Legal Bulletin No. 256

Issued 17 April 2026

Welcome to the two hundred and fifty-sixth 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 Decision

Nicholls v The Professional Pest Controllers Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICPD 14

Workers compensation; sections 254 and 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; failure to give notice of an injury occasioned by ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause; time within which claim for compensation must be made – consideration of requisite standard of proof; Estate of Clarke v State of New South Wales (Greystanes Disability Services) [2019] NSWWCCPD 29 considered and applied; consideration of factual findings made by the Member and the effect of State of New South Wales v Culhana [2025] NSWCA 157; Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26 considered and applied; Held – the Certificate of Determination dated 25 August 2025 is revoked; this matter is remitted to another Member to be heard in accordance with this decision.

Decision date: 8 April 2026 | Before: President Judge Phillips

Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions

Doyle v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 124

Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999; Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; application for discretionary exemption; claimant sustained injuries whilst he was on a bus and fell to the floor of the bus; claim for future treatment and future domestic; matter involves complex legal issues; differing interpretations in respect to claimant entitlements; requirement to deal with proceedings justly, quickly, cost-effectively and with minimal formality; Held – requirement for further judicial and statutory interpretation; recommendation to the President that matter be exempted from assessment; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President’s delegate.

Decision date: 23 February 2026| Member: Hugh Macken

Alhamdani v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 149

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; insured driver crossed the path of the claimant's motorcycle when turning into a driveway; expert evidence of excessive speed by the claimant; vehicle stationary in front of the insured vehicle with its right-hand indicator activated; insurer alleged contributory negligence of 50%; contributory negligence assessed at 30%.; claimant suffered soft tissue injuries to the right hand, left wrist, both shoulders and the cervical, and lumbar spine together with multiple fractures to the left foot and left hand; traumatic disc bulge or annular tear of the lumbar spine; alleged significant right wrist fracture claimant had residual scarring and a claimed superimposed psychological injury; nature and extent of the claimed injuries and disabilities and the alleged impact on the claimant's capacity to work disputed; assessment complicated by injuries and reduced capacity to earn resulting from an earlier motor vehicle accident; Held – non-economic loss assessed at $275,000.00, past economic loss $35,000.00, and future economic loss by way of a buffer at $225,000.00 to compensate for further diminution in the claimant's capacity to earn; total $535,000.00 reduced by 30% to $374,500.00.

Decision date: 26 February 2026 | Member: Michael Inglis

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Mustapha [2026] NSWPIC 184

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; insurer’s application for exemption under section 7.34(1)(b); opposed by the claimant; claim for damages for mental harm; claimant’s wife was the driver at fault; liability denied on the basis that there was no duty of care owed; related claim litigated in the District Court; Graham Kelly v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales & Anor, Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Banos, Transport Accident Commission of Victoria v Leslie Ross Yarham, and IAG Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Khaled & Ors applied; Held – claim involves complex legal issues; assessment by the Personal Injury Commission would not facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in dispute; claim not suitable for assessment by the Commission; recommendation to the President that matter be exempted from assessment; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President’s delegate.

Decision date: 27 February 2026| Senior Member: Brett Williams

Despot v Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod Pty Ltd) [2026] NSWPIC 141

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; Rule 99(3)(d) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; claimant injured in an incident on premises occupied by Woolworths which was within the interior of a warehouse; claimant was driving a forklift which collided with a motorised pallet transporter; both vehicles were owned by Woolworths; claimant employed as a warehouse storeman with Woolworths; claimant intends to issue a claim against Ready Workforce on the basis it was the employer of the driver of the motorised pallet transporter and issue a claim against the Nominal Defendant on the basis the pallet transporter that caused the incident was unregistered and uninsured for CTP purposes; whether the incident occurred on a road or road related area which is open to the public and consequently whether the claimant is precluded from bringing a claim against the Nominal Defendant; claimant intends to issue a statement of claim in the District Court; claimant submits the matter be exempted in the interests of justice in order for all claims to be determined concurrently in the jurisdiction of the District Court; submitted on behalf of the claimant the matter should be exempted on discretionary grounds; insurer consents to the application; Held – the matter be exempted under section 7.34 (1)(b) on the grounds a claimant or insurer seeks to proceed against one or more non CTP parties; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President’s delegate.

