Legal Bulletin No. 272

Issued 7 August 2026

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

Supreme Court Decisions

Mandoukos v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2026] NSWSC 911

Administrative law; jurisdictional error; judicial review of Review Panel decision; Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW); where plaintiff underwent spinal surgery to treat other injuries suffered in an accident; whether the surgical removal of bone from facet joints in the spine resulted in further “injury” as defined in section 1.4; where plaintiff suffered permanent physiological change as the result of the surgery; consent, therapeutic intent and successful treatment of symptoms of other injuries irrelevant to assessing physical consequences of surgery and whether they fall within definition of injury; error established; Panel’s certificate set aside; Held – Mr Mandoukos’ case must succeed; the parties are to confer and produce final proposed orders, including as to costs, within 14 days; together with short written submissions, in the event of any disagreement.

Decision date: 31 July 2026| Before: Schmidt AJ

Brewer v JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 917

Administrative law; judicial review; Appeal Panel of Personal Injury Commission; whether the Appeal Panel made an error of law by excluding the plaintiff’s belief as to her capacity to function without her husband’s support when rating the plaintiff’s functional impairment for the category of self care and personal hygiene; whether error material; Held – the decision of the third defendant dated 22 August 2025 is declared to be void and of no effect pursuant to section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); the decision of the third defendant is set aside; the matter is remitted to the President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales to be determined according to law; the first defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings; no order is made as to costs in respect of the second and third defendants.

Decision date: 31 July 2026| Before: Elkaim AJ

Jazairy v AAI Limited t/as GIO Insurance [2026] NSWSC 939

Administrative law; judicial review; judicial review of the decision of a review panel constituted under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW); where WPI threshold for availability of award of damages for non-economic loss is 10%; where the original assessor assessed 19% WPI but review panel assessed 7% WPI; whether review panel had to grant leave for the introduction of additional documents; whether failure to allow plaintiff to make a written response concerning the additional documents amounted to a denial of procedural fairness; whether assessor’s conduct and questions amounted to procedural unfairness or gave rise to an apprehension of bias; Held – The amended summons is dismissed; The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

Decision date: 6 August 2026| Before: Muston J

Rogers v Health Services Union NSW [2026] NSWSC 941

Administrative law; judicial review; judicial review of decision of medical Appeal Panel; claim for worker’s compensation; psychological injury; assessment of degree of permanent impairment;  consideration of “travel” under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale classes; whether Appeal Panel denied procedural fairness when making factual finding that plaintiff could travel without support person; where plaintiff did not request re-examination; whether Appeal Panel departed from the grounds of appeal when finding demonstrable error; summons dismissed; Held – the summons is dismissed; The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis.

Decision date: 6 August 2026| Before: Adams CJ

Presidential Member Decision

Bandara v Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICPD 30

Workers compensation; application to extend time for the bringing of an appeal pursuant to section 352(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and rule 133A of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; BOH v Engineering Solutions and Services Pty Limited [2025] NSWPICPD 76 considered; whether appeal lies from consent order or notation; whether impugned order was affected by error of fact law or discretion; Held – leave is granted to the respondent, pursuant to section 48 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner; the appellant’s application to extend time for bringing the appeal pursuant to section 352(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and rule 133A of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 is refused.

Decision date: 24 July 2026 | Before: Acting Deputy President Paul Sweeney

Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions

Lewis v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 427

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits; dispute about whether claimant wholly or mostly at fault; claimant sustained catastrophic injury in single vehicle accident; claimant had no recollection of events; police obtained evidence from a witness who estimated claimant’s speed at greater than 170 kmph; insurer denied liability on basis claimant was driving at excessive speed; parties obtained a joint report as to likely cause of accident; joint expert requested insurer obtain formal statement from independent witness; independent witness said, through an interpreter due to his poor English that claimant was driving normally at 70 – 80 kmph when he appeared to lose control; expert opined that the loss of control was caused by a medical episode relating to the claimant’s treatment; expert’s opinion accepted, no other likely cause of accident identified; matter assessed on papers; approach in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic applied; Held – no contributory negligence on part of claimant, claimant not wholly or mostly at fault.

