Legal Bulletin No. 271
This bulletin was issued on 31 July 2026
Issued 31 July 2026
Welcome to the two hundred and seventy-first 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 external site and will be available shortly, on Jade external site and Lexis Nexis. Any legislative updates are provided at the base of the Bulletin.
Supreme Court Decision
Westpac Banking Corporation v Albertsen [2026] NSWSC 858
Administrative law; judicial review of decision of medical appeal panel; claim for worker’s compensation; psychological injury; assessment of whole person impairment; whether appeal panel erred in failing to receive and consider additional evidence pursuant to sections 327 and 328 of Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW); whether appeal panel erred in taking into account pre-injury functioning when determining class of impairment on psychiatric impairment rating scale; Held – the Second Further Amended Summons dated 22 June 2026 is dismissed; the plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Decision date: 21 July 2026 | Before: Richardson J
Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Buttigieg [2026] NSWPIC 401
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval under section 6.23(2)(b); accident as driver; claimant sustained back injuries and apparent psychological condition; short time off work due to employer’s pressure; moved to new role; continuing and disabling back pain but physical permanent impairment is not greater than 10% on insurer’s independent medical examiner assessment; claimant accepted insurer’s initial offer; approval declined; claimant told Member of psychological symptoms since accident including avoidance and reliving; accident could have caused ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as well as ongoing impact on earning capacity through back pain; future economic loss offer revised but Member still declined approval; insurer reapplied for approval of revised offer; claimant confirmed that she did not want to investigate PTSD and would not seek medical assistance; claimant demonstrated she had agency to decide on accepting settlement; based on the current evidence before the Member the proposed settlement is fair, just and reasonable within the meaning of the Act; Held – proposed settlement approved.
Decision date: 7 July 2026| Member: Terence O'Riain
Susak v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 412
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; motor vehicle accident; claims assessment; past and future economic loss; deduction for COVID-19 restrictions and for overseas travel; most likely future circumstances; assessment of damages; claimant sustained injury in an accident on 12 June 2020; claimant self-employed painter; liability admitted; no entitlement to damages for non-economic loss; extent of capacity for work; reliability of claimant’s evidence; reduction past economic loss for periods unable to work due to COVID-19; reduction for past economic loss for periods overseas; Held – totally incapacitated for work from date of accident to date and for next three years, thereafter capacity to work assessed at 20%; after making deduction for periods not able to work due to COVID-19 and when overseas past economic loss assessed at $256,161; future economic loss assessed at $605,038.09; total damages assessed $861,199.09 plus costs.
Decision date: 14 July 2026 | Senior Member: Susan McTegg
Noori v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPIC 416
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for damages referred for assessment three days after lodging application for damages without providing the insurer with any material upon which it could assess the claim; insurer sought dismissal of the claim on the basis that the claimant did not use his ‘’best endeavours’’ to settle the claim before referring for assessment; claimant conceded he had not used his best endeavours to settle the claim and had provided the insurer with no material upon which an assessment could be made by it; Held – the claimant has failed to comply with section 7.32(3) to use his best endeavours to settle the claim before referring it for assessment pursuant to Division 7.6; proceedings dismissed in accordance with section 54 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.
Decision date: 17 July 2026 | Member: Terrence Broomfield
Wall v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 418
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; miscellaneous claims assessment; motor vehicle accident; sections 1.9 and 1.4; did the injury result from a motor vehicle accident; claimant picking up motorcycle from ground when he sustained injury; whether injury sustained by the claimant on 17 February 2026 resulted from a motor accident; section 1.9 and 1.4; claimant riding a motorcycle when he performed emergency braking procedure which caused motorcycle to fall onto its side; in attempting to lift the motorcycle the claimant sustained a left biceps tendon insertion rupture; QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Smith by his next friend Avard & Anor (Smith) cited; Held – presence of motorcycle on roadway created a dangerous situation; injury results from use of operation of motor vehicle given the claimant’s intention to continue his journey once vehicle upright; where the ignition remained on, the systems were live and the vehicle undamaged, the temporal requirement; as in Smith the feature of the driving which caused the injury was the placement of the motorcycle on the roadway (the temporal requirement).
