Legal Bulletin No. 247
This bulletin was issued on 13 February 2026
Issued 13 February 2026
Welcome to the two hundred and forty 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.
Presidential Member Decisions
Tsakiris v Active Pools and Spas Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICPD 1
Workers compensation; the proper application of Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; the meaning of civil standard of proof; CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Cooper [2025] FCAFC 47 applied; the meaning of ‘worker’ in section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; the proper test for whether a contract is one of employment or of principal and contractor; Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2 applied; UPVC Window Solutions Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare) [2023] NSWPICPD 11, Askew v Donald Noel Spence t/as Don’s Guttering and Roofing Services [2023] NSWPICPD 13, Qoreishi v B2C Delivers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICPD 63, considered; pleadings; Banque Commerciale SA (In Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 11, Baker v Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust [2015] NSWWCCPD 56 applied; the purpose of section 43 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, the Personal Injury Commission Rules and Procedural Directions; Paterson v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPICPD 6 applied; test for whether error ‘affected’ decision within the meaning of section 352(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Knight [2025] NSWCA 229, Fisher v Nonconformist Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 32, Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Limited v Akbawy [2025] NSWPICPD 83, applied; approach to fact finding by Presidential Member of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales pursuant to section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; State of New South Wales v Culhana [2025] NSWCA 157 applied; Held – the appellant has discharged his onus and was a worker within the meaning of section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, employed by the respondent under a casual contract of service, at the time of his injuries on 18 January 2024; pursuant to section 352(6A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, finding [1] and order [3] of the Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 3 June 2025 are revoked; pursuant to section 352(7) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, the matter is remitted to the Member for determination in accordance with this decision.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Before: Deputy President the Hon. Adam Searle
White v Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICPD 2
Where respondent applies under section 289A(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to have a previously unnotified dispute as to whether it had ever employed the appellant dealt with by Commission; where such application allowed and then Member finding appellant was not so employed; where error by Member found on appeal and new decision made by re-exercising section 289A(4) discretion to refuse application; Mateus v Zodune Pty Ltd t/as Tempo Cleaning Services [2007] NSWWCCPD 227 considered; Held – the Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 10 June 2025 is revoked; the respondent’s application to have the previously unnotified matter of whether the appellant is a worker employed by the respondent heard or otherwise dealt with by the Commission is refused; the remaining issues of the dispute are remitted to a different member for determination in accordance with these reasons.
Decision date: 2 February 2026 | Before: Acting Deputy President Michael Perry
E B Murray Family Investments Pty Ltd t/as Bede Murray Racing Stables v Howard [2026] NSWPICPD 3
Workers compensation; requirement to show error of fact on the part of the Member; State of New South Wales v Culhana [2025] NSWCA 157; State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) v Culhana [2025] NSWPICPD 86 applied; no requirement to accept evidence that has not been the subject of cross-examination; Taupau v HVAC Constructions (Queensland) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 293; Cellarit Pty Ltd v Cawarrah Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 213; adequacy of reasons; Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430; Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2005] HCA 40 applied; Held – the Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 15 August 2023 is confirmed.
Decision date: 5 February 2026 | Before: Acting Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Masri [2025] NSWPIC 645
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; damages assessment; liability wholly admitted; whole person impairment assessed 6% for both physical and psychological injuries; no entitlement to non-economic loss; claimant pressed a claim for economic loss; claimant never worked and receipt of Centrelink benefits; credit in issue; long history of pre-accident depression and serve spinal disease; Held – claimant found to be an unreliable witness; no objective evidence to support a claim for economic loss, nature and extent of accident-related injuries limited to soft tissue, and exacerbation of psychological symptoms; claimant had no earning capacity prior or post-accident; most likely future circumstances but for the accident is that the claimant would have continued to receive Centrelink benefits and the accident has not changed this position; claim for assessment of damages fails; damages assessed as $0.
Decision date: 2 December 2025 | Member: Elyse White
Zhengyuan v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 692
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MAC Act); claimant’s claim for damages arising from injuries; claimant claims he sustained injuries arising from a motor accident when the insured bus collided with the vehicle he was driving; no dispute that the claim for damages is to be assessed under Chapter 5 of the MAC Act; definition of “public transport accident” in McTye v Ching Yu Chang by his tutor Leo Alexander Birch considered and applied; whether the MAC Act applies to the assessment of all heads of damages, or alternatively, to only some heads of damages; whether only damages for non- economic loss, economic loss and gratuitous care should be assessed under the MAC Act; whether damages for out of pocket expenses and future commercial care should be assessed under the MAI Act; whether the statutory benefits claim under the MAI Act should be severed and remain active; whether anomaly arises where a claimant obtains the benefits of the statutory scheme under the MAI Act but have damages assessed under the MAC Act; complex legal issues and complex issues in the assessment of the amount of the claim; further judicial and statutory interpretation required; Held – claim is not suitable for assessment by Commission; recommendation made that the claim be exempted; subsequently approved by Division Head as the President’s delegate.