Decision date: 23 July 2026| Member: Belinda Cassidy

Antoniou v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 428

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits; dispute about whether claimant wholly or mostly at fault; claimant riding motorcycle on Flinders Street Darlinghurst in median strip lane which was ending up ahead; insured driving taxi in middle lane; after proceedings commenced, dashcam footage was produced from the taxi showing claimant overtook taxi as lane ran out and braked suddenly; assessment undertaken on the papers; approach in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic followed; Member satisfied claimant departed from the standard of care and should not have overtaken, Verryt v Schoupp considered; Member satisfied insured departed from standard of care and should have been aware of the claimant overtaking him, Mamo v Surace considered; claimant’s contribution more significant and assessed at 80%; Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Limited followed; Held – claimant mostly at fault.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Member: Belinda Cassidy

Hill v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 436

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; liability and quantum in issue; insurer’s denial of liability upheld; claimant on motorcycle taking corner too wide into path of insured; insured’s action steering left to avoid collision reasonable; agony of moment; Zheng v Wallace, and Stuart v Walsh relied on; Held – no damages awarded; assessment of damages had claimant been successful provided at request of claimant.

Decision date: 27 July 2026| Member: Shana Radnan

Marcella v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPIC 437v

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits; insurer denies liability for ongoing benefits under sections 3.11 and 3.28 on basis claimant wholly or mostly at fault; claimant submitted she was parked and stationary; insured said he was driving past claimant when she pulled out and collided with the rear of his car; experts relied on by both parties; assessment conference with claimant and insured giving evidence; approach in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic considered and followed; Held – claimant was pulling out of parking place; insured was not speeding or travelling too close; accident caused wholly or mostly by the fault of the claimant.

Decision date: 28 July 2026| Member: Belinda Cassidy

Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions

Enlightening Care Services Pty Ltd v iCare Workers Insurance & Anor [2026] NSWPIC 425

Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant sought determination as to whether the applicant was liable to reimburse the first respondent for the amount sought by the first respondent, being weekly compensation and medical or related treatment expenses paid by the first respondent to and for the second respondent; applicant disputed the amount sought to be reimbursed, the second respondent was a worker or deemed worker, the second respondent’s calculated Pre-Injury Average Weekly Earnings (PIAWE), and the injury sustained by the second respondent; Held – the applicant is liable to reimburse the first respondent for weekly compensation payable to the second respondent based on a PIAWE of $2,436 (indexed) and the applicant is liable to reimburse the first respondent for medical or related treatment expenses paid by the first respondent to and for the second respondent; second respondent was a worker/or deemed worker at the time she allegedly sustained injury; second respondent’s PIAWE is $2,436, and the second respondent sustained injury as alleged.

Decision date: 22 July 2026 | Member: Jacqueline Snell

Sarson v State of New South Wales (Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District) [2026] NSWPIC 429

Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 11A; psychological injury; wholly or predominantly; Pirie v Franklins Ltd, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Fitzgerald JA in Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle, and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates considered and applied; Held – by and with the consent of the parties the date of injury in the Application to Resolve a Dispute is amended to 29 May 2025; the respondent has not made out a defence under section 11A(1); the respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Member: John Turner

Owens v Busways Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 430

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claim for weekly benefits compensation; respondent relying upon a defence to the applicant’s claim pursuant to section 11A(1); consideration of applicant’s and witnesses’ statements, business records and other factual material, CCTV footage, medical reports and other treatment records, as well as claim correspondence; consideration as to whether the respondent has a defence to the applicant’s compensation claim, pursuant to section 11A(1); in that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominately caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to discipline and/or dismissal; Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Limited v Doyle, Hamad v Q Catering Limited, Buxton v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd, Ritchie v Department of Community Services, Department of Education & Training v Sinclair, and Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie considered; Held – the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominately caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent with respect to discipline and dismissal; the respondent’s defence pursuant to section 11A(1) to the applicant’s claim in the Application to Resolve a Dispute, is made out; there is an award in favour of the respondent.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Member: Gaius Whiffin