Decision date: 20 July 2026| Senior Member: Susan McTegg
Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions
Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether the request for a L4/5 lumbar interbody fusion is reasonably necessary; respondent has accepted liability for the injury and incapacity but maintains that the treatment proposed is not reasonably necessary as other modalities such as pain management have yet to be exhausted; Nguyen v- Cosmopolitan Homes, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Rose v Health Commission (NSW) discussed and applied; Held – treatment proposed is reasonably necessary; applicant has over the past two years been compliant with conservative treatment including but not limited to physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, medications, cortisone injections, radiofrequency ablations, pharmacological management, exercise therapy, and investigations which have provided only short term relief; respondent proposes a pain management program limited to medications which have already been exhausted and no cogent explanation offered as to how such treatment differs or would assist the applicant’s acknowledged disc pathology and structural diagnosis at the L4/5 level; proposed treatment is determined to be cost effective, likely to ameliorate the effects of the injury and is an accepted form of intervention by the medical profession for pathology present in the circumstances of this case; respondent to pay treatment as proposed by the applicant’s providers pursuant to section 60.
Decision date: 15 July 2026| Member: Diana Benk
Farrell v Koala Disability Care Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 414
Workers Compensation Act 1987; accepted injuries to the applicant’s right shoulder, right elbow and secondary psychological condition; dispute whether accepted injuries led to applicant gaining weight and whether the prescription of Ozempic is reasonably necessary medical or related treatment as a result of the injury; Held – the applicant sustained weight gain as a result of the accepted injury on 15 October 2023; the prescription of Ozempic is reasonably necessary medical or related treatment as a result of that injury pursuant to section 60.
Decision date: 15 July 2026| Member: Fiona Seaton
Emad v SESLHD Corporate and Legal Services [2026] NSWPIC 415
Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 60; whether L4/S1 decompression bilateral and paravertebral block and C3/4 facet radiofrequency ablation is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant on 10 September 2023 within the meaning of section 60; Held – proposed L4/S1 decompression bilateral and paravertebral block and C3/4 facet radiofrequency ablation is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant on 10 September 2023; respondent is to pay the costs of the proposed treatment pursuant to section 60 and the SIRA fees order.
Decision date: 17 July 2026| Senior Member: Susan McTegg
Cayir v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 417
Workers Compensation Act 1987; form 7 application for assessment by a Medical Assessor (MA); applicant seeks referral to MA to assess permanent impairment for threshold purposes only in order to bring a work injury damages claim; respondent disputed applicant’s entitlement to have matter referred to MA in circumstances where there was a prior award for the respondent, Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd, in relation to claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 for the same body parts on basis of the operation of sections 15 and 16 of the Act; Held – applicant is not estopped by prior award for the respondent in section 66 matter because in relation to the potential common law claim sections 15 and 16 of the Act do not apply and this was basis for the award for the respondent; applicant had obtained an assessment of 13% whole person impairment against subsequent employer, Woolworths Group Limited where he was working doing the same type of duties and also alleged injuries to his bilateral wrists; respondent argued in these circumstances there should not be a referral to a MA; Held – applicant is entitled to have the permanent impairment assessed relating to his employment at Coles; applicant’s argument there cannot be a res judicata finding by the Personal Injury Commission following the Court of Appeal decision in Kanajenahalli V State of New South Wales rejected, but also not relevant because finding of no estoppel in relation to the earlier decision of an award for the respondent.
