Legal Bulletin No. 237

Issued 14 November 2025

Welcome to the two hundred and thirty seventh edition of the Personal Injury Commission’s Legal Bulletin. Please see here for details about the legal citations used for the Commission’s decisions. The decisions listed below are now available on AustLII and will be available shortly, on Jade and Lexis Nexis. Any legislative updates are provided at the base of the Bulletin.

Supreme Court Decisions

Reid v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWSC 1308

Administrative law; judicial review; review of decision by review panel constituted for review under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW); where plaintiff injured in motor vehicle accident; psychological injury; whether review panel failed to provide reasons in applying the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale; whether review panel’s path of reasoning is sufficiently exposed on a fair reading of the reasons; whether review panel failed to conduct the medical assessment in accordance with the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines; Held – summons dismissed; the plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs.

Decision date: 6 November 2025 | Before: Free JA

Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance v Mayer [2025] NSWSC 1311

Administrative law; judicial review; decision of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales; where the insurer was found liable to pay for treatment and care expenses that were directly related to, and reasonably contemplated at the time of, the surgery whether or not the treatment was provided after the 26-week period; statutory interpretation; the meaning of the word “incurred” in Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), section 3.28 as it read prior to amendment; Held – the summons filed 27 September 2024 is dismissed; each party pay its/his own costs.

Decision date: 6 November 2025 | Before: Harrison AsJ

Presidential Member Decisions

Pereira v ARA Fire Protection Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 77

Workers compensation; section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; main contributing factor within the meaning of section 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; failure to establish that the nature of work was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of an underlying condition which caused a heart attack injury; Held – the appeal is dismissed; the Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 13 January 2025 is confirmed.

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Before: Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC

Freeth v Volvo Group Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 78

Workers compensation; operation of section 46 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; House v the King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 considered and applied; Member not in error by exercising discretion under section 46 to prevent dual benefits of the same kind; separate injuries with different incapacities not germane to the exercise of the discretion under section 46 of the 1987 Act; consideration of requirement to give notice of a dispute under section 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Held – the Certificate of Determination dated 16 April 2025 is confirmed.

Decision date: 5 November 2025 | Before: President Judge Phillips

Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions

Botros v CIC Allianz Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 585

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for damages; late claim; whether claimant has a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making her claim for damages; consideration of sections 6.2 and 6.14; statutory declaration provided by claimant; Walker v Howard, Russo v Aiello, Figliuzzi v Yonan, and Karambelas v Zaknic, Rahman v Al-Maharmeh considered and applied; Held – claimant has not provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making a claim for damages.

Decision date: 30 October 2025| Member: Bianca Montgomery-Hribar

AAI Limited t/as GIO v Jones [2025] NSWPIC 588

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval; claimant was working at the time of the accident; claimant is aware no entitlement to future statutory benefits once settlement is approved; settlement complies with clause 7.37 of the Motor Accident Injuries Guidelines (version 9.3); Held – settlement approved in the amount of $300,000, consisting of nil NEL, past economic loss of $25,000.00, and future economic loss of $275,000.00 by way of a buffer; less $18,238.29 for statutory benefits paid by the insurer.

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Member: Philip Carr

Koura v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 589

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits under Part 3 made late; dispute about whether claimant has full and satisfactory explanation under section 6.13; insurer conceded fullness but argued claimant’s explanation not satisfactory; claimant is a doctor and did not seek treatment or make a claim for seven months after the accident despite severe pain and radicular symptoms; explanation was claimant thought he would get better; claimant was managing symptoms with over the counter medication and feared he would lose his job; Karambelas v Zaknic, Lye v Jeon, Walker v Howard, Diaz v Truong, and Russo v Aiello considered; Held – claimant’s explanation satisfactory; late claim can be made; costs assessed; de-identification order not made.

Decision date: 5 November 2025 | Member: Belinda Cassidy

Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions

Rees v Catholic Education Office ACT [2025] NSWPIC 445

Workers Compensation Act 1987; psychological injury; injury undisputed; section 11A defence; applicant submitted that the section 11A was not invoked because of an earlier injury and the principles in State Government insurance Commission v Oakley apply; Held – on the evidence that section 11A was invoked; respondent bears the onus of proving its section 11A defence; evidence weighed in the balance; not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had not discharged its onus of proof that the action taken in relation to discipline was reasonable; applicant not precluded from the recovery of compensation for his psychological injury by reason of the provisions of section 11A; award for the applicant.