Stuart v Crooke Brothers Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 431

Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant was injured in the course of his employment when was transferring a 20 kilogram box from a shelf; liability accepted for lumbar spine injury; in dispute was weekly payments pursuant to section 38 and whether the applicant is likely to indefinitely be incapable of undertaking further additional employment or work that would increase his current weekly earnings; dispute about weekly payments from 18 August 2025 to date and continuing; discussion of Macarthur Fresh Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Deitz and what is “likely”, late application to amend the Application to change the applicant’s ability to earn; Held – the applicant is likely to continue indefinitely to be incapable of undertaking further additional employment or work that would increase his current weekly earnings; weekly payments are payable from 18 August 2025 to date and continuing, except for two periods totalling six weeks when the applicant did not work; the applicant’s current weekly earnings to be the higher of his actual gross earnings or $778.14 ability to earn.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Member: Jeffrey Gabriel

Zillman v State of New South Wales (Fire & Rescue NSW) [2026] NSWPIC 432

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act); claim for benefits in respect of the death of a worker; liability admitted by respondent to pay lump sum pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act; determination needed as to those dependent on the worker for support; determination needed as to the applicant’s entitlements to interest pursuant to section 109 of the 1998 Act ; consideration of statement evidence, claim correspondence, and factual material; Held – no other person but the applicant was dependent on the worker for support; award entered in favour of the applicant in relation to the entire lump sum payable pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, together with agreed interest pursuant to section 109 of the 1998 Act.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Member: Gaius Whiffin

Mezban v M Power Spares Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] NSWPIC 433

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; claim for weekly compensation and medical treatment; subsection 4 and 5 whether applicant a worker or deemed to have been employed by the first respondent; worker disputed; first respondent uninsured; applicant statement evidence found to be unreliable; issues of credibility, inconsistency with earlier and other evidence; remainder of evidence insufficient to establish applicant’s claim to have been employed; Held – applicant not a worker; award respondents.

Decision date: 23 July 2026| Member: Adam Halstead

Stubbs v Emily Louise Knol t/as Ambition Disability Support Services [2026] NSWPIC 434

Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for payment of section 60 expenses with respect to proposed surgery to the applicant’s lumbar spine; dispute in relation to radiological evidence compared with the interpretation of treating neurosurgeon; conflict between evidence of respondent’s Independent Medical Expert (IME) and treating surgeon; inconsistency of opinion between the applicant’s qualified IME and treating surgeon; Held – that applicant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary medical treatment.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Member: Michael Moore

Bilal v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 435

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; weekly benefits; suspension of payments by insurer for non-attendance at Independent Medical Expert (IME) examination; whether a valid suspension; Consent Orders entered in previous proceedings; effect of previous orders entered.; the applicant suffered an accepted psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent; in September 2024, the respondent advised the applicant of an IME examination scheduled for November 2024; applicant did not attend the respondent suspended his weekly payments; in February 2025 in prior proceedings for weekly compensation, Consent Orders were entered to the effect the applicant would attend another IME examination and would provide the respondent with signed authorities addressed to his treating practitioners, whereupon the respondent would reinstate the applicant’s benefits; applicant neither provided the authorities nor attended any examination; applicant then brought these proceedings seeking weekly payments for the period from after the entering of the previous Consent Orders to the day before he lodged the present Application; Held – the respondent’s suspension of weekly benefits was valid award for the respondent.

