trouble' until the incident on 5 November. 56 53 Exhibit 3. Curriculum Vitae of Dr Alexander Rosalion. 54 T1-43 ll 45-50. 55 T1-44 ll 5-12. 56 T1-17 ll 45-48. -- 18 of 24 -- 19 [93] I find the weight of the evidence does not support that Mr Boyles experienced ongoing chest pain since 2019. Was the incident capable of causing the injury? [94] Mr Boyles' case is that the injury was caused by the movement of pulling the compressor. Evidence of the Appellant [95] Mr Boyles explained the pain he experienced upon pulling the compressor as follows: 57 All right. Now, 5 th of November, the date of that invoice, is a Friday?‑‑‑Yeah. You say you had a popping sensation in your chest and pain?‑‑‑Yeah. Correct?‑‑‑Yeah. And is that similar to what you were feeling when you had the fencing event?‑‑‑No. Nothing like it. How was it different?‑‑‑This time it was like somebody was stabbing me from inside my chest. [96] Mr Boyles' case is that the pain he experienced upon manoeuvring the compressor continued unabated until the removal of the sternum wires: In the period from 5 November ’21 through to June ’22 ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yeah. ‑ ‑ ‑ did you have pain in that period from your sternum from the date of the accident?‑‑‑From the date of the accident right up to the removal. Did it vary in intensity or stay the same?‑‑‑It was – it stopped at about between five and seven on a pain ‑ ‑ - … So when you say five to seven, is it on that scale of nought to 10?‑‑‑Yeah. Of pain?‑‑‑Yeah. All right. Continue?‑‑‑And if I lifted me right arm, well, it used to stretch and then the wire would poke and where the wire was poking out, there was like a zit that was there and it used to get very painful. When you say the wire was sticking out, was that sticking out through the skin?‑‑‑It was sticking into the skin. You subsequently had surgery, I believe, in about February of 2023?‑‑‑Yeah. Is that about right?‑‑‑Yeah. 57 T1-14 ll 6-16. -- 19 of 24 -- 20 All right. How's the chest now?‑‑‑Good.58 [97] On 2 May 2023 the Appellant underwent an operation to remove the wires, during which it was noted: 59 Sternum stable…all 3 wires removed…middle wire, knot was positioned towards skin, potentially accounting for symptoms… Following the surgery, the pain subsided, as did the inflammatory lump on the skin. Medical evidence [98] There is a conflict in the medical evidence related to whether the incident with the compressor was causative of the injury. [99] The relevant evidence for the purpose of this question is that of Dr Challa and Dr Rosalion.60 Dr Challa was not called as a witness. A filenote dated 5 December 2023 was before the Commission as an exhibit and was referenced in the evidence of Dr Rosalion at Hearing. 61 Was the pulling motion performed by the Appellant capable of causing the personal injury of dislodging sternal wires? The evidence of Dr Challa [100] In 2023, Dr Challa was the Director of Cardiology at the Logan Hospital. Dr Challa corresponded with Dr Wong in 2022 about the surgery to remove the wires and reviewed Mr Boyles on 25 May 2022 following a referral from Dr Wong. 62 [101] Dr Challa could not definitively state that the incident involving the compressor was 'causative' of the pain experienced by Mr Boyles but recognised a temporal connection in that the pain began after the incident. Dr Challa explained that he suspected the pain was related to the sternal wire becoming loose and for this reason he referred the Appellant to a surgeon. [102] The file note records the following opinions expressed by Dr Challa: 63 • Chest pain could occur in a person without the lifting event 58 T1-17 LL 1-33. 59 Exhibit 1. Records of Princess Alexandra Hospital, Discharge Summary, 205. 60 The evidence of Dr Lal has been considered in my determination that there was not ongoing chest pain since Mr Boyles' surgery. The evidence of Dr Raieni was considered as part of establishing the date of injury. 61 Exhibit 1. Part B, File note of Conversation with Dr Prasad Challa, 5. 62 Exhibit 1. Part B, File note of Conversation with Dr Prasad Challa, 5. 