Alder-Blackmore v Kurri Kurri Community Services Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 718

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Alder-Blackmore v Kurri Kurri Community Services Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 718
APPELLANT:	Vanessa Lee Alder-Blackmore
RESPONDENT:	Kurri Kurri Community Services Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
DATE OF DECISION:	17 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment by Medical Assessor (MA) of 7% whole person impairment (WPI) for primary psychiatric condition; appeal under sections 327(3)(c) and (d) for failure to comply with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) in respect of the history of suicidal ideation and alcohol use disorder; Appeal Panel satisfied that the MA complied with the Guidelines; Appeal Panel satisfied that grounds of appeal in relation to the assessments in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories (self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace) were not made out; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 14 July 2025 Vanessa Lee Alder-Blackmore (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Alan Doris, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 16 June 2025.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The delegate is satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has conducted a review of the original medical assessment but limited to the ground(s) of appeal on which the appeal is made.
Rule 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the PIC Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 - Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes set out the practice and procedure in relation to the medical appeal process under s 328 of the 1998 Act. An Appeal Panel determines its own procedures in accordance with r 128(1) of the PIC Rules.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant suffered a primary psychological injury deemed to have occurred on
20 May 2022 in her employment as a support worker with Kurri Kurri Community Services Limited (the respondent).
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 24 February 2025 in which she claimed lump sum compensation in respect the injury to her lumbar spine.
The matter was referred to Dr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alder-Blackmore v Kurri Kurri Community Services Ltd

Details

AGLC: Alder-Blackmore v Kurri Kurri Community Services Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 718
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 718
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alder-Blackmore v Kurri Kurri Community Services Ltd involved a dispute concerning the assessment of a worker's compensation claim. The appellant, Alder-Blackmore, appealed the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by the respondent, Kurri Kurri Community Services Ltd, which assessed the appellant's whole person impairment (WPI) at 7% for a primary psychiatric condition. The matter was heard by an Appeal Panel under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The legal issues before the Appeal Panel were whether the Medical Assessor (MA) had failed to comply with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed 1 March 2021, specifically regarding the history of suicidal ideation and alcohol use disorder. The appellant also argued that the MA's assessments in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories (self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace) were incorrect. The Panel needed to determine if the grounds of appeal were substantiated and if the MAC should be confirmed or overturned.

The Appeal Panel found that the MA had indeed complied with the Guidelines and that the assessments in the PIRS categories were appropriate. The Panel concluded that the MA's methodology was sound and that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiencies in the assessment process. As such, the grounds of appeal were not made out. The Appeal Panel confirmed the MAC, upholding the 7% WPI rating for the appellant's primary psychiatric condition.

As a result of the Appeal Panel's decision, the MAC was confirmed, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed. The Panel found no merit in the appellant's contentions that the MA had failed to comply with the Guidelines or that the assessments in the PIRS categories were incorrect. The appellant's appeal was accordingly rejected, and the original MAC remained in place.

Orders