Decision date: 24 July 2026 | Member: Cameron Burge

Clarke v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2026] NSWPIC 439

Workers Compensation Act 1987; hip injury; osteoarthritis; disease; aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration; sections 4, 9A, and 60; left hip total replacement; claim for cost of left total hip replacement surgery; injury on 21 November 2023 to lumbar spine; alleged injury to left hip; aggravation of underlying osteoarthritis; left hip symptoms masked by lumbar spine symptoms; dispute as to injury under section 4, as to substantial contributing factor under section 9A and as to treatment under section 60; Held – aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of left hip osteoarthritis injury arising out of employment under section 4(a); employment substantial contributing factor to injury per section 9A; aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of the left hip osteoarthritis in the course of his employment on 21 November 2023 to which the employment was the main contributing factor as per section 4(b)(ii); left total hip replacement surgery reasonably necessary treatment; respondent to pay applicants costs as agreed or assessed.

Decision date: 28 July 2026 | Senior Member: Susan McTegg

Charlesworth v Waratah Labour Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPIC 440

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; lump sum claim in respect of accepted back injury and consequential respiratory condition; dispute in respect of alleged consequential digestive condition; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Ltd discussed and applied; Held – worker developed a consequential condition in his digestive system due to ingestion of medication as a result of his accepted back injury.

Decision date: 28 July 2026 | Principal Member: Glenn Capel

Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions

Singh v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPICMP 475

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; panel review of medical assessment; whether injury caused by the motor accident is a threshold injury for the purposes of the Act; causation issue; ankle injury on background of prior traumatic injury to same body part; non-disclosure of prior surgery and symptoms; whether mechanism of injury could give rise to injury to ankle; chronic pre-existing osteoarthritis of the ankle; inconsistencies in evidence and during AVL re-examination; Held – alleged impact of ankle with centre console not capable of contributing to pathology in the ankle; minor soft tissue injury only that would have resolved; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 7 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Shane Maloney, and Dr Mohammed Assem| Injury module: Lower Limb

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Khan [2026] NSWPICMP 498

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; panel review of medical assessment; whether psychological injury caused by the motor accident is a threshold injury for the purposes of the Act; assertion of inconsistencies, and evidence not supportive of diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder found by original Medical Assessor; no evidence of pre-existing psychological injury; assertion that airbags not deployed not made out on the evidence; diagnosis of major depressive disorder; Held – injury not a threshold injury for the purposes of the Act; new certificate issued due to difference in diagnosis.

Decision date: 13 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Elizabeth Medland, Dr Surabhi Verma, and Dr Christopher Canaris | Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v BSZ [2026] NSWPICMP 532

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; insurer’s application for Review under section 7.26 of Medical Assessor (MA) assessment of 25% whole person impairment (WPI); claimant bicyclist injured following collision with a car; claimant sustained head injury and fractured right femur; seven months after the accident claimant diagnosed with hypothalamic hypogonadism; claimant self-represented and insurer referred injuries and conditions for assessment; claimant was, before the accident an ultramarathon runner with a low body weight; claimant alleged her periods were regular before the accident and ceased sometime after the accident; claimant re-examined and parts of her history clarified in a teleconference; Review Panel of the view claimant was an unreliable historian due to poor memory; discussion of causation generally; Review Panel not satisfied hypothalamic hypogonadism was caused by the accident; no impairment resulting from any injury to the gonads; Held – certificate of MA (and combined medical certificate) revoked and fresh certificate issued.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr Michael Gorman, and Dr Norman Chan| Injury module: Urinary and Reproductive Systems

BSZ v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPICMP 533

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant’s application for Review under section 7.26 of Medical Assessor (MA) assessment of whole person impairment (WPI); claimant bicyclist injured in December 2017 following collision with a car; claimant sustained head injury and fractured right femur; about seven months after the accident claimant diagnosed with osteoporosis; claimant self-represented and insurer referred injuries and conditions for assessment; claimant was, before the accident an ultramarathon runner with a low body weight; she had previous stress fractures and an insufficiency fracture in 2014; bone mineral density testing five months after the accident revealed ‘marked osteoporosis’; claimant re-examined and parts of her history clarified in a teleconference; Review Panel of the view claimant was an unreliable historian due to poor memory; Review Panel not satisfied osteoporosis was caused by the accident; no impairment resulting from an injury to the endocrine system; certificate of MA confirmed.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr Michael Gorman, and Dr Norman Chan| Injury module: Endocrine System