63 Exhibit 1. Part B, File note of Conversation with Dr Prasad Challa, 6. -- 20 of 24 -- 21 • Dr Challa could not confirm if the incident was causative of the pain or if the pain was reflective of the sternal wires naturally starting to move as time passed • In some cases people would undergo the surgery, be pain free for some years and then experience pain as the wires started to move • Sternal wire is not usually removed unless it causes issues and in the Appellant's case it clearly caused issues and was removed accordingly • Any movements in the upper body and the upper torso would be likely to cause the sternal wire to move and cause pain so the wire must have already become loose by the time the Appellant lifted the compressor • Confirmed that the wire may have become loose prior to the 'lifting event', with the lifting event then causing the wires to become painful [103] This evidence is equivocal. I note however, the Doctor recognises the temporal connection of the pain to the workplace incident and the likelihood that the pain related to a sternal wire becoming loose. The evidence of Dr Alexander Rosalion [104] The report of Dr Rosalion opines the following: 64 • The Appellant was pain free at the time of the final surgical review following the coronary surgery and experienced no ongoing chest pain until the incident on 5 November 2021 • The operation to remove the sternal wires was necessary due to the pain reported by the Appellant and the risk of skin erosion • The operation revealed the middle wire had a knot in it that was directed towards the skin as opposed to being turned in and buried as it presumably was at the conclusion of the 2019 coronary surgery • That the pain experienced by the Appellant following the incident and prior to the removal of the wires was typical of pain resulting from dislodged wires (moved and protruding) and the development of the inflammatory lump is further evidence that the dislodged wire was causing pain • The cause of the pain was the protruding, dislodged wire knot [105] Critically, Dr Rosalion was of the opinion that the incident on 5 November 2021, in which Mr Boyles pulled at the compressor, caused the wire to flip up, 'leading to pain 64 Exhibit 1. Report of Dr Alexander Rosalion. -- 21 of 24 -- 22 and skin changes'. 65 Dr Rosalion's report further opined that the incident with the fence prior to the incident on 5 November 2021 may have 'led to some loosening of the sternal wires'. 66 [106] Dr Rosalion's report acknowledges a 'theoretical' possibility of movement in the wires subsequent to surgery but, in the absence of a traumatic event, is highly unusual: 67 Sternal wire movement or even fracture can occur during the healing stage prior to sternal union which is usually complete by 12 weeks. Subsequent movement in the wires is uncommon. The wires generally are left in situ although no longer required because they do not commonly lead to any issues. Although theoretically there can be some sternal wire movement without trauma over time, this is highly unusual and when it does occur, it is generally thought that this may be related to an unrecognised injury. Direct trauma can lead to sternal wire movement but also sudden pulling on the sternum with muscle contraction allows the wires to move. The sternal wire knots which are twisted inwards into the sternum are at particular risk of movement as they are under tension when twisted into the sternum at the original operation. I note Mr Boyles did have an event in mid-2021 and, although the pain following that incident only lasted 2 weeks, it is not inconceivable that that may have led to some loosening of the sternal wire. At the time of the event on 5 November 2021, Mr Boyles had severe pain related to the middle wire which continued unabated until the wire was removed… Slipping of the sternal wire knot at the time of the injury of November is thus almost certainly the causation of Mr Boyles' pain although the injury 6 months earlier may also have contributed. [107] Dr Rosalion further opined: 68 Was the work-related event causative of the symptoms identified after 5 November 2021 requiring removal of the sternal wires? As noted above, the incident on 5 November 2021 caused the wire to flip up leading to pain and skin changes and lead to the eventual removal of the sternal wires. [108] Dr Rosalion clearly expressed that the opinions of Dr Lal and Dr Challa did not alter his opinion on the probable causation of the injury: All right. So doctor, would that history, would that cause you some concerns about whether, in fact, it was a work-related event that caused the chest pain?‑‑‑There is some confusion about when it started and what it involved. … So there is some confusion or disagreement as to when and exactly where it occurred. I would just say that from the point of view of the likely scenario of having a wire acting up it's likely to be related to a traumatic incident rather than present ever since the original operation, which would imply that Dr Mundy did not correctly bend the wire downwards into the sternum, and I don’t believe that to be the case. But if you accept for the moment what those medical records say ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes ‑ ‑ ‑ then it’s obviously that there was issues with the sternal wire prior to any event?