Unassessed Psychiatric Injury and Conflicting Expert Opinions
In Episode 20 of P.I. Case Note, we look at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s decision in Austin v Workers’ Compensation Regulator, where the key question was whether an unassessed psychiatric injury was significantly contributed to by the claimant’s employment under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
Ms Austin had already succeeded in a statutory claim for a back injury but also alleged a secondary psychiatric injury caused by ongoing pain, inability to return to work, and frustration with her employer. WorkCover and the Regulator rejected this aspect of her claim, citing conflicting psychiatric opinions.
The Commission weighed evidence from two psychiatrists—one who had conducted a thorough in-person assessment, and another who had only conducted a brief telehealth interview. Applying both medical evidence and common sense, the Commission found Ms Austin’s psychiatric injury was genuine, work-related, and significantly contributed to by her employment.
This case underscores how credibility, comprehensive medical assessment, and holistic evaluation of evidence can make the difference in disputed psychological injury claims.
Facing pushback on a psychological injury claim? accident legal fights for injured workers to have their psychiatric conditions recognised as work-related, even in the face of conflicting expert reports.