Bonkain v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 537

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); permanent impairment dispute; psychiatric injury; claimant was a police constable in a police car driven by a colleague when it was hit by a truck with impact of collision on claimant’s side door; ruptured fuel tank and claimant could smell petrol; claimant fearful of being incinerated; original medical assessment certificate (MAC) diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and persistent depressive disorder and assessed impairment at 8% whole person impairment (WPI); Review Panel re-examined and diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder; Review Panel did not find persistent depressive disorder as claimant remains able to derive enjoyment from gardening with his children and partook in hunting trips; pre-accident history as police officer exposed claimant to other traumatic events however the claimant was well psychologically and there were no psychiatric diagnoses; delay of two years before emergence of psychological symptoms, however Review Panel accepted claimant’s explanation of containing those symptoms as he did not want them to affect future job prospects, including training to become a detective; subsequent workplace events including claimant’s refusal to undergo COVID-19 vaccine triggered previously contained post-traumatic stress symptoms; Held –  Review Panel satisfied on balance that “but for” the psychological symptoms associated from the motor accident, the claimant would not have suffered from the post-traumatic stress disorder which was triggered by subsequent work-related events; State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley referred to and Oakley category 1 applied; Review Panel assessed 8% WPI; injury diagnoses differed from original MAC; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.

Decision date: 24 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Jeremy Lum, Dr Christopher Rikard-Bell, and Dr Surabhi Verma| Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Park v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPICMP 538

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured as a pedestrian in July 2023; dispute as to whole person impairment (WPI); Medical Assessor (MA) determined WPI was 10%; insurer made an application for review; Held – Review Panel found WPI at 6%; certificate of MA revoked.

Decision date: 24 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Mohammed Assem | Injury module: Right Lower Limb, and Scarring

Sleiman v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 539

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; threshold psychological injury dispute under section 1.6(3); claimant suffered injury in an accident 4 May 2024; general anxiety disorder existing before accident; Medical Assessor found the accident caused post-traumatic stress disorder; not a threshold injury; insurer sought review; Held – claimant had experienced relevant psychological symptoms since the accident; accident aggravated existing general anxiety disorder; certificate revoked on basis of different clinical finding; not a threshold injury.

Decision date: 24 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Terence O'Riain, Dr Paul Friend, and Dr Abhishek Nagesh| Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Taek v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA [2026] NSWPICMP 545

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; assessment of threshold injury; claimant was the restrained front-seat passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a motor vehicle accident; insured vehicle struck the front left side of the car in which the claimant was travelling; claimant says he immediately felt pain in his neck and right shoulder, as well as lower back and each knee; claimant continues to have pain in his neck and right shoulder, but is not currently receiving any active treatment; claimant says no subsequent injury or condition has occurred since the subject accident; Medical Assessor (MA) certified that injuries to cervical spine and right shoulder caused by accident are threshold; MA noted MRI scan of right shoulder which indicated ill-defined surface fraying of subscapularis tendon, otherwise intact; claimant’s review application allowed on basis that MA applied incorrect test for tears; claimant re-examined by another MA on behalf of Review Panel; MA found accident caused soft tissue injury to cervical spine and right shoulder subscapularis tendinosis with surface fraying; Review Panel satisfied that is a partial rupture of tendon which is a non-threshold injury; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

Decision date: 27 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Gary Victor Patterson, Dr David Gorman, and Dr Les Barnsley| Injury module: Spine, and Upper Limb

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Fosse [2026] NSWPICMP 547

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment certificate (MAC) regarding assessment of permanent impairment (WPI); right foot and ankle injuries; assessment undertaken post-surgery; no issue as to causation; consideration of post-traumatic arthritis; determination that range of motion method most appropriate to assess permanent impairment of lower extremity; assessment of skin using TEMSKI; Held – claimant’s permanent impairment arising from her accident caused injuries assessed as 11% WPI, being greater than 10%; same WPI evaluation as original Medical Assessor, however based on a different diagnosis and method of assessment; accordingly MAC revoked.