Decision date: 16 July 2026| Member: Josephine Bamber
Baltaji v TAFE NSW - Western Sydney Institute [2026] NSWPIC 420
Workers Compensation Act 1987; accepted left upper extremity (wrist and hand) and right upper extremity (wrist and hand); finding applicant developed secondary psychological injury including pseudo seizures as a result of the accepted physical injuries; agreement that as a result of the pseudo seizures the applicant had falls and sustained consequential conditions in her lumbar and cervical spines; dispute as to whether physical conditions arising as a result of secondary psychological injury can be referred for medical assessment of permanent impairment; finding that section 65A (1) and (2) of the Act operated to preclude impairments as a result of secondary psychological injury being assessed for permanent impairment; therefore, the claims pursuant to section 66 could not include the cervical and lumbar spines; disputed injury/ consequential conditions to bilateral shoulders and elbows; applicant argues she is entitled to have these body systems referred for assessment of permanent impairment because the “impairment” arises as a result of the accepted physical injuries and she was not asserting a discrete injury; finding Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes Pty Ltd applied and that applicant had not discharged her onus of proof in relation to the bilateral shoulders and elbows; Held – award for the respondent for the bilateral shoulders and elbows; pursuant to section 66 of the Act, the only body parts remitted for referral to Medical Assessor are left upper extremity (wrist and hand) and right upper extremity (wrist and hand).
Decision date: 20 July 2026 | Member: Josephine Bamber
Ellem v TW Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 422
Workers Compensation Act 1987; domestic assistance; section 60AA; claim for gratuitous domestic assistance made by applicant’s partner; whether provider of gratuitous domestic assistance lost income or had foregone employment; whether domestic assistance reasonably necessary; calculation of hourly rate to be applied to domestic assistance provided; Kajic v Hawker De Havilland Aerospace Pty Ltd applied; Held – award for gratuitous domestic assistance made.
Decision date: 20 July 2026| Member: Parnel McAdam
SIM v Randstad Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 423
Workers Compensation Act 1987; application for weekly compensation from employee placed at Council on host-employment contract; allegations by applicant against supervisor of sexual harassment and victimisation by Council and respondent; Consideration of nature of injury and disease provisions; no pathological change; Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May applied; finding made that underlying disease was aggravated using notions of commonsense; Tudor Capital Australia Pty Ltd v Christensen applied; finding made there was a perception of sexual harassment and reaction to disciplinary process of supervisor; reliance by applicant of reaction to section 78 notice; doubts expressed about correctness of Karathanos v Industrial Welding Co Ltd; events causing or aggravating a disease must be in the course of employment; receipt of section 78 notice not in the course of employment; section 11A defence not established; complaint and investigation of Council supervisor; actions taken by Council and not “on behalf of” the respondent; respondent otherwise failed to show actions were the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury; assessment of current work capacity; applicant’s evidence showed improvement in symptoms and functionality; applicant’s presentation of submissions inconsistent with no current work capacity; Held – award made for weekly compensation in favour of applicant for closed period.
Decision date: 21 July 2026 | Principal Member: John Harris
Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Neumann [2026] NSWPICMP 509
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; rear end collision in April 2024; prior fusion at L3/4 in November 2023; subsequent surgery in May 2025; inconsistent comments in February 2025 of implant herniation at L3/4; Review Panel requested actual scans to determine issue of implant herniation; claimant re-examined; clinical examination showed pain from L1/2; findings made that motor accident aggravated degenerative changes at L1/2; threshold injury; Held – assessments revoked; findings made that claimant suffered threshold injury and that further surgery was not related to the motor accident.
Decision date: 16 July 2026| Panel Members: Principal Member John Harris, Dr Michael Biggs, and Dr Margaret Gibson| Injury module: Lumbar Spine; Treatment Type: Surgery
Samuel v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 511
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment certificate (MAC); assessment of permanent impairment; evaluation of psychological impairment excluding any impairment resulting from physical injuries and pain; diagnosis of major depressive disorder; Held – MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 16 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Bianca Montgomery-Hribar, Dr John Baker, and Dr Abhishek Nagesh | Injury module: Mental and behavioural
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Ali [2026] NSWPICMP 514
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; medical review panel; assessment of degree of permanent impairment; motorcycle accident; fracture of the left clavicle and third rib; assessment of range of motion of shoulder; late noting of left knee and left ankle pain; surgical scarring of left clavicle; symptoms stable for 12 months; assessment of scarring; hypersensitivity in the distribution of the supraclavicular nerve; limitation of extension, abduction and rotation left shoulder; soft tissue injury right shoulder; soft tissue injury left knee; soft tissue injury left ankle; revocation of certificate; Held – assessment of whole person impairment assessed at 8%.