Decision date: 10 December 2025 | Member: Maurice Castagnet
Bidner v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWPIC 694
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; discretionary exemption application by claimant and insurer consented; Held – claim not suitable for assessment at the Personal Injury Commission pursuant to section 7.34 (1)(b); basis not suitable; claim involves complex liability; fault and causation; multiple parties and claims to be heard together; related District Court proceedings on foot against third party arise out of same accident; rules 99(3)(a), (b), and (e) under the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; length of hearing, number of witnesses to be called, and subpoena likely one forum for all matters; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President’s delegate.
Decision date: 11 December 2025 | Member: Shana Radnan
Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions
Wong v Sonic Health Plus [2025] NSWPIC 655
The applicant was injured when a cupboard fell on her at the respondent’s premises; parties disputed her wage loss for a closed period and submitted conflicting wage loss schedules; Held – award was made in accordance with the applicant’s wage schedule.
Decision date: 4 December 2025 | Member: Lea Drake
Tuohey v Watters Electrical Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 658
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits of compensation due to psychological injury; respondent relies upon section 11A defence that any injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken with respect to discipline/and or performance appraisal; Northern NSW Local Health District v Heggie, Hamad v Q Catering Ltd, and Attorney General’s Department v K considered; Held – action taken by respondent was reasonable with respect to discipline and section 11A applies.
Decision date: 5 December 2025 | Member: Diana Benk
Deng v PSGA Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 50
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); subject matter of decision; claim for weekly compensation; medical expenses and lump sum compensation by a worker alleging a disease injury; applicant diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder; injury disputed by respondent; Held – applicant suffered from an aggravation of a disease within the meaning of section 4(b)(ii) of the 1987 Act; referred to Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment.
Decision date: 28 January 2026 | Member: Michael Moore
Martin v Life Without Barriers & Anor [2026] NSWPIC 51
Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant claims permanent impairment compensation payable under section 66; psychological injury sustained in the course of his employment with the first respondent with deemed date of injury of 28 February 2023; psychological injury sustained in the course of his employment with the second respondent with deemed date of injury of 21 July 2023; Medical Assessor (MA) assessed the applicant and a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) was issued; MA assessed the applicant with 26% whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from injury sustained in the course of his employment with the first respondent with deemed date of injury of 19 February 2023; applicant and respondents accepted the MAC; issues to be determined by the Commission is the apportionment of the WPI compensation payable under section 66 and the operation of section 16(1)(b) relevant to the applicant’s claim for WPI compensation payable; Held – there is to be no apportionment of the WPI compensation payable under section 66 between the first and second respondents; section 16(1)(b) has no application to the applicant’s claim for WPI compensation payable under section 66.
Decision date: 28 January 2026 | Member: Jacqueline Snell
Karzi v Toll Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 52
Workers Compensation Act 1987; application for reconsideration of certificate; determination for referral for further assessment by Medical Assessor for threshold dispute for weekly compensation claim; sufficiency of reasons considered; Held – insufficient reasons provided; application declined.
Decision date: 29 January 2026 | Member: Michael Wright
Samuel v Allmen Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 53
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for injury to left knee; claim for weekly benefits compensation following work capacity decision; consideration of applicant’s statements, medical reports and other treatment records, vocational evidence, and claim correspondence; consideration as to what is the extent (if any) of the applicant’s current work capacity as a result of his left knee injury; Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar, and ACW v ACX considered; Held – applicant has no current work capacity as a result of his injury; award for the applicant pursuant to section 37 with credit to the respondent for payments made.
