Booth v Q-COMP [2009] QIRC 77 (2009) 191 QGIG 79

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 5 June, 2009, Vol. 191, No. 4, pages 79-85] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - appeal to commission Juell Elizabeth Booth AND Q-COMP (WC/2008/103) COMMISSIONER ASBURY 27 May 2009 Appeal against decision of Q-COMP - Application for review of decision to cease compensation claim - Finding that application was made within time in October 1997 - Finding that extension of time not required - Finding that if extension of time was required this would be a case for exercise of discretion - Appeal upheld - Order that Ms Booth's application for review of the decision to cease her claim for workers' compensation in October 1997 be dealt with according to law. DECISION 1. Background This is an appeal by Ms Juell Elizabeth Booth against a decision of Q-COMP to refuse an application for review of a decision by WorkCover. This is an unusual case and relevant events span a period of eleven years. On 7 October 1997 WorkCover decided to cease a claim by Ms Booth for compensation. Reasons for that decision were provided to Ms Booth on 8 October 1997. On 11 October 2008 Ms Booth applied for a review of that decision, contending that she had previously lodged an application for a late review in 1997 and that incorrect information had been supplied to her ever since that time. After considering further supporting information provided by Ms Booth, on 26 November 2008, Q-COMP rejected the application for review on the grounds that it was lodged outside of the time limits prescribed by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Ms Booth appealed that decision on 29 November 2008. 2. Evidence and Submissions for the Appellant Ms Booth, who represented herself in the appeal, has been pursuing what she terms "rectification" of various grievances with Q-COMP, WorkCover and a number of medical practitioners, since 1997. The documentation generated by Ms Booth in pursuit of this objective is copious. Some documents are undated or contain notations made by Ms Booth about when and how they were generated or who they were provided to. Many of the matters which Ms Booth seeks to agitate, both in documentation and oral evidence, are not relevant to the issues in the appeal. Ms Booth also contends that a number of important documents are missing from her WorkCover file. Ms Booth gave evidence on her own behalf. Ms Booth also tendered documents in support of her contentions, including a written outline of her submissions prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Industrial Registrar on 5 March 2009. Q-COMP, represented by Mr Clark of Counsel, tendered documents from Ms Booth's workers' compensation file which were marked as Exhibit 3. These documents were generally described as jurisdictional documents in the appeal. Mr Clark also tendered other documents from Q-COMP's file which were said to be germane to the issue in the appeal or in any way suggestive as a prosecution of an application for review. This bundle of documents was marked as Exhibit 4. I have considered all of the material and the evidence of Ms Booth. The background to the appeal is as follows. Ms Booth was employed by Queensland Transport as a customer service officer. On 23 December 1996, Ms Booth made an application for workers' compensation. The application was in relation to an injury said to have been sustained on 2 December 1996. The injury was described on the application for workers' compensation completed by Ms Booth, as a nerve injury at the back of her right eye, and a sprain or possible disc injury to her neck and cervical spine. The injury was said to have been caused when Ms Booth fell from the wheel hub of a vehicle onto which she had climbed, in order to inspect an engine number (Exhibit 3 Annexure 1). Ms Booth was absent from work from 14 December 1996 until 14 January 1997 and was in receipt of workers' compensation benefits for that period (Exhibit 3 Annexure 6). On 4 June 1997, Ms Booth ceased work again, and applied to reopen her claim for workers' compensation (Exhibit 3 Annexure 2). Ms Booth received workers' compensation benefits for the period from 3 June 1997 until 30 September 1997. On 7 October 1997 WorkCover wrote to Ms Booth and informed her that it was considered that her continued absence from work was not the result of an "injury" within the meaning of the then Workers' Compensation Act 1990, and that payment of compensation would not be made beyond 30 September 1997 (Exhibit 3 Annexure 6). This letter also states that Ms Booth has a right to seek a review of the decision to cease her claim, and that a brochure is attached about reviews and appeals. Ms Booth said in her evidence that there was no brochure attached to the letter of 7 October 1997. -- 1 of 6 -- 2 On 8 October 1997, a document was forwarded to Ms Booth setting out "evidence, facts and reasons" for the decision to cease Ms Booth's claim for compensation (Exhibit 3 Annexure 6). That document relevantly states that: "A medical report obtained from Dr Landy, Neurologist, dated 7.7.97 states that he could find no neurological basis for your problem. A medical report from Dr Blue, Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 22.9.97 states that you suffer from no organic