Decision date: 17 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr David Gorman, and Dr Drew Dixon| Injury module: Upper Limb, Lower Limb, and Skin
AAI Limited t/as GIO v JOS [2026] NSWPICMP 515
Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999; accident 26 February 2017; dispute related to gastrointestinal injury; insurer’s review application of the permanent impairment and causation; pre-accident gastrointestinal conditions; claimant not re-examined; assessment on papers; different impairment assessment to original assessor; causation accepted as claimant’s doctors prescribed opioids to treat injuries accepted as caused by accident; pain medication exacerbating existing gastrointestinal injuries; deduction for existing conditions; Held – accident exacerbated gastrointestinal conditions causing permanent impairment; original certificate revoked; permanent impairment not greater than 10%.
Decision date: 17 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Terence O'Riain, Dr John Garvey, and Dr Margaret Gibson| Injury module: Digestive System
Bidner v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPICMP 519
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured in a motor vehicle accident on 1 May 2022; Medical Assessor (MA) determined that the referred injuries to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, thoracic spine, right hip and right leg were threshold Injuries for the purposes of the Act; Medical Assessor also determined that the injuries referred to him gave rise to a WPI of 4%; The Claimant sought a review; Review Panel conducted its own examination; Review Panel revoked the determination by the MA; Review Panel determined that the injuries to the lumbar spine and right hip were threshold Injuries; Held – Review Panel revoked determination of the MA and determined that the injuries referred gave rise to a degree of WPI of 7%.
Decision date: 20 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Michael Couch, and Dr Alan Home| Injury module: Spine, and Lower Limb
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA v Lee [2026] NSWPICMP 520
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured in a motor vehicle accident; Medical Assessor (MA) determined that the referred injuries of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and specific phobia (driving) were non-threshold Injuries; MA also determined that the injuries referred to him gave rise to a permanent whole person impairment (WPI) of 15%; insurer sought a review; Review Panel affirmed the determination by the MA that the injuries of MDD and specific phobia (driving) caused by the accident were non-threshold Injuries; Held – Review Panel revoked determination of the MA and determined that the injuries caused by the accident gave rise to a degree of WPI of 7%.
Decision date: 20 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Melissa Barrett, and Dr Sharon Reutens| Injury module: Mental and behavioural
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Chand [2026] NSWPICMP 525
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; Medical Review Panel; assessment of permanent impairment; claimant sustained left tibial and fibular fractures requiring internal fixation, later hardware removal and sural nerve neurolysis; dispute concerning ankle impairment, hindfoot restriction, sural nerve dysaesthesia, knee impairment, lumbar spine causation and scarring; Review Panel held ankle findings represented a flexion contracture rather than merely restricted dorsiflexion; accepted focal sural nerve dysaesthesia notwithstanding normal main sural nerve conduction studies because ultrasound and clinical findings localised injury to a distal sural branch within the operative scar; no separate ratable left knee impairment or accident-related lumbar spine impairment established; scarring assessed separately under TEMSKI without duplication of neurological impairment; Held – left ankle assessed at 6% WPI, hindfoot 1% WPI, sural nerve dysaesthesia assessed at 2% WPI, scarring assessed at 2% WPI; combined permanent impairment assessed at 11% WPI, exceeding the 10% threshold.