Decision date: 20 March 2026 | Member: David Ford

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Cornford [2026] NSWPIC 185

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; section 6.23; self-represented claimant in an accident at a T- intersection; evidence that the insured driver was travelling at an excessive speed; despite a possible breach of the regulations, police determined not to charge the claimant; contributory negligence initially assessed at 20% but later reduced to 10%; right hand dominant claimant suffered cuts and abrasions and a separation of the acromioclavicular joint; reduced capacity to engage in sport in right shoulder; remains in full time employment but restricted in overhead work and heavy lifting as a spray painter; Held – non-economic loss assessed at $220,000; past economic loss, $50,000; buffer   for future economic loss, $200,000; settlement in the summer of $427,500 after deduction for contributory negligence; approved as just fair and reasonable.

Decision date: 1 April 2026| Member: Michael Inglis

Contos v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 187

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits; dispute as to whether claimant wholly or mostly at fault; claimant drove out of side street into the second lane and collided with a car merging from the first (kerbside) lane into the second; claimant’s car flipped onto its roof and slid across road; dispute about whether claimant turned into insured or whether insured merged into claimant; expert evidence presented and written statements; assessment done on the papers; AAI Limited v Evic, and Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Shuk considered and applied; Held – insurer’s expert preferred; claimant’s wheel turned to the left at time of impact which meant claimant turned into insured vehicle; evidence of independent witness accepted that claimant accelerated harshly; claimant departed from his standard of care; insured did not see claimant until moments before impact; claimant 70% responsible and insured 30% responsible; claimant mostly at fault; costs awarded to both parties on the unregulated basis.

Decision date: 2 April 2026| Member: Belinda Cassidy

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Chalain [2026] NSWPIC 195

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; section 6.23; 80-year-old, otherwise fit and healthy; claimant who suffered non-threshold injuries involving the right thumb and index finger, the dorsum of the right hand, and lower back injury; claimant retired at the time of the accident but engaged in bicycle riding, mechanical repairs and gardening; claimant returned to bicycle riding and able to walk but not run; significant ongoing symptoms of back pain and restriction of use of the dominant right hand; Held – claim limited to non-economic loss which was proposed settlement of $280,000.00 for that head of damage approved.

Decision date: 8 April 2026| Member: Michael Inglis

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Mantramurthy [2026] NSWPIC 196

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; section 6.23; claimant suffered threshold injuries to the cervical spine and right shoulder; ongoing non-invasive treatment continuing along with the use of a neuromodulation device; claimant an IT executive working largely from home; claimant initially off work for two weeks; required further absences for treatment; increasing claimant's earnings in financial years post-accident; Held – proposed settlement of $150,000.00 comprised of $20,000.00 for past economic loss and $130,000.00 for future economic loss approved as just, fair and reasonable.

Decision date: 8 April 2026| Member: Michael Inglis

Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions

Ma'ilei v Unisson Disability Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 190

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation for physical and psychological injury; claim for injury and treatment to the lumbar spine said to arise out of injury simpliciter along with injuries to the cervical spine and right upper extremity; respondent disputed liability for injuries to the cervical and lumbar spine; findings that account of lumbar spine injury inconsistent with multiple presentations to treating doctors and initial hospital presentation and actual nature of the fall;   Consideration of Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Onassis v Vergottis, and Watson v Foxman considered and applied; inconsistencies in evidence both factual and medical; Held – applicant failed to discharge onus; award respondent in respect of the claim of injury to the lumbar spine; balance of physical injuries referred to Medical Assessor; psychological injury; applicant claims lump sum compensation for primary and or primary/secondary psychological injury; given the conflict between the contemporaneous medical evidence, the applicant’s statement evidence and subsequent representations to various health professionals, the Personal Injury Commission is not persuaded nor affirmatively satisfied the applicant sustained a primary psychological injury in the manner claimed.

Decision date: 2 April 2026| Member: Diana Benk

Graham v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] NSWPIC 191

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for benefits in respect of the death of a worker; liability admitted by first respondent to pay lump sum pursuant to section 25(1)(a); apportionment of lump sum needed pursuant to section 29; consideration of dependants’ statements, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of who was dependent for support on the worker; TNT Group 4 Pty Limited v Halioris considered; consideration of appropriateness of apportionment agreed between the parties; consideration as to interest awards under section 109 of the 1998 Act; Held – no other persons but the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent were dependent for support on the worker; apportionment of the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act as agreed between the parties approved; interest as agreed between the parties ordered; awards entered in favour of the applicant, the second respondent, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent in relation to their apportioned entitlements and interest) to the lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a) of the   1987 Act.