disability whatsoever in your neck. ... Based on the available evidence I am unable to conclude any ongoing incapacity is a result of "injury" within the terms of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The claim is one for cessation.". By virtue of s. 504 of the then WorkCover Act 1996, Ms Booth had 28 days in which to seek a review of that decision and was required to do so by 5 November 1997. Ms Booth said in her evidence that immediately upon receiving the letter informing her that her WorkCover claim was to be ceased, she contacted the Queensland Public Sector Union (QPSU), and was told that someone would come to see her and that the QPSU would handle an application for review of the decision to cease her claim. Ms Booth said that when she did not receive a visit, she contacted the QPSU and was told that no action had been taken on the review, and that she should take a letter into WorkCover asking for a "late review". Ms Booth contends that on 21 October 1997 she attended at the Nambour Offices of WorkCover in Centenary Square, Currie Street, Nambour, and gave a handwritten letter dated 18 October 1997, to a person at the front counter of that office. Ms Booth tendered a photocopy of that letter and maintained that the photocopy was provided to her on that day. The letter (Exhibit 1) is in the following terms: "WorkCover Queensland To Whom it may concern I apply for a review to the decision to cease my injury claim as I am badly in need of medical assistance and workplace assistance to my disabilities. I put in the hands of my union my application. They did not submit a review in time so I submit this late review.". There is a handwritten notation on the bottom of the copy of the letter stating: "received 21/10/1997". In her evidence to the Commission, Ms Booth maintained that she had not made this notation on the letter. Ms Booth said that the WorkCover staff member at the counter had not wanted to take the document, and had told Ms Booth that it was too late for her to put any submission in for a late review. Ms Booth said that she told the WorkCover staff member that her Union had said that it would be okay and the staff member said that it would not be okay. Ms Booth said that the staff member told her that she could apply to view her file so that she could write down notes about what was in it. Ms Booth left the document with the WorkCover staff member. Under cross-examination Ms Booth maintained that WorkCover kept the original of this letter, and gave her a photocopy. Ms Booth also maintained that she had seen this letter in her WorkCover file in 1999. In relation to the proposition that on 18 October 1997, a review application would still have been within the time required, Ms Booth said that she did not have an understanding of the time in which an application for review was required to be made. Ms Booth said that she simply accepted the advice of her Union to the effect that a review application had not been filed within the required time, and that she should take a letter into WorkCover seeking a late review. At some stage after 21 October 1997, Ms Booth asked to view her WorkCover file and that request was granted. It appears from a subsequent file note that Ms Booth inspected her file on 11 November 1997 (see Exhibit 3 Annexure 10). On 17 November Ms Booth attended at the counter of the WorkCover office in Nambour and handed over a letter which is stamped as having been received on that date (Exhibit 3 Annexure 7). The letter states that Ms Booth has just completed a perusal of her WorkCover file and would like it noted that she objects to the inaccurate accounts presented. The letter also states that Doctor Blue's report contains gross inaccurate statements and that this is a matter which should be examined. In response to the proposition in cross-examination that the letter of 17 November 1997 does not contain any reference to an application for review, Ms Booth said that it was intended to support the review. In November 1997, Ms Booth communicated again with WorkCover in a handwritten document (Exhibit 4 Annexure B) which states: "To Whom It May Concern. As per phone conversation my union the Qld Public Sector Union are back in charge of my late review application that was rejected. I give permission of authority to access my injury claim file.". -- 2 of 6 -- 3 The date in November 1997 is illegible. However, Ms Booth maintains that it was forwarded by facsimile from the Maroochydore Post Office and the fax was confirmed as received. No documentary evidence of such receipt was provided by Ms Booth. There was also no evidence from Q-COMP about when the document was received by WorkCover. However, the document is on Ms Booth's WorkCover file. Ms Booth entered the Royal Brisbane Hospital Pain Management Clinic on 3 December 1997 and remained there for a period of approximately three weeks. Ms Booth maintained that she was in constant contact with the QPSU and her employer during her period of hospitalisation. Ms Booth said that in early 1998 her focus was on returning to work, and she gained permission to do so in March 1998. There were difficulties associated with Ms Booth's return to work, and Ms Booth's rehabilitation co-ordinator Ms Bell, arranged a meeting with WorkCover to discuss these. A file note indicates