Dispute resolution services
Medical Assessment Tribunals maintain strong performance amid sustained demand
The Medical Assessment Tribunal continues to deliver timely outcomes despite ongoing high referral volumes.
During 2025-26, the average number of referrals received each month was 5.6 per cent higher than the monthly average recorded in 2024-25.
Despite this, 99 per cent of scheduled tribunal hearings were held within target timeframes, with an average of 68.5 days from referral registration to tribunal hearing.
The quality of referrals has also improved. Referral cancellation rates have continued to decline, reducing to 18.5 per cent at 31 July 2026, compared to 20.4 per cent in 2025-26. This improvement reflects ongoing collaboration and education with insurers to support compliance with legislative requirements (section 500A).
While progress has been made, the most common reason for referral cancellations is non-compliance with the requirements set out in the Medical Assessment Tribunal – Referral Guidelines (PDF, 0.27 MB)
Review and appeals
Demand for the Regulator's dispute resolution services continues to grow, with applications for review 17.7 per cent above the 2025-26 monthly average. Psychological injury claims continue to be a significant driver of review activity, accounting for 44.7 per cent of all review applications received.
Work has continued on a range of system and process improvements aimed at enhancing efficiency and service delivery. These initiatives have contributed to an increase in the number of reviews finalised, which is 2.9 per cent higher than in 2025-26. Once an application is allocated, review officers are making decisions in an average of 17.2 business days.
The proportion of reviews progressing to appeal has increased to 10.6 per cent, reflecting both the rise in review applications received and the greater number of reviews being finalised. This trend is primarily driven by psychological injuries which account for 67 per cent of appeals served.
In the 2026-27 financial year to date, 57 per cent of appeals have involved self-represented parties. We are exploring opportunities to help appellants better understand the appeals process.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) and Industrial Court of Queensland (ICQ) recent decisions
Pringle v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 142.
This appeal involved two matters originating from a 2019 claim in which the worker had been diagnosed with multiple hernias. Entitlements for one accepted hernia injury were terminated in accordance with sections 144A and 144B, and ‘all other hernias’ were rejected under section 32 as not having arisen from work.
The appeals were dismissed, with the Commission finding that the weight of medical evidence did not support a connection between the additional hernias and the claimed work event. The evidence also indicated that the accepted hernia aggravation no longer caused incapacity for work or required ongoing medical treatment.
Murphy v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 144.
This appeal involved a claim for the aggravation of a pre-existing spinal cavernoma that had initially been rejected.
The matter involved conflicting medical opinions. While one specialist considered the worker's employment caused the ruptured cavernoma, another concluded the rupture occurred spontaneously and was unrelated to work activities.
The appeal was allowed. Vice President O'Connor found, on the balance of probabilities, that the aggravation arose in the course of employment. In reaching this decision, he noted the absence of any alternative explanation for the injury and inferred in favour of the worker that the aggravation of the pre-existing cavernoma arose in the course of employment.
Jones v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 164.
This appeal involved a mining industry worker who suffered a cerebral venous thrombosis (stroke) while residing between shifts at camp. Due to the nature of his living arrangements, Mr Jones was not discovered for an extended period after the injury occurred.
The key issue was whether the injury arose in the course of employment with employment being a significant contributing factor, or whether Mr Jones’ employment circumstances delayed treatment and thereby aggravated the injury.
The evidence established that Mr Jones was residing at the camp to facilitate the performance of his duties and that his employer induced and encouraged him to be there when his injury occurred.
However, the medical evidence indicated the stroke occurred spontaneously and was not caused by his employment. The Commission also found insufficient evidence that any delay in treatment aggravated the injury.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed. This decision is currently before the Industrial Court.
Bauer v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] ICQ 010.
This matter involved a teacher who applied for compensation for a psychological injury arising from adverse feedback about her classroom behaviour management.
The claim was rejected by the insurer, and that decision was upheld on review and on appeal to the QIRC.
The worker appealed to the Industrial Court, where Deputy President Merrell upheld the QIRC's decision. His Honour noted that the word ‘reasonable’ as part of the reasonable management action exclusion in section 32(5) of the Act, bears its ordinary meaning. He also found that the QIRC had otherwise made appropriate findings of fact, correctly applied the law, and provided adequate reasons for its decision.
His Honour emphasised that appellate courts, including the Industrial Court, will generally not interfere with factual findings based on witness credibility, unless those findings are clearly improbable or inconsistent with compelling evidence, neither of which was established in this case.
Cesira Mastrangeli v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] ICQ 008.
This case involved an employee who lodged three workers' compensation claims for psychological injury arising from alleged public reprimands and deliberate tampering with locked desk drawers.
These claims were rejected by WorkCover, and the decisions upheld on review. The worker also filed a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 based on the same factual circumstances. The complaint was heard by the QIRC and dismissed.
The worker’s appeals against the review decision were placed on hold pending the outcome of the anti-discrimination proceedings. Once those proceedings had resolved Commissioner Dwyer exercised his discretion under Section 456 of the Anti-Discrimination Act to dismiss them, on the basis that the QIRC had already dealt with the allegations.
The worker appealed that decision to the Industrial Court. Justice Davis found that Commissioner Dwyer had not adequately explained why he exercised the discretion. However, His Honour nonetheless determined that the appeals should be dismissed as there was no fresh evidence, defect, or realistic prospect of the QIRC reaching different factual findings. His Honour noted that the purpose of the provision in Section 456 is to prevent needless re-litigation of issues, while balancing the need to do justice.