Decision date: 29 January 2026 | Member: Gaius Whiffin
Foote v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 54
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); weekly payments; whether applicant’s aggravation of an underlying condition by way of activation of the Herpes Zosta virus; subsequent development of Ramsay Hunt Syndrome was brought about by the conditions of the applicant’s employment; whether the applicant is statute barred from recovering compensation; nature and extent of any incapacity for employment; Held – determination of the cause of the applicant’s condition requires a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain to determine whether having regard to the totality of the lay and medical evidence; applicant has proven on the balance of probabilities her employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates applied; expert evidence discloses the conditions of the applicant’s employment on her work trip presented a plausible scenario for causing the relevant aggravation; applicant established her work conditions were the main contributing factor to the aggravation of her underlying condition; defence in relation to sections 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act is not made out; applicant has established total incapacity for the period asserted followed by a period of partial incapacity; respondent ordered to pay the applicant weekly benefits.
Decision date: 29 January 2026 | Member: Cameron Burge
Stojanovic v ISS Property Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 55
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for compensation pursuant to section 60 for costs associated with proposed right foot surgery; whether worker sustained a work injury within the meaning of section 4(b)(ii); delay in reporting work-related cause of the alleged injury; inconsistent mechanisms of injury described in the evidence; the value of contemporaneous evidence; medical histories in clinical records; expert evidence in a fair climate; Mason v Demasi, Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga, Watson v Foxman, Onassis v Vergottis, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, State Transit Authority v El-Achi, AB v AW, Hancock v East Coast Timbers Products Pty Ltd, and Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd considered; Held – applicant did not suffer an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease process in the right foot within the meaning of section 4(b)(ii) arising out of or in the course of her employment with the respondent; award for the respondent in respect of the applicant’s claimed injury to the right foot.
Decision date: 30 January 2026| Member: Anthony Scarcella
Muscat v State of New South Wales (Northern Sydney Local Health District) [2026] NSWPIC 56
Workers Compensation Act 1987; lump sum compensation; applicant sought an order from the Commission for payment of lump sum compensation where assessments of impairment identical; no offer made by respondent who asserted clinical records were inconsistent with an IME’s opinions; consideration of SIRA standards of practice and model litigant policy; whether a dispute exists; Held – respondent ordered to pay applicant’s lump sum compensation.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Member: Parnel McAdam
Carrasco v Broemi Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Dann Family Trust [2026] NSWPIC 57
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly payments of compensation for psychological injury; whether the applicant is totally or partially incapacitated for work; consideration of Wollongong Nursing Home P/L v Dewar, and Gradan Bathrooms P/L v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer; Held – applicant has had no current work capacity since 18 July 2025; award for weekly payments of compensation and reasonably necessary medical expenses for treatment of psychological injury.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Member: John Isaksen
Skinner v Freight Specialists Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 58
Workers Compensation Act 1987; permanent impairment compensation; whether an alleged consequential condition to the lumbar spine was brought about as a result of an accepted severe right leg injury; applicant suffered a severe injury to his right leg resulting in surgery and severe scarring; applicant also alleged that as a result of an antalgic gait developed because of that injury, he suffered a consequential condition to his lumbar spine; Held – applicant does not need to establish an injury per sections 4 or 4(b) to prove a consequential condition; Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, and Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd applied; commonsense evaluation of all the evidence to determine whether there is an unbroken chain of causation between the accepted injury and the lumbar spine condition; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates followed; evidence discloses there was a material contribution by the accepted injury to the lumbar spine condition; matter remitted to the President for referral of all claimed body systems for medical assessment.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Member: Cameron Burge
Lawlor v Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 60
Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for compensation for medical treatment pursuant to section 60; accepted work injuries to applicant’s lumbar spine, right knee, left knee, and psychological condition; applicant claimed compensation for cost of various past and future treatments including pain medications, weight loss medication, MRI lumbar spine, ongoing consultations with treating orthopaedic surgeon, consultation and CT guided epidural and steroid injection L5-S1, right genicular nerve blocks to address right knee pain, ongoing CPAP therapy, and continued sleep position oversight; whether the various treatments were reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injuries; Held – various treatments were reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted injuries.
Decision date: 2 February 2026 | Member: Karen Garner
Squires v Ausgrid [2026] NSWPIC 61
Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant was injured because of workplace stressors which precipitated and was the main contributing cause of bipolar syndrome; Held – referred to President for referral to a Medical Assessor (MA); payment of medical expenses ordered; claim for weekly payments deferred until MA’s report received.