‑‑‑That is what those two written reports would indicate. Yes. Yes. All right. And does that cause you to change your opinion as to the likely 65 Exhibit 1. Report of Dr Alexander Rosalion, 20. 66 Exhibit 1. Report of Dr Alexander Rosalion, 20. 67 Exhibit 1. Report of Dr Alexander Rosalion, 20. 68 Exhibit 1. Report of Dr Alexander Rosalion. Page 20 of Bundle Part E. -- 22 of 24 -- 23 cause of the pain?‑‑‑No. As I said in my report, I had access to both of those reports [indistinct] that it was thought more likely than not that the sternal wire was displaced with a work-related event, rather than having been present since surgery.69 [109] I prefer the evidence of Dr Rosalion, which is direct and unequivocal. 70 While he accepts there might be other circumstances in which the sternum wires could become loose, these were not common and not supported by the specific medical evidence post-surgery that demonstrated no ongoing issues prior to the report of chest pain to Dr Raieni on 8 November 2021. [110] At Hearing Doctor Rosalion advised the movement required to pull the compressor out of the door gap would be consistent with the popping sensation and pain described by Mr Boyles. He reaffirmed these conclusions under cross-examination. He noted the reports of Dr Lal and Doctor Challa but indicated the findings were not supported by review of the actual medical records from the time. [111] In re-examination, Dr Rosalion said: 71 The description of that event and that was confirmed to me by Mr Boyles and I understand there was a Riskman filled out as well to that effect, that would require quite a strenuous exertion by Mr Boyles of both his arms pulling upwards and backwards and that would provide quite a strenuous stretch on the wires, the muscles, the adjacent tissues and could very foreseeably lead to a wire becoming displaced and I have certainly seen that more than once in my experience. Would you then indicate that the shifting of the compressor was a significant contributing factor to the pain and the necessity for the wires to be removed? Yes…the description of the incident would be sufficient to lead to the outcome of a wire popping up. [112] I am persuaded that the chest pain experienced by Mr Boyles on 5 November 2021 was directly related to the event at work where he pulled the compressor to try to dislodge it from the gap in the lift where it had become struck. There was proximity of time between the incident and onset of pain. There was no competing causal incident. 72 This pulling action led to the sternal wires popping up causing immediate and then ongoing pain until surgical removal. I conclude on the balance of probabilities that Mr Boyles' employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury or aggravation. Statutory Requirement [113] The provision of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) relevant to the determination of this appeal is s 32, which provides: 32 Meaning of injury (1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury. (2) …. 69 T1-47 ll 10-32. 70 Austin v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 110, [78]- [86] (O'Connor VP). 71 T1-49. 72 Goodman Fielder and Workcover (No. C73 of 2003) [2004] ICQ 8 (Hall P). -- 23 of 24 -- 24 (3) Injury includes the following— (a) ….. (b) an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation— (i) a personal injury; (ii) a disease; (iii) a medical condition, if the condition becomes a personal injury or disease because of the aggravation; … (4) For subsection (3)(b), to remove any doubt, it is declared that an aggravation mentioned in the provision is an injury only to the extent of the effects of the aggravation. [114] For the reasons set out in this decision I accept the Appellant's contentions that: 73 (i) Mr Boyles suffered a personal injury, being an injury to his chest when manoeuvring the compressor; (ii) The injury occurred while he was at work performing his work duties on 5 November 2021; (iii) Employment was the significant contributing factor to Mr Boyles' chest pain; (iv) Mr Boyles' employment aggravated or caused the chest pain and employment was a significant contributing factor to that aggravation so that s 32(3)(b)(i) of the WC Act is applicable. Orders [115] I order accordingly: 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. Pursuant to s 558(1)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the review decision dated 18 September 2023 is set aside and another decision substituted, namely, that the Appellant's application for workers' compensation is one for acceptance. 3. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission. 73 Closing submissions of the Appellant, 21 November 2024, [16]. -- 24 of 24 --