that this meeting took place on 9 June 1998 with Mr Gregory of WorkCover (Exhibit 3 Annexure 8). According to Ms Booth, she took a copy of a report from Doctor Winstanley to that meeting, and left it with Mr Gregory. Ms Booth also said that Mr Gregory on behalf of WorkCover refused to enter into a discussion about her injuries or her claim for assistance in the workplace. Ms Booth was shown the file note (Exhibit 3 Annexure 8), which states that the reasons for cessation of the claim and review procedures were explained to Ms Booth by Mr Gregory at the meeting on 9 June 1998. The file note also states that Ms Booth was told that the time for seeking a review had expired. Further, the file note states that Ms Booth told the relevant WorkCover staff member that she was not happy with the comments made by Doctor Blue in his report and that she would write to WorkCover seeking a comment regarding cessation of her claim and rehabilitation involvement. Ms Booth said that the only correct statement in the file note was the reference to her being unhappy with Doctor Blue. Ms Booth also wrote a note to Mr Gregory on 9 June asking that doctor's reports be attached to her file (Exhibit 3 Annexure 9). There is a handwritten letter under Ms Booth's signature in the bundle comprising Exhibit 4 (Annexure NDj) in the following terms: "Dear Col Libby [Bell] has requested that I write to your office about the help required for my injuries. I don't know why you met with us when you did not allow discussion. I implore WorkCover to provide help for my workplace injuries. My union are seeking a review for me but I need a suitable work program or redeployment. Libby has seen my work station and the difficulties that cause aggravation to my injuries. You are my employers insurer so please help me.". It is probable that this letter was forwarded to Mr Col Gregory of WorkCover after the meeting with Ms Booth of 9 June 1998. According to Ms Booth she continued to work with great difficulty, and continued to seek assistance in the workplace to cope with her disabilities. Ms Booth also said that she was advised by the QPSU during this period that her review application was still being processed and that it would take time. A letter to Ms Booth dated 1 October 1999 refers to her claim for compensation, and attaches copies of documents requested by Ms Booth. A file note in Ms Booth's WorkCover file indicates that she telephoned a claims officer on 21 October 1999 seeking to peruse her file and that this was approved on 22 October 1999 (Exhibit 3 Annexure 10). In 1999, Ms Booth said that she attended at Workplace Services to discuss an assessment program to evaluate workplace duties that she could perform and was surprised and upset when no physical examination was carried out. When Ms Booth later queried this she was told that no assessment would be made of her physical capabilities but that she would be seeing a psychiatrist again. At some point in 1999 Ms Booth was subject to a process initiated by Queensland Transport which resulted in her being retired on medical grounds. Ms Booth said that during this process she took an overdose of her medication in an attempt to take her life. Ms Booth said that after this occurred she was not in a position to deal with anything relating to her WorkCover claim for some time. On 16 February 2001, a firm of Solicitors corresponded with WorkCover on Ms Booth's behalf, seeking a copy of her complete WorkCover files, and these were provided by WorkCover under cover of a letter dated 23 March 2001 (Exhibit 3 Annexure 11(a)). On August 29 2002, a series of email exchanges between Ms Booth and Mr Mike Sherman of WorkCover commenced (Exhibit 3 Annexure 12). The first email from Ms Booth to Mr Sherman refers to a meeting - presumably the one referred to in a later email held on 8 July - and advises that Ms Booth has not been informed of any action that has been taken. Mr Sherman's response on 30 August 2002 informs Ms Booth that the medical evidence supplied to WorkCover, but not forwarded by Queensland Transport, has been given to WorkCover's Medical Services Unit to see if it can prompt a reopening of Ms Booth's case. On 4 September 2002 Mr Sherman emailed Ms Booth and requested her to advise whether she had ever received a permanent impairment assessment or a lump sum from WorkCover. On the same date, Ms Booth responded, at some length, outlining grievances relating to Ms Booth's treatment by various medical practitioners and her dealings with WorkCover staff. On September 9 2002 Mr Sherman responded, advising Ms Booth that that the cessation of her -- 3 of 6 -- 4 WorkCover claim on 8 October 1997 would stand as it was based on medical evidence available at the time. The email concludes with Mr Sherman informing Ms Booth that the report of Doctor Winstanley has been considered and that WorkCover is of the view that there is no medical evidence linking an ongoing unstable medical condition to the workplace injury. On 23 March 2003 Ms Booth emailed Ms Bateman of WorkCover and again outlined her grievances about the manner in which she believed her case had been dealt with. There is no specific mention of the alleged "late review" application (Exhibit 4 Annexure V). On 8 September 2004, Mr David Varga of the WorkCover Statutory Claims Division