Decision date: 2 February 2026 | Member: Lea Drake
Phillips v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 62
Workers Compensation Act 1987;assessment of the applicant’s binaural hearing loss and the reasonable necessity for hearing aids; Held – hearing aids to the applicant was reasonable and necessary; respondent to reimburse the applicant for the costs.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Member: Lea Drake
Mahmoud v Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 63
Workers Compensation Act 1987; application for lump sum permanent impairment compensation pursuant to section 66; weekly compensation and medical expenses; applicant has accepted right shoulder injury; whether the applicant sustained injuries or consequential injuries to her left shoulder, neck, or bilateral feet/ankles; Held – applicant sustained section 4(b) disease injuries to the left shoulder and neck; award for respondent with respect to claimed feet/ankle injuries; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of right shoulder, left shoulder, and cervical spine.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Member: Fiona Seaton
Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions
Ahearn v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 913
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; degree of permanent impairment dispute; claimant was involved in a high-speed head on collision in the Hunter Valley region; claimant experienced pain in his neck, right shin with swelling, left hip and ankle; the hospital discharge documentation confirmed a fractured sternum, which the claimant states was the only definitive diagnosis made at that time; bruising on his right shin and minor injuries to both legs were evident; claimant attended his local medical officer a week later complaining of sternal pain and neck stiffness; claimant submitted an application for personal injury benefits detailing injuries including chest pain, right shin pain, left ankle discomfort, left hip pain, left rib pain, and dizziness; knee injuries were not listed in the application; causation issue whether claimant suffered frank injury to either knee, or aggravation of underlaying advance osteoarthritis; absence of contemporaneous documentation of trauma; delayed report of symptoms in both knees; claimant’s qualified IME accepted causation of aggravation of underlaying osteoarthritic changes in both knees and assessed 22% whole person impairment (WPI); Medical Assessor (MA) found 5% WPI for soft tissue injury to cervical spine; MA found injuries to both knees not caused by motor accident; claimant re-examined; Held – Review Panel of same opinion as MA; certificate confirmed.
Decision date: 21 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Gary Victor Patterson, Dr Alan Home, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb
FNA v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2025] NSWPICMP 923
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of certificate and reasons of Medical Assessor (MA); found whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of 6% for physical injuries; rear end collision which was not trivial; claimant had pre-existing injuries but not considerably; Review Panel not satisfied that a deduction should be made for any pre-existing injury; early imaging did not show acute pathology; claimant had subsequent falls to which the Review Panel attributed his subsequent symptomatology; radiological and clinical criteria for lumbar radiculopathy not met; Review Panel assessed the claimant as having a total WPI of 7%; Held – certificate and reasons of MA revoked.
Decision date: 25 November 2025 | Panel Members: Member Alexander Bolton, Dr Shane Moloney, and Dr Mohammed Assem | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Savvidis [2026] NSWPICMP 60
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); threshold injury dispute; treatment and care dispute; causation of shoulder labral tear; relevant causative factors; absence of pre-accident shoulder complaints; motor accident caused direct hit to shoulder; immediate onset of extreme pain and loss of range of motion; opinions of treating surgeon and original Medical Assessor that labral tear was caused by the motor accident; revised opinion of treating surgeon on appropriate surgical treatment not the subject of original referral for medical assessment; scope of treatment and care dispute; Held – Review Panel found on balance of probabilities labral tear was “new” and caused as a result of the motor accident; labral tear is not a threshold injury; labral repair/debridement surgery not reasonable and necessary; revised treatment and care in the form of reverse shoulder reconstruction considered reasonable and necessary; MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 29 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Sophia Lahz, and Dr Shane Moloney | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb
Hmayed v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2026] NSWPICMP 61
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); claimant involved in t-bone collision while driving a car in January 2023; claimant’s children in car and feared for their safety, particularly one child with a pre-existing heart condition; original Medical Assessor diagnosed adjustment disorder which is a threshold injury; Review Panel considered there to be significant vulnerability due to predisposing factors; previous motor accident in 2020 and separation from spouse; however claimant gave a history to the Review Panel of not being concerned of any major harm to himself or his children; claimant was more concerned about damage to his teeth; other psychiatric diagnoses considered but criteria not met; Held – no psychiatric injury/diagnosis caused by the subject motor accident; no assessment of threshold injury required; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.