Decision date: 29 August 2025 | Member: Jane Peacock

Townsend v Rice Construction Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 581

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation relating to right upper extremity, thoracic spine, and pelvis; respondent disputed the applicant sustained injury to the thoracic spine and maintained applicant not credible given subsequent versions of injury all inconsistent with hospital presentation immediately after accident;  Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Onassis v Vergottis, and Watson v Foxman considered; inconsistencies/omissions in evidence both factual and medical; Held – applicant failed to discharge onus; award respondent in respect of the claim of injury to the thoracic spine; matter referred to Medical Assessor to assess whole person impairment (WPI) of the right upper extremity (elbow) and pelvis.

Decision date: 29 October 2025 | Member: Diana Benk

Harper v TAFE NSW [2025] NSWPIC 582

Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 60; claim for proposed surgery for accepted right shoulder injury; where applicant has undertaken three previous surgical procedures on the right shoulder paid for by the respondent; acceptance that surgery results from injury; dispute as to whether surgery is reasonably necessary; difference between findings in radiological report and those made by treating surgeon; fair climate for acceptance of expert medical opinion; Rose v Health Commission, and Diab v NRMA Limited considered and applied; Held –applicant discharged onus of proof; findings in radiological reports relevant but not determinative; respondent to pay the costs of and incidental to proposed right shoulder surgery pursuant to section 60.

Decision date: 29 October 2025 | Member: Kathryn Camp

McKenna v Nationwide Corporate Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 583

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for medical expenses pursuant to section 60 for upper and lower dentures; whether the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary as a result of accepted injury; Held –the upper and lower dentures was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injury; the respondent to pay the applicant’s medical expenses in respect of the surgery and treatment pursuant to section 60.

Decision date: 29 October 2025 | Member: Karen Garner

Djordjevic v Oak Building Solutions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 586

Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant had a previous spinal fusion arising from an injury; liability admitted by the respondent; approval for further surgery was sought for a spinal fusion in the immediately adjoining disc space was refused; Held –a substantial cause arising from the previous injury and surgery was found; payment for surgery and incidental expenses was ordered.

Decision date: 31 October 2025 | Member: Lea Drake

Yu v Architectural Facade Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 587

Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether applicant had sustained injury to his cervical spine in circumstances where there was an eight-month delay in him experiencing cervical symptoms; Held –the applicant has discharged his onus of proof on the balance of probabilities that he did sustain an injury to his cervical spine from the workplace incident; the lump sum claim is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess permanent impairment of the cervical spine and the agreed injury to the lumbar spine.

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Member: Josephine Bamber

Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions

El Jassem v AAI Limited t/as GIO (No 2) [2025] NSWPICMP 834

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; insurer’s review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) under section 7.26; whole person impairment (WPI) dispute; psychiatric injury; physical injuries separately assessed El Jassem v AAI Limited; Medical Assessor diagnosed adjustment disorder and 5% WPI; pre-existing condition; issues of psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories; Held – accident caused or contributed to a psychological injury; diagnosis of major depressive disorder with anxious distress; assessment of WPI 7%; MAC revoked; no issue of principle.

Decision date: 22 September 2025 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Michael Hong | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Dong v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 842

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant’s application for review of Medical Assessor’s determinations of permanent impairment and reasonable and necessary treatment (physiotherapy); whether the accident caused an injury to the lower back; whether an episode about two years after the accident in which the claimant sustained a back injury was a flare up of the back injury caused by the accident or whether it was a later injury not caused by the accident; original assessment of permanent impairment of 0%; re-examination of the claimant; Held – original assessment of a degree of permanent impairment of 0% revoked and replacement certificate issued with a finding of a degree of permanent impairment of 4%; proposed physiotherapy treatment not reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

Decision date: 30 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member Maurice Castagnet, Dr Michael Couch, and Dr Rhys Gray | Injury module: Spine, and Lower Limb; Treatment Type: Physiotherapy Treatment, and Facet/z Joint Injections

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Mandoukos [2025] NSWPICMP 844

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of single medical assessment; threshold injury dispute; claimant referred injury to bone, facet joint, and cervical spine due to foraminotomy surgery as a consequence of injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident; original Medical Assessor certified a non-threshold injury; definition of “injury” considered; Mandoukos v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May, Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd considered; Held – Review Panel found surgery causally related to the motor accident; Review Panel found the subject surgery does not constitute an injury for the purposes of the Act.

Decision date: 31 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Ian Cameron, and Dr Les Barnsley | Injury module: Spine

Christoforidis v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMP 845

Personal Injury Commission Act 2020; review of medical assessment; chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in partial remission; prior and current relationship deterioration; prior medication prescription; requirement for airlift to hospital; post-accident physical difficulty; effects of treatment; inconsistencies between recollection and medical record; likely diagnosis of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, impartial remission; psychiatric impairment rating; pre-accident use of antidepressants; Held – Review Panel assessed 8% whole person impairment (WPI).