Decision date: 21 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Bridie Nolan, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Injury module: Spine, Lower Limb, and Skin
Kim v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPICMP 526
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; panel review of medical assessment of Medical Assessor; whether physical injuries caused by the motor accident give rise to whole person impairment (WPI) greater than 10%; whether treatment related to injury caused by accident and whether reasonable and necessary; issues as to causation; significant pain behaviours, unreliable historian; pre-existing conditions; lack of contemporaneous complaint; minor rear end impact; whether accident capable of giving rise to alleged injuries; Held – accident caused an injury to neck and left shoulder remaining injuries not caused; clause 6.40 of Motor Accident Guidelines applied; range of motion not applicable method of assessment; analogy applied giving 2% WPI for left shoulder; treatment not related to the injury caused by the motor accident; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 21 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Les Barnsley, and Dr Margaret Gibson |Injury module: Spine, and Upper Limb; Treatment type: Chiropractic, and Physiotherapy treatment
Chouman v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA [2026] NSWPICMP 528
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant was injured in a motor accident on 31 May 2022 when a motor vehicle collided with the front left side of the motor vehicle she was driving; dispute as to whether the degree of permanent impairment of the claimant that has resulted from the injury caused by the motor accident is greater than 10%; Medical Assessor (MA) found that the injuries to the claimant’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, thoracic spine and right shoulder were caused by the motor accident and assessed the combined whole person impairment (WPI) for these injuries at 8%; 5% for the cervical spine and 3% for the right shoulder; MA found that the injuries to the claimant’s left shoulder, bilateral arms and bilateral wrists were not caused by the motor accident; claimant sought review and was re-examined by MAs; principle in Nguyen v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales & Anor applied; Held – Review Panel found that the motor accident caused soft tissue injuries to the lumbar spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left arm and left wrist, and assessed WPI for these injuries at a total of 0%; Review Panel found that the injuries to the claimant’s right shoulder, right arm and right wrist were not caused by the motor accident; the clinical examination findings were not consistent with symptoms referred from the neck causing restriction of shoulder, arm, or hand movements.
Decision date: 22 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Cameron Thompson, Dr Les Barnsley, and Dr Rhys Gray| Injury module: Spine, and Upper Limb
Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; cervical spine; assessment of whole person impairment to the cervical spine; findings made on an incorrect factual basis; adequacy of reasons; evidence of pre-existing degenerative condition; application of section 323; Held – Medical Assessor (MA) erred in making findings based on a factual error and erred in failing to adequately expose his path of reasoning; MA erred in application of section 323; error was material; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 15 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Kathryn Camp, Dr Alan Home, and Dr David Lewington | Injury module: Cervical Spine, and Left Upper Extremity
Barton v Country Care Management Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 506
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from 7% whole person impairment assessment for psychiatric injury; whether diagnosis different from other experts; whether Medical Assessor (MA) failed to read clinical notes; whether finding as to anxiety incorrect; whether MA based his assessment on other experts’ opinions; whether self-care and personal hygiene rating incorrect; Held – no relevant distinction in diagnoses and no explanation as to how this could affect the outcome; MA read clinical notes, saying some were handwritten and uncertain, submission as to anxiety specious and no explanation as to how it would affect the outcome; MA referred to other evidence as required in every Medical Appeal Panel for purposes of procedural fairness, self-care and personal hygiene rating confirmed; MA advantage of in person assessment and evidence did not align with a higher classification; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 15 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Ash Takyar, and Dr Douglas Andrews| Injury module: Psychiatric/psychological
Rapley v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2026] NSWPICMP 507
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from 7% whole person impairment assessment for psychological injury: whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred in deducting the whole of the assessment pursuant to section 323; whether MA erred in his class assessments for the psychiatric impairment rating scale categories of travel and employment; Held – appeal dismissed; the most favourable result for the claimant would still not have entitled her to compensation; appeal therefore futile, observations made regarding attempt by claimant legal advisor to use AI program during assessment with MA.
Decision date: 15 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Douglas Andrews | Injury module: Psychiatric/psychological
Newada Pty Ltd v McNellee [2026] NSWPICMP 508
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal by employer in relation to Medical Assessor (MA) Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) dated 24 November 2025 on the basis of incorrect criteria and demonstrable error; parties disagree in relation to meaning of terms of referral which they had agreed in Certificate of Determination; consent orders; injury conceded in relation to 29 July 2022 and 31 October 2022 in relation to body systems of cervical spine and left upper extremity (shoulder); appellant argument that MA erred by failing to engage with an apportionment analysis; finding made following Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta v Barnes that apportionment was not necessary or appropriate for MA to consider; appellant argument that MA erred in failing to apply the correct criteria for assessing radiculopathy accepted; re-examination by Medical Appeal Panel required and making assessment of permanent impairment of the cervical spine of 6% whole person impairment (WPI) and in relation to left upper extremity (shoulder) assessed at 16% WPI; Held – Appeal Panel revoked the MAC and issued a fresh MAC, having assessed the worker as having a combined 21% WPI.