Decision date: 29 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Alan Doris, and Dr Christopher Rikard-Bell | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Kayem v CIC Allianz Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 62
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant’s application for review of Medical Assessor’s (MA) determination of permanent impairment for psychiatric injuries under section 7.26; where the MA found that the claimant suffered from a major depressive disorder which was pre-existing; where the MA found that the motor accident caused an aggravation of major depression which had resolved by the time of his assessment; re-examination by the Review Panel; where the Review Panel found that claimant was suffering from a pre-existing persistent depressive disorder and that the motor accident caused an exacerbation of the psychiatric condition; current impairment assessed at 22%; pre-existing impairment assessed at 17%; assessment of impairment of 5% caused by the motor accident; Held – the medical certificate is revoked.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Maurice Castagnet, Dr Matthew Jones, and Dr Thomas Newlyn | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Wildey [2026] NSWPICMP 63
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); claimant driver in a vehicle stationary at traffic lights when a motor scooter collided with the driver’s side door; claimant assessed by original Medical Assessor as 12% whole person impairment (WPI) for physical injuries to her cervical spine, right shoulder, and lumbar spine; Held – Review Panel noted pre-existing pathology in the neck, right shoulder, and lower back; Review Panel accepted complaints to the neck and right shoulder made to the general practitioner one week after the motor accident; Review Panel’s diagnosis was an aggravation of pre-existing degenerative changes; causation of lumbar spine injury also accepted with a mention in the personal injury claim form three weeks after the motor accident and an absence of any back complaints; impairment findings to the cervical spine and lumbar spine both 0% WPI as nil impairment differentiators were found; right shoulder assessed as 4% using analogy due to variation in motion due to pain; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr Rhys Gray | Injury module: Spine, and Upper Limb
Khosravi v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2026] NSWPICMP 64
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant claimed to have sustained a psychological injury after being involved in a motor accident; whether psychological injury was a threshold injury; where the Medical Assessor at first instance found that a psychological injury (adjustment disorder) was caused by the motor accident which was a threshold injury; re-examination by the Review Panel; where the Review Panel found that a psychological injury (major depressive disorder) was caused by the motor accident which is not a threshold injury; Held – original medical certificate revoked.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Maurice Castagnet, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Michael Hong | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Chidiac v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 73
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; medical dispute about threshold injury and claimant’s application for review under section 7.26; claimant alleged injuries to neck (partial rupture of disc tissue and radiculopathy), back (partial rupture of disc tissue and radiculopathy), and right shoulder (supraspinatus tear and biceps tenosynovitis); insurer raised causation of shoulder injury due to four month delay in complaints; claimant re-examined by Medical Assessor; Held – claimant injured neck and lower back in the accident but Review Panel not satisfied right shoulder was injured; no signs of radiculopathy at re-examination or at any time since the accident; while radiology suggested disc protrusions Review Panel not satisfied as to causation of protrusions noting pre-accident history; medical certificate revoked; no change in outcome.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr David McGrath, and Dr Shane Moloney | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb
AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Shoyeb [2026] NSWPICMP 74
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) at 38%; insurer’s review under section 7.26; injuries assessed were cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, fractured left arm, left shoulder, and right lower limb; whether claimant satisfied criteria for diagnosis of chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in Motor Accident Guidelines (Guidelines) and if so, method of assessment; claimant re-examined; Held – Review Panel not satisfied claimant injured thoracic spine or right knee in accident but satisfied claimant injured cervical spine, lumbar spine, left wrist, and left shoulder; claimant satisfied 9 of the 11 criteria of CRPS; impairment assessed at 52%; no issue of principle but detailed consideration of clauses 6.61 – 6.63 of the Guidelines and related passages in the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr Shane Moloney, and Dr David Gorman | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Lever [2026] NSWPICMP 75
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; permanent impairment; review; insurer disputed causation and permanent impairment; alleging psychological injuries before accident; Commission referred psychiatric condition to assess permanent impairment; Medical Assessor’s certificate assessed 13% permanent impairment; referred for review; re-examination; claimant was cooperative and inconsistencies were explicable; accident was capable of causing referred injuries; 10% permanent impairment; Held – different findings to original assessment; Review Panel revoked original medical certificate; permanent impairment is not greater than 10%.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Terence O'Riain, Dr Christopher Canaris, and Dr Surabhi Verma | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Solaka [2026] NSWPICMP 76