wrote to Ms Booth and advised that he had reviewed the information provided by Ms Booth. The letter also advises that the matter had previously been reviewed by WorkCover. Ms Booth was then informed that at the time of her injury Worker's Compensation legislation provided an avenue to have her application for compensation reviewed by an industrial magistrate and that Ms Booth had not pursued this right of review. The letter concludes by recommending that Ms Booth seek legal advice if she wished to pursue the matter further, and that WorkCover would enter into no further correspondence with Ms Booth. There is also a document attached to that letter indicating that a block had been placed on emails from Ms Booth so that they could not be sent to Mr Varga. On 21 November 2005 an email was forwarded to Ms Booth from Mr Houston the Manager of WorkCover's Customer Service Centre on the Sunshine Coast. That email states that while Ms Booth considers that she is still suffering the effects of a work related injury, that at the time WorkCover ceased Ms Booth's claim she had an opportunity to appeal this decision to an industrial magistrate and did not exercise that right. The email notes Ms Booth's allegations that WorkCover and a number of medical practitioners have acted inappropriately and that her claim should not have been ceased, or should have been re-opened at the time of her later requests. The email concludes by stating that these matters have been investigated by WorkCover in September 2002, September 2004 and April 2005, and that it had been found that the decision to cease Ms Booth's claim in September 1997 was appropriate. It is reiterated that WorkCover Queensland will take no further action in relation to the matter (Exhibit 4 Annexure X). Ms Booth continued to engage in an extensive and consistent campaign of email and other contact with politicians, medical practitioners and WorkCover staff complaining about her treatment. There are also indications that Ms Booth utilised the email addresses of other persons to press her claims. A number of recipients of communication from Ms Booth took steps to stop communication from Ms Booth by placing blocks on emails from her. On 11 October 2008, Ms Booth made an application for review of the decision by WorkCover staff to cease her claim in 1997. In her grounds for the review, Ms Booth includes a reference to the "late review" sought by her from WorkCover in 1997 and states that she has been supplied with incorrect information ever since. In the attached detailed document setting out her grounds and reasons for seeking the review, Ms Booth reiterates her claim to have provided an application for a review to WorkCover staff in 1997. On 6 November 2008 Q-COMP corresponded with Ms Booth seeking further submissions in relation to the late lodgement of her review application. Ms Booth responded at length in a letter received on 12 November 2008, again making claims about her treatment, and that an earlier application for a review had been made in 1997. On 26 November 2008, the Q-COMP Review Unit corresponded with Ms Booth informing her that it was considered that she had not provided sufficient reasons for her failure to lodge her application for review in time, and that this decision could be appealed to an Industrial Magistrate or the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The letter also informs Ms Booth that she has twenty business days in which to lodge an appeal (Exhibit 3 Annexure 16). Ms Booth lodged the present appeal on 29 November 2008. The following note is written on the decision which is subject to the appeal and attached to the appeal notice: "I received notice from WorkCover I could apply for a review in 1997. I put this in the hands of the QPSU. They forgot. I left this in the hands of the QPSU but lodged a late review with WorkCover Nambour Office. It was rejected. WorkCover never told me about Q-COMP. I never stopped my application with my union as well. It was physical and mental torture. No doctor has explained anything to me until now on what mental harm was done." It should also be noted that there was no correspondence tendered between the QPSU and Ms Booth predating an email dated 15 November 2002 (Exhibit 4 Annexure I). The only other correspondence between Ms Booth and the QPSU in evidence before the Commission is an email dated 7 January 2003 (Exhibit 3 Annexure J). There is no reference in either email to an application for a review in relation to Ms Booth's WorkCover claim. Ms Booth said that she did not have access to email until 2002, and there were no emails in the material placed before the Commission prior to that date. 3. Submissions for Q-COMP Q-COMP submits that Ms Booth had an onus to put forward any documentation that supports her claim, and the only documentation Ms Booth had placed before the Commission was the letter which Ms Booth alleges was delivered to WorkCover on 21 October 1997 (Exhibit 1). It was submitted that this document contains some inherent inconsistencies which would make it difficult for the Commission to accept. Further it is inherently improbable that this document, and any other correspondence from the QPSU in relation to the review, would have disappeared from Ms Booth's file as she alleges. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 The inconsistencies in the letter are said to be that it is dated 18 October 1997, and if received by WorkCover on 21 October 1997, was well within the time for seeking a review. As at 21 October 1997, the time period had several weeks to run. It was pointed out that Ms Booth had called no evidence from the QPSU to support her contentions that the Union had taken or failed to take action in relation to an application for a review of the decision to cease her WorkCover claim. Further, it was submitted that it was unlikely that the Union would have advised Ms Booth on or around 18 October 1997, that the time for applying for a review had expired, and that no evidence was called from the Union. It was also pointed out that if Ms Booth had made an application in October 1997 for a review of the decision to cease her WorkCover claim, it would be expected that there would have been references to such an application in subsequent correspondence from Ms Booth and in file notes and correspondence from WorkCover staff. Further, it was submitted that the file note of 9 June 1998 (Exhibit 3 Annexure 8) indicating that the time limits for seeking a review were explained to Ms Booth, was significant. Reference was also made to the correspondence to Ms Booth on 8 September 2004 (Exhibit 3 Annexure V) and 21 November 2005 (Exhibit 3 Annexure X), and it was submitted that this made it plain to Ms Booth that no application for a review had been received from her. Ms Booth had not agitated this issue. Q-COMP conceded that if it was accepted that Ms Booth did deliver the letter dated 18 October to WorkCover, then Ms Booth was entitled to a review of the decision to cease her compensation claim with effect from 30 September 1997. It was submitted however that if the letter of 18 October was not accepted as an application for a review, then an assessment of factors which are considered in deciding whether to exercise the discretion to extend time would lead to the conclusion that the discretion should not be exercised in Ms Booth's case. Time limits are put in place for a specific purpose, and those seeking their extension must show substantial compliance. Q-COMP also pointed to the substantial lapse of time between the cessation of Ms Booth's claim in October 1997 and the present proceedings, and maintained that it would suffer prejudice should Ms Booth's appeal succeed. In particular, it would be difficult for Q-COMP to seek medical opinion now as to what Ms Booth's condition is, in view of what had happened since the time for seeking a review had expired. It was also submitted that when a provisional assessment of merit is undertaken, it is apparent that the preponderance of medical evidence at the time the decision to cease Ms Booth's claim for compensation was made, was that there was no connection in October 1997 between any condition that she then suffered, and what took place in the workplace in December 1996. 4. Conclusions On balance, albeit a fine one, I accept that Ms Booth did deliver a letter to WorkCover's Nambour office on 21 October 1997. I have reached this conclusion for the following reasons. Ms Booth was adamant that she did deliver the letter and it was not put to her that she was mistaken, or untruthful. I accept that it is improbable that the QPSU, on or before 18 October 1997, would have advised Ms Booth that her review application was late. However, it is in my view more improbable that Ms Booth would fabricate a document at some stage after the time limit for seeking a review had expired, and state in the document that it was an application for a "late review". Ms Booth never moved from her version of events and maintained that she had lodged an application for a "late review" on 21 October 1997. Ms Booth gave no indication of understanding that if this was the case, then her application was not late, until the proposition was put to her in cross-examination. Further, in her evidence to the Commission Ms Booth maintained that in 1997 when the time limit began to run, she did not know the period within which an application for a review was required to be made. It is clear from the documentation provided by Ms Booth that the review was only one of a myriad of issues with which she was concerned at the time, and that at very least, she was in a great deal of distress. I also accept that Ms Booth was focused on attempting to address the symptoms of her injury and not on seeking a review of the decision to cease her Workers' Compensation claim. It is true that the document produced by Ms Booth is not stamped to indicate that it was received by WorkCover. However this is also true of other documents contained on Ms Booth's WorkCover file. It is also the case that the document contains a handwritten notation that it was received on 21 October 1997 and Ms Booth maintains that she did not make that notation. I accept Ms Booth's evidence on this point. I am also unable to accept the submission that Ms Booth was told by WorkCover staff about her right to seek a review on numerous occasions. Ms Booth maintained that the brochure about her right to seek a review was not included with the letter of 7 October 1997. Although the letter referred to a right of review, there is no information contained in the body of the letter about how; in