Decision date: 2 April 2026| Member: Gaius Whiffin

Kramer v Bindaree Beef Pty Limited [2026] NSWPIC 192

Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant injured by electric shock at work; lump sum claim pursuant to section 66; cardiovascular injury conceded; nervous system injury disputed; respondent alleged any cognitive impairment was attributable to the applicant’s heavy drinking, smoking and hypertension pre-injury; Usher v Coffs Harbour City Council, and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates applied; Held – the applicant established he had sustained an injury to his nervous system, the extent of which and permanent impairment is a matter for a Medical Assessor.

Decision date: 7 April 2026| Member: Josephine Bamber

Mathews v State of New South Wales (Hunter New England Local Health District) [2026] NSWPIC 193

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for injury to right hip; claim for weekly benefits compensation and payment of expenses pursuant to section 60 in relation to revision right total hip replacement surgery; consideration of applicant’s statements, medical reports and other treatment records, as well as claim correspondence; whether the applicant sustained an injury to her right hip on 6 January 2025 in accordance with sections 4 and 9A; whether the applicant sustained a consequential infection in her right hip, resulting from any injury sustained by her on 6 January 2025; whether the applicant is entitled to an award pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, specifically in relation to the costs of and incidental to the revision right total hip replacement surgery; whether the applicant is entitled to a weekly benefits compensation award; Galluzzo v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Trustees of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (NSW) v Maxwell James Kear as administrator of the estate of Anthony John Kear, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Limited, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Limited considered; Held – the applicant sustained an injury to her right hip on 6 January 2025; applicant sustained a consequential infection in her right hip, resulting from the injury sustained by her on 6 January 2025; the treatment expenses incurred by the applicant, to treat her infection and to undergo revision right total hip replacement surgery, are reasonably necessary expenses in accordance with section 60, resulting from the injury sustained by her on 6 January 2025; the applicant has no current work capacity, resulting from the injury sustained by her on 6 January 2025; awards in favour of the applicant.

Decision date: 7 April 2026| Member: Gaius Whiffin

Asbury v Donhad Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 194

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for further lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 of the 1987 Act; aggregation of impairments pursuant to section 322(2) of the 1998 Act; whether pathology caused by two separate injuries to the right knee was the “same”; where pathology caused by the injuries described as an aggravation of pre-existing degenerative changes; Department of Juvenile Justice v Edmed considered Held – the pathology caused by each injury was the same; impairments to be assessed together; award in favour of the applicant.

Decision date: 7 April 2026| Member: Rachel Homan

Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions

DBA v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 221

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; degree of permanent impairment dispute; claimant was the front-seat passenger in a vehicle being driven by her mother; as they were driving past a hill, a landslide occurred and a large tree collapsed onto the vehicle, killing the claimant’s mother instantly; the car continued on for several hundred metres before going up an embankment and rolling over; claimant was trapped in the vehicle, she realised her mother was not responding; claimant climbed out of the vehicle through the driver’s smashed window; claimant realised her mother was deceased; Medical Assessor (MA) certified claimant is suffering accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder encompassing depression, anxiety, stress and ongoing trauma symptoms with 5% whole person impairment (WPI) assessed under the psychiatric impairment rating scale, including 1% for treatment effects; claimant’s review application; claimant re-examined by both MAs remotely; made similar diagnosis and assessed 6% WPI with 2% allowed for treatment effects; Held – certificate revoked.

Decision date: 26 March 2026| Panel Members: Member Gary Victor Patterson, Dr Thomas Newlyn, and Dr Paul Friend| Injury module: Mental and behavioural

Anderson v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPICMP 227

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment; degree of impairment of earning capacity that has resulted from the accident; functional restrictions arising from injuries caused by the motor accident; degree of residual earning capacity; prior medical condition; post-accident surgical procedure to right wrist and right shoulder; restrictions for employment including hours of work, reduced tolerances; requirement for high degree of physical fitness including standing tolerance and prolonged concentration and attention; vocational assessment confirms physical restrictions and reduced hours; Held – impairment of claimant's earning capacity is assessed at 50%; certificate affirmed.