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident whilst riding a motorcycle; Medical Assessor (MA) certified 19% whole person impairment (WPI) for injury to right leg, consequential injury to lumbar spine, injury to cervical spine, injury to left shoulder, and surgical scarring; insurer sought review; Held – tibial plateau fracture caused by accident assessed at 14% WPI; altered gait caused consequential aggravation of underlying degenerative change in lumbar spine; lumbar spine assessed as DRE category II or 5% WPI; altered gait and use of walking aids caused by right knee injury led to injury to left shoulder; Briggs v IAG Limited Trading as NRMA Insurance cited; left shoulder assessed at 4% WPI; surgical scarring assessed at 2% WPI; no injury to cervical spine; no mechanism by which injury to right knee and antalgic gait would lead to consequential injury to cervical spine; combined medical certificate revoked.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Senior Member Susan McTegg, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr David Gorman | Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, Lower Limb, and Minor Skin
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v McBlain [2026] NSWPICMP 77
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment; exacerbation of pre-existing persistent depressive disorder with an anxious distress; whole person impairment (WPI); non-accident related peripheral neuropathy; suburban haematoma not a psychiatric injury; undiagnosed attention deficit hyperactive disorder; intermittent treatment for mood and anxiety problems; Review Panel is not qualified to comment on relationship between subdural haematoma and the motor vehicle accident; Held – WPI consequent on psychiatric injury caused by the subject accident is 0%
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr Alan Doris, and Dr Christopher Rickard-Bell | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Chiarelli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPICMP 78
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of certificates and reasons of Medical Assessor (MA); treatment dispute; claimant injured as a passenger in a bus; claimant suffered injuries to his neck and an L1 vertebral fracture with general symptoms in his left wrist, cervical spine, right foot, left arm and shoulder, right elbow and right knee; claimant first complained of injury to his right knee in early January 2023 and thereafter had investigations of his right knee and treatment and a recommendation for a right total knee replacement surgery; insurer denied request for treatment; Review Panel considered that given the nature of the high speed bus accident and the more serious injuries suffered by the claimant that it was not unreasonable that the claimant would not make a complaint about use of and subsequent pain in his right knee until after completion of the rehabilitation; Held – medical certificate revoked.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Alexander Bolton, Dr Shane Moloney, and Dr Drew Dixon | Treatment Type: Surgery
Morrison v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 79
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; assessment of threshold injury; claimant’s application for review under section 7.26; claimant’s only injury was neck injury; claimant also argued a cervical facet joint capsule had been ruptured; claimant had pre-existing neck condition and insurer disputed causation; claimant relied on treating neurosurgeon who diagnosed a C3 radiculopathy; original Medical Assessor (MA) found “it is impossible to have radiculopathy” at C3 level; Held – Review Panel determined no re-examination was necessary distinguishing Sydny Trains v Batshon; test of causation was could the accident and did the accident cause or contribute to the injury referring to Kinchela v Insurance Australia Group Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance and following Briggs v IAG t/as NRMA Insurance; Review Panel satisfied claimant injured her neck in the accident; MA’s diagnosed C3 nerve root injury caused by the accident but no evidence of either a disc bulge indenting the thecal sac or a ruptured joint capsule caused by the accident; in terms of the C3 nerve injury the terms of cl 5.8 of the Motor Accident Guidelines were carefully considered in particular 5.8(b) which refers to a “positive sciatic nerve root tension signs”; Review Panel determined this cannot apply to a cervical nerve or nerve root injury; claimant only had one sign of radiculopathy; medical certificate revoked with no change in outcome.
Decision date: 4 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr Les Barnsley | Injury module: Spine
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Shamim [2026] NSWPICMP 80
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; medical assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) by Medical Assessor (MA); claimant injured in motor vehicle accident when she was hit by a car at a pedestrian crossing and sustained both physical and psychiatric injury; dispute arose as to the claimant’s WPI as a result of psychiatric injury; insurer submitted that the claimant had given her history to a psychiatrist of previous abuse by her father; issue arose as to whether such history should be relied on and the significance of the history; MA determined the claimant’s permanent impairment at 24%; the insurer sought a review of the assessment under section 7.26; the Review Panel re-examined the claimant; claimant denied historical abuse by her father; Review Panel revoked medical certificate; substituted determination of 41% WPI.
