He was hit by a car walking home from work, but nobody flagged the claim for 20 months
A mechanic hit by a car on his walk home from work had his workers' compensation claim thrown out - filed 20 months too late.
The worker was employed as a mechanic in Cairns when he was struck by a vehicle on August 28, 2019. He sustained a foot injury and other injuries and was taken to Cairns Hospital. He claims he was walking home from his place of employment at the time.
Under Queensland's Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, an injury sustained while travelling between work and home is compensable. But the same Act sets a hard deadline: a claim must be lodged within six months of the entitlement arising.
The worker did not lodge his application with WorkCover Queensland until April 23, 2021 - roughly 20 months after the accident.
The 20-month gap
A hospital doctor certified the worker fit to return to work from Monday, September 2, 2019 - effectively declaring him unfit only from August 28 to 30, the Wednesday to Friday of that week. That certificate, the Industrial Court of Queensland found, constituted the "first assessment" of incapacity for work under the Act. It started the clock.
The worker consulted Maurice Blackburn Lawyers the day after the accident. They helped him complete a compulsory third party insurance claim form for the motor vehicle accident. On that form, they indicated there would be no workers' compensation claim.
The lower tribunal found the worker had given no evidence that he told Maurice Blackburn he was on his way home from work when he was struck. The Industrial Court affirmed that finding. The police report only noted he was "walking home" - not walking home from work.
That distinction proved critical.
According to the worker's submissions to the tribunal, his employer did not report the injury to WorkCover despite being notified by email and WhatsApp, and later dismissed him on March 2, 2020.
It was not until about April 15, 2021 - nearly 20 months after the accident - that the worker learned he could apply for workers' compensation at all. The lower tribunal accepted that.
Three arguments, none successful
The worker ran three arguments to save his late claim.
First, he argued his foot injury was a "latent onset injury" - a provision in the Act that resets the claim deadline to the date of a later medical diagnosis. The court noted that a latent onset injury is defined under the Act as "an insidious disease." A traumatic injury from being hit by a car does not qualify. The lower tribunal had also correctly found the point could not be raised because the worker had not put it before the Regulator.
Second, he relied on a provision allowing the insurer to waive the time limit if a claim is lodged within 20 business days of the "first assessment" of total or partial incapacity for work. The court held that the first assessment was the hospital certificate from the day of the accident. A later surgical assessment in 2021 did not restart the clock.
Third - and this was the worker's strongest run - he said the delay was due to "mistake" or "reasonable cause." He pointed to the hospital doctors not flagging the injury as work-related, his GP not issuing a work capacity certificate, and his lawyers not advising him about workers' compensation.
The court dismissed each point. On the legal advice question, the key finding was that the worker had never told Maurice Blackburn he was injured on his way home from work. Without that instruction, the firm could not reasonably have been expected to identify a workers' compensation claim.
On the broader "reasonable cause" argument, the court followed the established principle that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable cause for a late claim.
The worker underwent Lisfranc fusion surgery in March 2021, performed by a surgeon who confirmed the procedure. He argued the severity of his injuries and his mental state contributed to the delay. The court acknowledged those were difficult circumstances but found they did not trigger the statutory discretion to extend time.
The costs question
A separate appeal challenged a $3,968.30 costs order from the lower proceedings. The worker argued the tribunal failed to properly consider his financial hardship and the seriousness of his injuries.
The court held the costs decision was discretionary, and disagreeing with how much weight the tribunal placed on certain factors was not enough to overturn it. Both appeals were dismissed on November 2, 2026. Costs of the appeals themselves will be determined on written submissions.
For HR teams, the case is a plain reminder that the clock on a workers' compensation claim starts ticking at the date of injury, and that gaps in reporting - whether by doctors, employers, or lawyers - do not pause it. Journey claims depend on workers communicating that critical "on my way home from work" detail early, and on employers having systems to capture and escalate workplace injury notifications promptly.