Decision date: 31 March 2026| Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr Shane Moloney, and Dr Margaret Gibson| Injury module: Spine, Upper Limb, and Lower Limb

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Kaur [2026] NSWPICMP 241

Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment; specific phobia; driving and being in a car; statutory provisions; fear when driving in the vicinity of larger vehicles and trucks; self-limit in driving; no evidence of psychosis or cognitive impairment; diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety; hypervigilance on road; clear evidence that her presentation conformed with a diagnosis of specific phobia; situational-driving and being in a car; anxiety out of proportion to the actual danger posed; application of criteria DSM-5-TR specific phobia is a recognised psychiatric disorder; Held – non-threshold injury.

Decision date: 4 April 2026| Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr Christopher Canaris, and Dr Wayne Mason| Injury module: Mental and behavioural

Chol v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPICMP 242

Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017; threshold (psychiatric) injury dispute; claimant involved in two motor vehicle accidents; original Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) found the first subject accident to be less severe and did not result in any psychiatric diagnosis; second subsequent accident was more severe and could have caused post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Review Panel found neither accident satisfied criterion A for a diagnosis of PTSD; Review Panel found the claimant’s current presentation to be consistent with a persistent depressive disorder; the previous subject accident caused an adjustment disorder with depressed mood; there was no aggravation or exacerbation of the adjustment disorder from the second subsequent accident so as to be considered contributory to the development of another (non-threshold) psychiatric disorder; Held – adjustment disorder with depressed mood is a threshold injury; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 7 April 2026| Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Christopher Canaris, and Dr Himanshu Singh| Injury module: Mental and behavioural

Yu v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 243

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); claimant was a passenger who boarded a bus and was putting something in the luggage area when the bus suddenly braked causing the claimant to fall to the ground; Review Panel diagnosed an adjustment disorder caused by the motor accident and whole person impairment (WPI); there was a subsequent injury about a year following the motor accident where the claimant had a fall at home and sustained a subdural haematoma; claimant was a very poor historian, likely from the effects of the subdural haematoma; Review Panel relied on the documentation on file; State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley considered and applied; Held – Review Panel considered any cognitive impairment caused by the subdural haematoma is neurological impairment and not assessable under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale; in any event, the Review Panel did not consider the fall at home to be causally related to the subject accident; there was no element of aggravation of the accident-related adjustment disorder; Review Panel assessed at 6% WPI; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.

Decision date: 7 April 2026| Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Christopher Canaris, and Dr Michael Hong| Injury module: Mental and behavioural

Keogh v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPICMP 244

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; permanent impairment dispute; claimant was transporting some passengers in her taxi; an oncoming vehicle turned directly in front of her; claimant’s taxi was smashed in the front and the insured vehicle flipped over; claimant was flown to the Hospital as her ECG was reported as abnormal; claimant lost her sense of smell due to hitting the front of her head; claimant was at the hospital when she began experiencing episodes of dizziness; claimant was discharged from hospital five days later; Medical Assessor (MA) found anosmia and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo caused by the subject accident; MA certified a 5% whole person impairment for anosmia (maximum allowable for total loss of smell) to which he added 2% for treatment effects; as long-term treatment of claimant’s BPPV results in a total elimination of her vertigo for approximately one month before there is a recurrence; claimant’s review application allowed on basis that MA failed to provide sufficient reasons for assessment of impairment resulting from loss of smell; claimant re-examined by second MA on behalf of the Review Panel; Held – certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 7 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member Gary Victor Patterson, Dr Margaret Gibson, and Dr Thandavan Raj| Injury module: Ear, Nose, Throat and Related Structures

Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions

Datacom Systems (AU) Pty Ltd v Elvy [2026] NSWPICMP 195

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal by employer in relation to Medical Assessor’s (MA) Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on the basis of incorrect criteria and demonstrable error; MA assessed 21% whole person impairment (WPI) for psychological injury; Appeal Panel revoked the MAC and issued a new MAC, having assessed the worker as having 17% WPI; Ballas v Department of Education considered in relation to caution to avoid conflating the categories of functional impairment; Zoric v Secretary, Department of Education applied, in relation to awarding additional percentage impairment for the effects of treatment.