Decision date: 28 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Bianca Montogomery-Hribar, Dr Michael Couch, and Dr Rhys Gray| Injury module: Lower Limb

Sawka v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 548

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant’s application for review under section 7.26 of medical assessment of whole person impairment at 7%; claimant 14 years of age at time of accident, now 18 years old; injuries alleged both shoulders, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine and head; issue of causation of lumbar spine injury; claimant assessed by one Medical Assessor; lumbar spine injury considered accident related, impairment assessed at 5%. Held – certificate of original Medical Assessor revoked, no issue of principle.

Decision date: 28 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Belinda Cassidy, Dr Ian Cameron, and Dr Les Barnsley | Injury module: Brain Injury, Spine, and Upper Limb

Nikolovski v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 549

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured in a motor vehicle accident in September 2024; neck injury, multiple disc bulges at C4/5 and C5/6 and disc ridge complexes at C3/4 and C6/7, indenting the thecal sac, referred to Medical Assessor (MA); MRI cervical spine reported multi-level degenerative changes; reasoning in David v Allianz Australia Ltd adopted that radiculopathy can be present at any time to establish injury non-threshold; Review Panel found C6/7 radiculopathy with reduced biceps reflex, biceps wasting and decreased sensation in right index finger; presence of three definite signs of right C6 radiculopathy (sensory change, atrophy and loss of biceps reflex) was a non-threshold injury; Held – Review Panel revoked certificate of MA and substituted determination that the injury was a non-threshold injury.

Decision date: 28 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Terence Stern OAM, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr David Gorman| Injury module: Spine

Wannous v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 553

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; assessment of threshold injury; claimant was on his way to work driving towards the M5 and came to a halt just before a roundabout; insured vehicle collided with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle which was shunted into the Ute in front of it ; claimant was conveyed to hospital; claimant complained of pain in the back of his head, neck and lower back with psychological sequelae; claimant denies any history of psychiatric illness; Medical Assessor (MA) certified the motor accident caused claimant to suffer an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which is a threshold injury; claimant’s review application allowed by President’s Delegate for failure to put inconsistencies to claimant; both Review Panel MAs re-examined and diagnosed a threshold injury, being an adjustment disorder with anxiety; Held – Review Panel revoked certificate because diagnosed injury has a different diagnostic code, despite same result.

Decision date: 29 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Gary Victor Patterson, Dr Paul Friend, and Dr Melissa Barrett| Injury module: Mental and Behavioural

Heidtman v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 554

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of medical assessment; assessment of degree of whole person impairment (WPI); pre-existing left knee problems; x-ray shows no fracture or bony trauma; ongoing low back pain; neurological examination unremarkable; report of lower back pain; diagnosis of soft tissue injury to cervical spine; diagnosis of soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine; aggravation of a symptomatic discoid lateral meniscus; assessment of WPI caused by the subject accident is assessed at 4%.

Decision date: 29 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Hugh Macken, Dr Mohammad Assem, and Dr Drew Dixon| Injury module: Spine, and Lower Limb

Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions

Colbert v Australia Wide Coaches [2026] NSWPICMP 535

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal against one-third  section 323 deduction for 78 year old bus driver right knee injury: whether Medical Assessor (MA) had considered all the evidence; whether injury was a simple twist; Held – MA reasons only concerned with diagnosis of severe degenerative disease; application of section 323 requires consideration of all the evidence; Elcheikh v Diamond Formwork (NSW) Pty Ltd applied; MA failed to consider that after 56 years employment as a coach driver and at 75 years of age; claimant had been asymptomatic at time of injury; evidence demonstrated that injury mechanism involved more than simple twist of the knee; contribution to baseline whole person impairment undoubted in view of imaging confirmation of severe osteoarthritis, but one-third assessment excessive Medical Assessment Certificate revoked and deduction of a one-quarter substituted.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Tommasino Mastroianni, and Dr Doron Sher | Injury module: Right Lower Extremity, and Scarring (TEMSKI)