what time frame; or the manner in which such an application could be made. Even in the current proceedings, Ms Booth demonstrated little understanding of the time limit which applied in 1997, and commented - with obvious surprise - that she might not have been late seeking a review (Transcript 1-71 line 40 and 1- 75 lines 43-44). There is no evidence of Ms Booth being informed in writing, of the time limit applicable to an application for a review, until 2008 when she filed the further application for a review of the 1997 decision to cease her Workers' Compensation claim. Information provided to Ms Booth in correspondence dated 8 September 2004 (Exhibit 3 Annexure V) and 21 November 2005 (Exhibit 3 Annexure X), was wrong. Ms Booth was informed in that correspondence that she could have sought a review by an Industrial Magistrate or appealed the decision to cease her claim to an Industrial Magistrate. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 Ms Booth could not have appealed to an Industrial Magistrate until there had been a review by WorkCover, of the decision to cease her claim. There was no such review conducted. I am also unable to accept the submission that Ms Booth did not make subsequent references to her "late review". Ms Booth did make such references - they are found in a communication from Ms Booth in November 1997 (Exhibit 4 Annexure B) and the letter from Ms Booth to Mr Gregory (Exhibit 4 NDj). I accept that these references are somewhat obtuse, but nonetheless they are there in the documentation, and should have prompted some query from WorkCover about what Ms Booth was referring to. In my view no extension of time is required, and Ms Booth is entitled to a review of the decision of 8 October 1997, to cease her claim for compensation. If an extension of time was required, I am also of the view that this is a case where the discretion to extend time should be exercised. It is true that the delay of some 11 years is substantial. However, there is an explanation for the delay. It is apparent from the material before the Commission that Ms Booth has been under great difficulty and has suffered significant distress during the period of the delay. Although some of this may be of Ms Booth's own making, it does provide an explanation for the delay. It is also the case that Ms Booth was not aware of the time limits, and there is no clear written advice from WorkCover or Q-COMP in this regard until 2008. I accept that there will be prejudice to Q-COMP because of the delay and that there will be difficulty in obtaining medical opinion. However, there would be greater prejudice to Ms Booth. Ms Booth would lose the right to pursue the cessation of her WorkCover claim. In addition, the difficulties faced by Ms Booth in pursuing this matter are more significant than those faced by Q-COMP. Q-COMP made a decision based on medical opinion given in 1997, to cease Ms Booth's claim on the basis that at that point in time, she was not suffering from a physical injury. Ms Booth as the party seeking a review of that decision will confront much more formidable obstacles in attempting to obtain medical opinion to counter that relied on by Q-COMP. Ms Booth has certainly demonstrated enthusiasm for prosecuting her grievances against WorkCover and subsequently, Q-COMP. I accept that Ms Booth did not air her grievances in a coherent and concise way and has generated a considerable amount of confusion by her conduct. I also accept that Ms Booth was - and continues to be - difficult to deal with. However, this is not a case where Ms Booth took no action for eleven years, and emerged from left field taking WorkCover and later Q-COMP by surprise. On the contrary, Ms Booth has persisted against all odds, to articulate her grievances right up until the present date. In relation to merit, while it is clear that Ms Booth faces obstacles in pursuing this matter in light of the reports of Doctor Blue and Doctor Landy, I am unable to be satisfied, on the material before me, that the matter has no merit. In particular, there is a reference to a report from Doctor Wynstanley and to any number of other medical practitioners who saw Ms Booth at or around the time that her claim was ceased, who may have provided reports. The report of Doctor Wynstanley was not before the Commission. This is a difficult case, but in all of the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be in the interests of justice to extend time to enable Ms Booth to have a review of the decision by WorkCover to cease her claim, and if it was required, I would extend time. I do not believe that it is required for the reasons set out above. I uphold the appeal and set aside the decision of Q-COMP dated 26 November 2008 to refuse to determine Ms Booth's application for review. I Order that Ms Booth's application for a review of the decision of WorkCover on 8 October 1997 to cease her Workers' Compensation claim, be dealt with according to law. I.C. ASBURY, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2009 6 April Correspondence Received 2009 10 May, from J.E. Booth 2009 12 May, from Q-COMP Released: 27 May 2009 Appearances: Ms J.E. Booth, Appellant. Mr C. Clark, instructed by HBM Lawyers for Q-COMP, the Respondent. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2009. -- 6 of 6 --