Decision date: 16 March 2026| Panel Members: Member Josephine Bamber, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Professor Nicholas Glozier| Injury module: Psychological/Psychiatric

Crino v A.W. Edwards Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 219

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; whether the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in his assessments under two categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale, namely social functioning and employability; Appeal Panel found no errors to the assessed social functioning scale; Appeal Panel found that the employability scale was incorrectly assessed by the original MA; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

Decision date: 24 March 2026| Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Douglas Andrews| Injury module: Psychological/Psychiatric

Barnett v Healthy Canteens Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 236

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; lump sum claim for injury to the left upper extremity; worker complained on appeal that the Medical Assessor (MA) did not rate for impairment Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and this assessment was inadequately reasoned; no error found on appeal; MA conducted a thorough physical examination, and the findings did not support a finding of CRPS which requires one sign to be present in each of four categories; only one sign found to be present namely, sensory; otherwise, there were no signs displayed in the vasomotor, sudomotor/odema or motor trophic categories; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 1 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Ross Mellick, and Dr Tommasino Mastroianni| Injury module: Left upper extremity

Lam v General Mills Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 238

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from assessment of 2% for injury to the right upper extremity; whether Medical Assessor erred in not assessing scarring; whether reasons adequate; Skates v Hills Industry Limited, Scone Race Club Ltd v Cottom, Jones v Registrar WCC, and Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd considered and applied; Held – scarring not referred; no submission that it had been part of the medical dispute agreed between the parties; presumption of regularity applied in absence of any basis but speculation regarding use of goniometer or whether active or passive range of motion applied; inconsistencies with other experts related only to measurements taken at different dates; appellant with an eye too keenly attuned to perception of error; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 2 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Alan Home, and Dr Drew Dixon | Injury module: Right Upper Extremity

RSL LifeCare Limited v Glass [2026] NSWPICMP 239

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; cervical spine and shoulder assessments; assessment of radiculopathy; insufficient reasons in Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) to determine whether radiculopathy assessable in accordance with the Guidelines; re-examination required; consideration of restriction in ADLs; where restriction in home care caused by shoulder injury, with no contribution from neck; Held – radiculopathy not found on re-examination; restriction in ADLs due to shoulder not neck; MAC revoked.

Decision date: 2 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member Parnel McAdam, Dr Rob Kuru, and Dr Gregory McGroder| Injury module: Cervical spine, and Left upper extremity

Bailey v O'Meara Property Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 240

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal against the 8% WPI assessment for psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) mischaracterised the conduct he referred to in the social and recreational activities category, when they were appropriate to the social functioning category; whether error in concentration persistence and pace category because MA took into account the claimant's successful completion of real estate license following the subject injury; whether error in one-tenth finding for section 323 because claimant had only a vulnerability; whether MA had failed to apply Chapter 11.8 of the Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed (the Guides); Held – claimant's submissions difficult to follow; acceptance of argument regarding mischaracterisation would have led to exactly the same whole person impairment; in any event, MA not restricted in assigning conduct to a particular category; Ballas v Department of Education (State of New South Wales), Diaz v Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd, and Lancaster v Foxtel Management considered; concentration persistence and pace class rating not compromised in the manner alleged by the claimant whose reliance on chapter 1.6a of the Guides turned a blind eye to all its requirements; claimant's pre-existing condition not a vulnerability as it had been the subject of proceedings and a substantial payment of compensation for the same diagnosable psychiatric condition from which the claimant continued to suffer; submission concerning Chapter 11.8 of the Guides not relevant; Held – MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 2 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr John Lam-Po-Tang, and Dr Michael Hong | Injury module: Psychological/Psychiatric

Salmi v Transform Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 245

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of the right lower extremity; whether the Medical Assessor failed to “aggregate injuries” or impairments arising from the same incident; assessment of 0% whole person impairment for the right lower extremity; alleged factual assumptions; purported fresh evidence Held – appeal misconceived; no error in assessment of the right lower extremity; no error in failure to “aggregate”; alleged factual assumptions not made; MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 7 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member Kathryn Camp, Dr Tim Anderson, and Dr Drew Dixon | Injury module: Left Lower Extremity, and Right Lower Extremity

Rushton v Secretary, Department of Education [2026] NSWPICMP 246

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from decision of Medical Assessor (MA); whether reasons of MA were sufficient; Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, Cole v Wenaline Pty Limited, Ryder v Sundance Bakehouse, and State of New South Wales v Hill considered; whether MA had due regard to lay and medical evidence; deduction under section 323; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 7 April 2026 | Panel Members: Member Mitchell Strachan, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr John Baker | Injury module: 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.