CT Signs Pty Ltd v Ladner [2026] NSWPICMP 536

Workers Compensation Act 1987; respondent suffered right shoulder injury assessed at 19% whole person impairment and 18% for obstructive sleep apnoea; provision of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy following medical assessment; fresh evidence of recent treatment admitted; appeal limited to assessment of respiratory condition; discussion of American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 5 and fourth edition guidelines regarding assessment of sleep disorders under the respiratory chapter for obstructive sleep apnoea; Arch-Systems Fabrication Pty Ltd v McCann considered and applied; appellant re-examined for the purposes of determining the effects on the activities of daily living following further treatment; consideration of CPAP therapy for treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea; finding made that ongoing sleep disorder due to insomnolence; obstructive sleep apnoea did not materially contribute to impairment of sleep disorder; Held – appeal allowed; respondent assessed at 3% for the effects of treatment; combined certificate issued for 21%.

Decision date: 23 July 2026 | Panel Members: Principal Member John Harris, Associate Professor Christopher Grainge, and Dr David Gorman| Injury module: Right Upper Extremity, and Respiratory System

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v Field [2026] NSWPICMP 540

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; whole person impairment compensation; deduction for preexisting pathology in the nature of osteoarthritis to the right knee; whether the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) contains a demonstrable error or was made on the basis of incorrect criteria; the Medical Assessor (MA) made a deduction of 25%, which the appellant submitted MAC discloses was inadequate having regard to the totality of the evidence; Held – the amount of any deduction for preexisting pathology is to be determined by exercising clinical judgment having regard to the evidence before the MA; the MAC discloses no demonstrable error on the part of the MA, nor did the MA use incorrect criteria; the findings of the MA were open to him on the evidence in the exercise of his clinical judgment; MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 24 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Cameron Burge, Dr James Bodel, and Dr Mohammed Assem| Injury module: Right Lower Extremity, and Scarring (TEMSKI)

Francis v Save the Children Australia [2026] NSWPICMP 541

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appellant submits that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in his assessment of a class 4 impairment, rather than a class 5 impairment; in relation to ‘Employability’, a class 1 impairment rather than a class 2 impairment in relation to ‘self-care and personal hygiene’; the appellant submits that the MA made a demonstrable error and applied incorrect criteria when assessing a section 323 deduction; Held – MA may have erred in the manner alleged by the appellant; re-examination; panel found no errors; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 24 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr Michael Hong, and Dr Graham Blom| Injury module: Psychiatric/Psychological

Carter v Sodexo Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 542

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; lump sum claim for injury to the bilateral hips; worker appealed because the Medical Assessor made a 100% deduction under section 323 from both hips and found that maximum medical improvement had not been reached in respect of the left hip but a deduction of 100% would apply in any event; Held – the Appeal Panel found error and considered a re-examination was necessary in the circumstances; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

Decision date: 24 July 2026| Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr James Bodel, and Dr Gregory McGroder| Injury module: Right Lower Extremity, Left Lower Extremity, and Lumbar Spine

Marangon v Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 543

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from 14% whole person impairment (WPI) for wrist injuries and consequential neck condition; whether one-tenth section 323(2) deduction erroneous, whether 1% modifier for activities of daily living (ADLs) was erroneous, whether 0% WPI Table for the Evaluation of Minor Skin Impairment  assessment erroneous; Held – general principles discussed; one-tenth open as no medical contest established by evidence; Campbelltown City Council v Vegan applied; claim regarding ADLs misconceived; chapter 4.33 of American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment considered, scarring claim contrary to claimant’s medicolegal expert; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date:  24 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Drew Dixon, and Dr Andrew Porteous | Injury module: Right Upper Extremity, Left Upper Extremity, and Cervical Spine

