Fitzgerald v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 290
In Fitzgerald v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 290, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission considered whether the Regulator could obtain 22 years of a worker’s Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme records in a psychological injury appeal.
The Commission set the notice aside, finding that the Regulator had not established that the records were directly relevant to an issue in dispute.
Background
Mr Fitzgerald had appealed a decision rejecting his workers’ compensation claim for a psychological injury. The substantive appeal concerns workplace events in August 2024 and whether his injury arose from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.
Before that appeal was determined, the Regulator issued a Notice of Non-Party Disclosure to Services Australia seeking Mr Fitzgerald’s Medicare and PBS history from July 2004 to July 2026.
Mr Fitzgerald objected to the notice.
Were the historical medical records directly relevant?
The Regulator argued that the records were relevant to Mr Fitzgerald’s credibility and to the weight that could be given to medical opinions based on information he had provided.
The Commission was not satisfied that this established direct relevance.
Importantly, the Regulator had not alleged that Mr Fitzgerald had a pre-existing psychological condition relevant to his claim. While one medical report recorded that he had reported no previous history of mental illness or disorder, this did not make his entire medical history over the preceding 22 years an issue in the proceeding.
The Commission distinguished Robinson v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 152, where there was evidence giving rise to an actual issue concerning previous anxiety symptoms and a more limited period of medical disclosure had been permitted.
In Mr Fitzgerald’s case, the Commission characterised the Regulator’s request as a “drag netting exercise”: it was seeking records in the hope of discovering something that might then be used to challenge Mr Fitzgerald or the medical evidence, rather than seeking documents already shown to be directly relevant to an identified issue.
The outcome
The Commission upheld Mr Fitzgerald’s objection and set aside the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure. The Medicare and PBS records already produced by Services Australia were ordered to be returned.
The decision concerned disclosure only. It did not determine whether Mr Fitzgerald’s psychological injury was compensable.
Key takeaways
- Non-party disclosure must concern documents directly relevant to an issue in dispute.
- Historical medical records are not automatically relevant merely because medical evidence relies partly on a worker’s self-reported history.
- The issues actually raised by the parties and the available evidence will inform the permissible scope of disclosure.
- Non-party disclosure cannot be used simply to search for material that might support a new argument or credibility challenge.
- The appropriate scope of medical disclosure will depend on the particular issues and evidence in each proceeding.
This case note provides general information about a court decision and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any matter depends on its particular facts, evidence, and applicable law.