Decision date: 4 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Alan Doris, and Dr Gerald Chew | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural
Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions
Taber v Qantas Airways Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 56
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); referral for assessment of upper extremities and scarring; appellant submitted that as the IMEs agreed on the assessment for scarring it was not part of the medical dispute and should not have been assessed; Appeal Panel found Medical Assessor (MA) acting within jurisdiction in assessing scarring; Appeal Panel satisfied that MA provided sufficient reasons to explain the difference between his assessment for scarring and that of the IMEs; Held – MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 28 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Carolyn Rimmer, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Tommasino Mastroianni | Body system: Right Upper Extremity, Left Upper Extremity, and Scarring
Creagh v Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 57
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred with respect to his ratings of the appellant’s impairment in social and recreational activities and in concentration, persistence and pace; whether MA had regard to appellant’s evidence; whether paragraph 1.32 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) applied; Held – MA made no error with his ratings of the appellant’s impairment in the challenged psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) and had regard to the appellant’s evidence; paragraph 1.32 of the Guidelines did not apply; MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 28 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr John Baker, and Dr Ash Takyar | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Smith v Dural Irrigation Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 58
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether the Medical Assessor (MA) adequately explained what proportion of the appellant’s impairment related to a somatoform disorder and why he excluded that from his assessment of the appellant’s permanent impairment from her injury; Held – Appeal Panel held the MA did not and that was a demonstrable error; MAC revoked.
Decision date: 28 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Michael Hong, and Professor Nicholas Glozier | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Lynch v Till Payments Solutions Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 59
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether further evidence appellant provided after medical assessment met the terms of section 327(3)(b); whether the ratings the Medical Assessor (MA) made of the appellant’s impairment in self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, travel, and concentration persistence and pace are inconsistent with the evidence and the history the MA obtained; Held – the information within the further evidence the appellant provided did not meet the terms of section 327(3)(b); the MA’s ratings of the appellant’s impairment in self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, and travel accorded with the evidence and history and did not involve error; MA’s rating of the appellant’s impairment in concentration persistence and pace did not accord with the evidence or history and was wrong, but when the error was corrected there was no difference in the outcome; MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 29 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Michael Hong | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Unisson Disability Ltd v Campbell [2026] NSWPICMP 65
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether the Medical Assessor (MA) erred with his ratings of the respondent’s impairment in social and recreational activities and in travel by not having regard to all the evidence; whether MA correctly applied Table 11.7 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4thed 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) to his psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) scores; Held – MA did not err with his rating of the respondent’s impairment in social and recreational activities but did err with his rating of her impairment in travel; MA incorrectly applied Table 11.7 of the Guidelines; Medical Appeal Panel re-examined respondent; MAC revoked.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Marshal Douglas, Dr Ash Takyar, and Dr Michael Hong | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Toyo Tyre & Rubber Australia Pty Ltd v Taik [2026] NSWPICMP 66
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); medical appeal; assessment of urinary and reproductive system; worker had neurogenic bladder; no need for cauda equina or nerve root dysfunction where neurogenic bladder disorder exists; sexual dysfunction cannot be assessed in absence of confirmed cauda equina or nerve root dysfunction; appeal against bladder rejected; appeal against sexual dysfunction accepted; Held – MAC revoked.
Decision date: 30 January 2026 | Panel Members: Member Parnel McAdam, Dr Gerard Testa, and Dr John Carter | Body system: Lumbar Spine, Scarring, Bladder, and Sexual Function
Hsu-Ming v Secretary (Department of Education) [2026] NSWPICMP 67
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal against assessment of impairment in respect of a psychiatric injury on the grounds of demonstrable error and the assessment being made on the basis of incorrect criteria; in respect of the submission that the appellant worker had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) Appeal Panel satisfied that she had reached MMI; in respect of assessments in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) scales of self-care and personal hygiene and social functioning Medical Appeal Panel satisfied that the Medical Assessor (MA) made no error and the assessment was not made of the basis of incorrect criteria; in respect of assessment in the PIRS scales of concentration, persistence and pace Medical Appeal Panel satisfied that the MA erred because he took into account an irrelevant consideration when making the assessment in this scale; Held – MAC revoked.