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr Ankur Gupta, and Dr Matthew Jones | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Sharafi v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 846

Personal Injury Commission Act 2020; review of medical assessment; psychiatric injury being major depressive disorder; pre-accident diagnosis of anxiety and depression; application of a psychiatric impairment rating; no pre-existing impairment; symptoms and treatment post-accident; diagnosis of major depressive disorder; no subsequent psychiatric injury; requirement for medication; Held – Review Panel assessed 7% whole person impairment (WPI).

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr John Baker, and Dr Christopher Canaris | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

AAI Limited t/as GIO v Sapkota [2025] NSWPICMP 847

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of single medical assessment; treatment and care dispute; section 3.24(2); disputed request for eight sessions of psychological counselling; two prior motor vehicle accidents; pre-existing psychological injury; consideration of whether accident has given rise to a psychological injury and whether treatment causally related; documentary evidence mentions work related issues; Held – Review Panel found those work related issues to be documented in error; motor accident gave rise to a psychological injury and eight sessions of psychological counselling found to be reasonable and necessary.

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Ronald Gill, and Dr Gerald Chew | Treatment Type: Psychological Treatment

Watts v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 851

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured in a motor vehicle accident; medical dispute as to whether the injuries sustained in the accident were threshold injuries; dispute also arose as to whole person impairment (WPI); Medical Assessor (MA) determined the injury to the left shoulder and scarring was not related to the accident, and the injury to the cervical spine was caused by the accident and was a threshold injury; claimant sought a review of the determination; Review Panel conducted its own examination; Held – Review Panel found the supraspinatus tear to the left shoulder was caused by the accident and was a non-threshold injury; certificate of MA was revoked; Review Panel found that injuries to the cervical spine, left shoulder, and scarring caused by the accident resulted in a combined 19% WPI.

Decision date: 4 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Shane Moloney, and Dr Drew Dixon | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Minor Skin

Bryant v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 852

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical certificate of single Medical Assessor; assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) for physical injuries caused by motor vehicle accident; various physical injuries alleged including fracture to the left scapula and T7 compression fracture of the thoracic spine; assessment of the loss of height due to compression fracture; whether more than 25%; consideration of imaging films; discussion of preferred method of assessment under the Motor Accident Guidelines; when utilising correct method loss of height is less than 25%, resulting in a DRE category II; Held – 5% WPI found of the thoracolumbar spine and 1% of left clavicle and left scapula giving total of 6% WPI; medical certificate revoked and new certificate provided.

Decision date: 4 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Christopher Oates, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb

Al-Obaidi v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 853

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment of single Medical Assessor (MA); whether psychological injuries caused by the motor accident give rise to a whole person impairment (WPI) of greater than 10% and whether certain treatment and care is related to the accident and reasonable and necessary; diagnosis made of persistent depressive disorder and somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain; direct temporal relationship to the accident and onset of symptoms; Held –criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder not met; all treatment for assessment found to be not reasonable and necessary; WPI assessed at 7%; original MA found 6% WPI certificate therefore revoked and new certificate issued.

Decision date: 4 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Himanshu Singh, and Dr Christopher Canaris | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural; Treatment Type: Medication (Prescription)

Saleh v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 854

Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); alleged upper and lower gastrointestinal symptoms from medication taken for musculoskeletal and psychiatric injuries; claimant assessed by original Medical Assessor as having 1% whole person impairment (WPI); re-examination by audio-visual conference only; Held – Review Panel accepted injury to upper gastrointestinal tract injury as symptoms arose as a result of medications taken for accident-related psychiatric condition (diagnosed as gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GORD)); lower gastrointestinal tract injury accepted due to no prior history of symptoms of constipation alternating with diarrhoea (diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)); impairment assessed under clause 1.247 of the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines, 1 June 2018 and Table 2 of page 239 of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition; GORD assessed at 1% WPI; IBS assessed at 1% WPI; total impairment 2% WPI; MAC revoked; new certificate issued; new combined certificate issued at 7% WPI.