Decision date: 15 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Josephine Bamber, Dr James Bodel, and Dr Alan Home| Injury module: Cervical Spine, and Left Upper Extremity
Upcroft v CE Catering Equipment Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 512
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; lump sum claim for injury to right lower extremity (knee) and right upper extremity (shoulder); worker appealed; no complaint about overall level of whole person impairment assessment; complaint on appeal about the deduction made by the Medical Assessor under section 323 of one-third in respect of both extremities; Appeal Panel could discern no error in the assessment of the deductible proportion by the Medical Assessor (MA) because even though the MA acknowledged the deduction was difficult to determine, a deduction of one-tenth would have been inconsistent with the available evidence; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 16 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Doron Sher, and Dr David Crocker| Injury module: Right Upper Extremity, and Right Lower Extremity
Edwards v Secretary, Department of Education [2026] NSWPICMP 516
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in her whole person impairment assessment of five of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale, namely self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning and concentration, persistence and pace; Appeal Panel found no errors in the categories the subject of appeal; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 17 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Professor Nicholas Glozier| Injury module: Psychiatric/psychological
Heydeman v Ability Options [2026] NSWPICMP 517
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appellant submits that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred as follows: the MA fell into error when considering the deduction for secondary psychological condition; MA failed to consider the principles established in Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & Act (Matheson) when she subtracted impairment for the secondary psychological condition; MA assessed 17% WPI and concluded 4% WPI related to her secondary psychological condition and chronic pain; this deduction was arbitrary and inconsistent with Matheson, and the MA erred in her whole person impairment assessment of five of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale, namely self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, travel, concentration persistence and pace and employability; re-examination required; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 17 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Ash Takyar | Injury module: Psychiatric/psychological
Parnell v Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 518
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in his whole person impairment assessment of two of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale, namely self- care and personal hygiene and social and recreational activities; Appeal Panel found no errors in self-care but error in social and recreational activities; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 17 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr Ash Takyar, and Dr John Baker| Injury module: Psychiatric/psychological
Godson v Queensland Cotton Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 521
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from 2% whole person impairment assessment for injury to upper extremity; crush injury to hand; assertion of incorrect history recorded by Medical Assessor; no evidence and if there was evidence would be no demonstrable error; Petrovic BC Serv No 14 Pty Limited, Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited, and Pitsonas v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission and Anor; additional relevant information; requirements of sections 328(3) and 327(3)(b) not met; ground of application of incorrect criteria failed; no error in method of assessment; injury did not involve median nerve; application of clause 2.9 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 20 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr James Bodel, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Injury module: Left Upper Extremity
Abdelqader v Abulughud [2026] NSWPICMP 522
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Lump sum claim for injury to left upper extremity. Employer appealed diagnosis and assessment of impairment of Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), and that Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) had been reached as well as error in the calculations. Re-examination considered necessary in the circumstances of finding of error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.
Decision date: 20 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Sophia Lahz| Injury module: Left Upper Extremity
Stuart Dickson Produce Pty Ltd AFT The Burgess Family Trust v Williams [2026] NSWPICMP 524
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; injury to lumbar spine on 20 Apri 2022 whilst driving forklift; Three spinal surgeries at two levels including fusion at L4/5; worker assessed at 27% with one-tenth deduction; appeal limited to degree of section 323 deduction; failure by Medical Assessor (MA) to refer to some pre-existing complaints and provide adequate reasons why pre-existing condition not at odds with the available evidence; finding by MA respondent worker suffered a discal injury at L4/5; not challenged on appeal; Queanbeyan Racing Club Ltd v Burton applied; appellant’s qualified opinion suggesting one-third deduction inconsistent with finding of fact of nature of injury; observations that contribution at pre-existing condition must refer to assessable impairment; assessable impairment due to surgeries at two levels; reference to pre-existing condition at other levels of lumbar spine did not contribute to impairment; finding made that pre-existing condition at level of spinal surgeries mild; deduction on one-tenth made pursuant to section 323(2); Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 20 July 2026| Panel Members: Principal Member John Harris, Dr Gregory McGroder, and Dr Robert Kuru| Injury module: Lumbar Spine, and Skin
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.