Decision date: 2 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Carolyn Rimmer, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Ash Takyar | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
James v HM Industries Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 68
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); hearing loss; appellant worker alleged assessment on the basis of incorrect criteria and demonstrable error in the failure to include the losses at the lower frequencies in the assessment; Medical Assessor (MA) has used his clinical judgment taking into account the medical history and physical examination and his audiogram to find the hearing losses at from 3000Hz are occupational noise induced hearing losses; MA’s reasoning was not inadequate such as to constitute error; Held – MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 2 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Brian Williams, and Dr Robert Payten | Body system: Hearing Loss
Griffiths v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2026] NSWPICMP 69
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from 7% rating for psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) had erred in respect of four of the six psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories; whether the MA failed to take account of relevant considerations, or to provide adequate reasons; whether he incorrectly applied the PIRS; whether procedural fairness was afforded; Held – appellant’s submissions lacking particularity and made with an eye to keenly attuned to the perception of error; Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd applied; Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak discussed; MA erred in discussing future intention regarding social and recreational activities, but rating justified nonetheless; MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Graham Blom, and Dr Ash Takyar | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Hawat v FLH NSW Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 70
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal against 7% assessment for psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred in ratings for personal hygiene, travel, concentration, persistence and pace, and employment; Held – claimant developed post-traumatic stress disorder as result of tinnitus caused by workplace acoustic trauma; Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT considered; personal hygiene category submission no more than mere disagreement; claimant overlooked that he had been travelling to Thailand and on family holiday; class 2 rating confirmed; concentration, persistence and pace submissions included assumptions of fact unsupported by the evidence; MA disregarded impairment caused by tinnitus and secondary psychological injury; class 2 confirmed; employment class 2 revoked and class 3 assessed; claimant had not worked since 2021 and his condition had deteriorated; MAC revoked.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Graham Blom, and Dr Ash Takyar | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Newcastle Recycling Group Pty Ltd v Bradshaw [2026] NSWPICMP 71
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of left upper extremity and scarring following injury to the left elbow and radial nerve and consequential injury to the left wrist and hand; Medical Appeal Panel satisfied that Medical Assessor (MA) erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for providing the assessment he made in view of the provisions in Clause 2.5 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4thed 1 March 2021; on review the assessment of whole person impairment was the same as that made by the MA; Held – MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member Carolyn Rimmer, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Margaret Gibson | Body system: Left Upper Extremity, and Scarring (TEMSKI)
Benitez v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2026] NSWPICMP 72
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from assessment of 9% for psychological injury; whether fresh evidence should be admitted; whether deterioration established; whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred in social and recreational activities and/or social functioning; Held – fresh evidence admitted as relevant to claimant’s claim of deterioration; observations on whether authority cited applicable in this jurisdiction; Petrovic v BC Serve No 14 Pty Ltd considered; deterioration not established; social and recreational class 2 confirmed as claimant performing coaching duties; motivation and difficulty in doing so irrelevant to assessment; Chapter 11.11 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4thed 1 March 2021 (the Guides) considered and applied; social functioning class 2 confirmed; Ferguson v State of New South Wales applied; Chapter 11.12 of the Guides considered and applied; MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr John Lam-Po-Tang | Body system: Psychological/Psychiatric
Motor Accidents Merit Review Decision
Saadouni v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMR 3
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; miscellaneous claims assessment; claimant’s application for merit review in respect of insurer’s determination that the claimant did not incur a loss of earnings as a result of the subject accident, and is therefore not entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits under the Act; the available evidence was the claimant's loss of earnings was not because of the injury sustained and her incapacity for employment but rather due to the termination of employment following concerns regarding her performance and conduct; the claimant was successful in obtaining alternative employment following her dismissal; comparable to her previous employment; Held – the reviewable decision is affirmed.
Decision date: 3 February 2026 | Merit Reviewer: David Ford
Workers Compensation Delegate Decisions
Hampel v Hunters Hill Council [2026] NSWPIC 64
Workers Compensation Act 1987; workers compensation expedited assessment; weekly benefits under section 37; work capacity; suitable employment under section 32A; Held – determined the work capacity decision is set aside; the applicant is able to work in suitable employment as an Information Officer working 11 hours per week (earning $34.19 per hour (ability to earn: $376.09 per week)); Notice for Production items 7 and 8 of the Notice to Produce set aside.
Decision date: 23 January 2026 | Delegate: Stephanie Wigan
Logusz v Byron Toby Rowe ATF (as trustee for) Busways Trust [2026] NSWPIC 65
Workers Compensation Act 1987; work capacity dispute; applicant was an Operations Manager who suffered an accepted psychological injury; work capacity decision issued by insurer identified suitable employment as a Private Investigator; whether the applicant was able to work in suitable employment having regard to section 32A; Held – weight of evidence supported the applicant had current work capacity to work in suitable employment as a Private Investigator; work capacity decision set aside; amount the applicant could earn in suitable employment amended; award for the applicant in relation to payment of weekly benefits compensation.
Decision date: 27 January 2026 | Delegate: Sarah Anderson
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.