Decision date: 5 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr Christopher Oates | Injury module: Digestive System

Villanueva v Lifetime Care and Support Authority of New South Wales [2025] NSWPICMP 855

Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999; treatment and care dispute; domestic assistance; claimant sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident arising out of a carjacking; injury to hip, shoulders, arms, elbows, hands, neck, L4 compression fracture with kyphotic deformity, chest, pelvis, lower limbs, and psychological injury; domestic assistance provided by sister and paid by claimant; Review Panel certified domestic assistance of eight hours per week was reasonable and necessary and related to the injury caused by the accident; application by claimant for increase in care from 8 hours per week to 12 hours per week; review of certificate of Medical Assessor (MA) who certified an increase in hours of domestic assistance from 8 hours to 12 hours per week related to the injury caused by the accident but was not reasonable and necessary in the circumstances; Held – notwithstanding structural progression in vertebral pathology no evidence of functional deterioration; certificate of MA confirmed.

Decision date: 5 November 2025 | Panel Members: Senior Member Susan McTegg, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr Dawn Piebenga | Treatment Type: Domestic Assistance

QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Zafirovski [2025] NSWPICMP 856

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; section 1.6(3); assessment of whole person impairment (WPI); the claimant suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident; Medical Assessor (MA) assessed 7% WPI as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder caused by accident; insurer sought review; Held – certificate of MA revoked; history provided by claimant unreliable; Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon cited; 7% WPI as a result of a chronic adjustment disorder caused by the accident.

Decision date: 5 November 2025 | Panel Members: Senior Member Susan McTegg, Dr Melissa Barrett, and Dr Himanshu Singh | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v El-Awadly [2025] NSWPICMP 857

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment of single Medical Assessor; dispute as to whole person impairment (WPI) arising from physical injuries caused by the motor accident; pain behaviours, and range of motion not a reliable method of assessment of shoulder impairment; discretion exercised in applying analogy to assess impairment; Huni v Allianz Insurance Ltd, and Nguyen v The Motor Accidents Authority of NSW & Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd considered; issues of causation reliance on report of biomechanical engineer; DRE category II impairments found in respect of lumbar and cervical spine, consistent with other examiners; 2% WPI of right shoulder based on analogy assessment; Held – original certificate certifying a 12% WPI confirmed.

Decision date: 5 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Mohammed Assem, and Dr Drew Dixon | Injury module: Spine, and Upper Limb

Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions

Manning v Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia [2025] NSWPICMP 835

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); hearing loss; consideration of what frequencies to include; whether Medical Assessor erred in failing to include hearing loss at 500Hz, 1000Hz, 1500Hz, and 2000Hz; considerations of length, extent, and volume of noise exposure required; all frequencies must be considered but no necessity to include any particular frequencies; Held – MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 29 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member Parnel McAdam, Dr Henly Harrison, and Dr Bob Payten | Body system: Hearing Loss

Blacktown City Council v Azar [2025] NSWPICMP 836

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); relying only on the ground for appeal provided in section 327(3)(b); the information that the appellant contended was additional relevant information were several reports and films of surveillance of the respondent; Held – this information did not meet the terms of section 327(3)(b); if wrong the information would not result in the Appeal Panel forming a different opinion than that which the Medical Assessor did; application under rule 109 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules the appellant made for the Appeal Panel to receive the information was pointless as the proceedings are panel review proceedings and an Appeal Panel is neither the President nor the Commission; MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 29 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Christopher Oates, and Dr Doron Sher | Body system: Cervical Spine, Thoracic Spine and Lumbar Spine

Patrick v Secretary, Department of Education [2025] NSWPICMP 837

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from 13% assessment for psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred in categories of self-care and personal hygiene, travel and social function; whether MA had failed to give adequate reasons as he had not discussed claimant’s statement vis-à-vis his assessments; Held – function of MA discussed; Wingfoot v Kocak considered and applied; MA function not judicial; Campbelltown City Council v Vegan discussed and applied; observations about potentially misleading submissions; failure to lodge fresh evidence denying statements noted; MAC confirmed (save correction of mathematical error).

Decision date: 29 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr John Lam-Po-Tang, and Dr Graham Blom | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric

Pilon v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPICMP 838

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal by traumatised police officer from 6% whole person impairment (WPI) assessment for psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) had made findings contrary to evidence before her without adequate reasons; Held – Campbelltown City Council v Veganauthority for requirement for MA to refer to contradictory evidence if factual findings inconsistent; to adequately explain their reasoning; MA failed to do so generally but specifically in two of the five impugned categories; re-examination conducted; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 29 October 2025| Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Ash Takyar| Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric

Davies v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 839

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from 14% assessment regarding both upper extremities and scarring; whether one-tenth deduction pursuant to section 323 for both shoulders adequately explained; Held – imaging of right shoulder within 4-months of the injury disclosed sufficiently advanced pathology that Appeal Panel experts satisfied it must have contributed especially where claimant directed to perform labouring task outside his job description; Cole v Wenaline applied; notwithstanding that claimant had been asymptomatic, observations as to requirement to give detailed reasons in such circumstances; Campbelltown City Council vVegan considered and applied; one-tenth deduction for the right shoulder confirmed; reasoning not sufficient to explain similar deduction for consequential left shoulder condition; imaging not taken for 2 years; deduction revoked; MAC revoked (but result the same).