McVey v Provincial Home Living [2026] NSWPICMP 544

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal against 7% whole person impairment assessment for psychological injury; whether demonstrable errors made, whether incorrect criteria applied, whether class ratings for all categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale except social and recreational activities were erroneous, and whether adequate reasons given;  in considering the descriptors, a person’s motives for her behaviour is not relevant, neither is her subjective feelings whilst so engaging, further, a Medical Assessor (MA) is not required to consider all the evidence; Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak applied; whilst an MA is required to consider all the material before him, his clinical observations are pre-eminent; NSW Police Force v Wark, and Ferguson v State of New South Wales applied;  Held – all ratings confirmed, as pre-eminence of MA’s observations crucial in a case which contained inconsistencies and contradictions from the claimant’s evidence including an allegation that she had lost weight as a result of her lack of self-care when clinical notes showed she had been prescribed Ozempic during relevant periods; an allegation that the loss of a 9 year relationship had been caused by the injury which contemporaneous evidence did not support in social functioning; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 24 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Wynyard, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr Michael Hong| Injury module: Psychiatric/Psychological

Fuente v Menangle Civil Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 546

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998;  claim for whole person impairment (WPI) for right upper extremity and scarring; reference to scarring omitted in referral to Medical Assessor (MA) despite being listed in Application to Resolve a Dispute; MA only assesses WPI for right upper extremity; consideration of Skates v Hills Industries Ltd (Skates); Held – in accordance with principle set out in Skates there was a demonstrable error by the failure of the MA to assess scarring because that was a dispute “crystallised” in correspondence between the parties; re-examination required for assessment of scarring; Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) revoked; new MAC issued.

Decision date: 27 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Isaksen, Dr Michael McGlynn, and Dr Roger Pillemer | Injury module: Right Upper Extremity, and Scarring (TEMSKI)

Flegg v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWPICMP 550

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; the appellant submitted the Medical Assessor (MA) did not correctly apply the psychiatric injury rating scale (PIRS), the MA failed to give adequate reasons, the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) failed to take into account relevant considerations, and the MA denied the appellant procedural fairness; Appeal Panel found reasons adequate; appellant challenged five of the PIRS ratings; no errors except in the category of employability; Held – MAC revoked.

Decision date: 28 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Professor Nicholas Glozier, and Dr Graham Blom | Injury module: Psychiatric/Psychological

Roberts v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2026] NSWPICMP 551

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment by Medical Assessor of a psychological injury under the psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS); appeal on the grounds of the assessment being made on the basis of incorrect criteria and demonstrable error; appeal in respect of the assessment in the PIRS scale of social and recreational activities; Appeal Panel found no error in the assessment in the scale of social and recreational activities and were satisfied that the assessment was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 28 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Carolyn Rimmer, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr John Lam-Po-Tang| Injury module: Psychiatric/Psychological

Mitchell v MidCoast Council [2026] NSWPICMP 552

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998;  worker submits that Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) contained  demonstrable error and/or the application of incorrect criteria in assessment of psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS) categories of social and recreational activities, and concentration, persistence, and pace; Parker v Select Civil Pty Ltd considered; Held – no demonstrable error or incorrect criteria in assessment of PIRS categories of social and recreational activities or concentration, persistence, and pace; MAC confirmed.

Decision date: 28 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member John Isaksen, Dr Douglas Andrews, and Dr John Lam-Po-Tang | Injury module: Psychiatric/Psychological

HQG Pty Ltd v Ellis [2026] NSWPICMP 527

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; lump sum claim; employer appealed in respect of the cervical spine; no complaint about overall level of whole person impairment assessment; complaint on appeal that the Medical Assessor made no deduction under section 323 in respect of the cervical spine; the Appeal Panel found error and found that a deduction of one-tenth should have been made to take account of the contribution to the level of permanent impairment assessed of the underlying degenerative changes in the cervical spine; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

Decision date: 31 July 2026 | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Roger Pillemer, and Dr Robert Kuru| Injury module: Cervical Spine, Right Upper Extremity, and Left Upper Extremity

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.