A workers' compensation claimant who repeatedly refused medical examinations has had her Federal Court challenge thrown out - and her compensation rights suspended.
On 6 February 2026, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in Nimhurchu v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 59, a case that turned on a deceptively simple question: what happens when a claimant says no to an independent medical examination, and then tries to fight the consequences in the wrong court?
The answer, it turns out, is not much.
Doireann Nimhurchu worked for Optus Administration Pty Ltd from February 2012 until December 2022. After leaving the company, she filed a workers' compensation claim alleging symptoms of anxiety and stress linked to incidents during her employment. QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd, which managed claims on behalf of Optus under a Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) licence, denied the claim in February 2023 — a decision it affirmed in April 2023 after reconsideration.
Ms Nimhurchu took the denial to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review. What followed was a protracted back-and-forth over medical examinations.
She attended several psychiatric assessments arranged by both sides. But when QBE pushed for an in-person examination - pointing to what it described as considerable variation in the psychiatric opinions already on the record — Ms Nimhurchu drew a line. Her lawyers called the additional assessments "excessive, unjustified, and an abuse of process."
QBE did not back down. It issued a formal determination under s 57 of the SRC Act, directing Ms Nimhurchu to attend an in-person examination with psychiatrist Dr Frank Varghese in Brisbane on 10 June 2025. She did not attend. QBE then suspended her rights to compensation, and her right to pursue or continue any proceedings under the SRC Act, until the examination took place.
Here is where the case takes a turn that matters for every insurer managing claims under the SRC Act.
Instead of challenging the suspension through the Tribunal - the pathway laid out by the statute - Ms Nimhurchu went straight to the Federal Court, seeking declarations that her refusal was reasonable and that the suspension was unlawful.
The Court was not persuaded. Ms Nimhurchu had relied on a 1996 decision, Buck v Comcare, which had identified a gap in the legislation suggesting that suspension determinations under s 57(2) might not be reviewable through the Tribunal. But that gap no longer exists. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023 amended s 60(1) of the SRC Act to bring s 57 squarely within the definition of provisions under which a reviewable determination can be made. Nearly 30 years of ambiguity, resolved.
The Court found that Ms Nimhurchu had a full range of remedies available through the Tribunal - reconsideration, merits review, and appeal on questions of law. By bypassing that pathway and filing directly in the Federal Court, she had, in the Court's view, engaged in an abuse of process. Judgment was entered for QBE and Optus, with costs.
For insurers and claims managers operating under the SRC Act, the takeaway is clear. The amended framework now firmly supports the power to require medical examinations and to suspend compensation rights when claimants refuse without reasonable excuse. And when those determinations are challenged, the fight belongs in the Tribunal - not the Federal Court.