Decision date: 30 October| Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Gregory McGroder | Body system: Right Upper Extremity, Left Upper Extremity, and Scarring (TEMSKI)

Hoger v LD Engineering Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 840

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of the cervical spine, and left upper extremity; Medical Assessor deducted one-tenth pursuant to section 323 from the impairment assessed in respect of the cervical spine and one-third pursuant to section 323 from the impairment assessed in respect of the left upper extremity; radiological investigations demonstrated significant degenerative change in the cervical spine and in the left shoulder; Appeal Panel found no error in the deductions made pursuant to section 323 despite the appellant being asymptomatic in those body parts before the work injury; Held – MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 30 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member Carolyn Rimmer, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Body system: Cervical Spine, Left Upper Extremity, and Scarring (TEMSKI)

Campbell v Cottee Parker Architects [2025] NSWPICMP 841

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appellant submits that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred by failing to provide adequate reasons; failed to take into account relevant considerations; failed to correctly apply the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), and did not afford the appellant procedural fairness; Held – MA erred in his assessment of three of the PIRS categories and his section 323 deduction; Appeal Panel found reasons adequate and no error in the PIRS assessments; error in section 323 deduction; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 30 October 2025 | Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr John Baker | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric

Upper Lachlan Shire Council v Roberts [2025] NSWPICMP 848

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred by not providing sufficient reasons for why permanent impairment the respondent has from his right shoulder injury is not due to a pre-existing condition, and by not making a deduction under section 323(1) for pre-existing conditions; whether MA provided sufficient reasons for adding 2% whole person impairment (WPI) for the effects the respondent’s cervical spine injury has on his activities of daily living, and for the effects the respondent’s cervical spine injury has on his activities of daily living; Held – MA did not provide sufficient reasons for why a pre-existing condition in the respondent’s right shoulder did not form any proportion of the respondent’s permanent impairment;  Appeal Panel corrected the error by providing reasons for why that is so; MA erred by not making a deduction under section 323(1); MA erred by adding 2% WPI for the effects the respondent’s cervical spine injury has on his activities of daily living; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 3 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Gregory McGroder, and Dr Robert Kuru | Body system: Right Upper Extremity, and Cervical Spine

Larken v Perry [2025] NSWPICMP 849

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal by claimant as Medical Assessor (MA) did not assess the left upper extremity; whether MA under an obligation to assess a part of the anatomy that was not named in the referral; whether procedural fairness required him to do so; whether spinal radiological investigations showing relevant pathology accompanied by complaints of pain should have resulted in a whole person impairment (WPI) assessment; whether lumbar spine examined by the MA; whether adequate reasons given; Held – employer conceded left upper extremity should have been in the referral and consented to a re-examination; Skates v Hills Industries Ltd referred to; lumbar spine properly examined and findings given; MA admitted to not reading relevant material before assessment interview; presumption of regularity considered; Jones v The Registrar WCC, and Stolzenberg v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer considered and applied; claimant re-examined; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 4 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Body system: Nervous System, Left Upper Extremity, Lumbar Spine, Thoracic Spine, and Scarring (TEMSKI)

Olovi v Secure Parking Pty Ltd ATF Secure Kings Unit Trust [2025] NSWPICMP 850

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of primary psychological injury; appeal on basis of demonstrable error and application of incorrect criteria; Appeal Panel satisfied that two discrepancies relating to date of arrival in Australia and date of injury were typographical not demonstrable errors; Appeal Panel satisfied that there was no demonstrable error in relation to the adequacy of the Medical Assessor’s (MA) reasons; appellant failed to demonstrate that the MA failed to take into account relevant considerations; appeal against all assessments in the psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS); Held – Appeal Panel satisfied that there was no error or the application of incorrect criteria in the scales of self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, social functioning, and employability; Appeal Panel found error in the assessments in the PIRS of travel, and concentration, persistence and pace; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 4 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Carolyn Rimmer, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Ash Takyar | Body system: Psychological/ Psychiatric

This publication is for information only. The publication is not legal advice.  The information provided is not a substitute for reading the decisions. The Commission does not accept liability for the information in this publication or for way the information is used.

Subscribeto receive legal bulletins to your inbox.