Aliprad v Abbey Manufacturing Group Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 169

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Aliprad v Abbey Manufacturing Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 169
APPLICANT:	Mark Aliprad
RESPONDENT:	Abbey Manufacturing Group Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	John Harris
DATE OF DECISION:	23 April 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act); injury in 2018; medical assessment in 2021; assessed at 8% whole person impairment (WPI); no appeal; subsequent extensive fusion of lumbar spine; accepted deterioration of permanent impairment; applicant seeking to rescind Certificate of Determination (COD) to pursue appeal for threshold purposes; entitlement to appeal Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) for threshold purposes where initial claim limited to compensation under section 66 of the 1987 Act; findings in Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice v Cannell; application of Skates v Hills Industries Ltd and subsequent Court of Appeal authorities; discussion of contextual provisions and meaning of “in connection with a claim” under section 319 of the 1998 Act; R v Khazaal applied; contextual provisions such as section 322A(2) of the 1998 Act showed medical assessment used for all purposes; assertion that applicant did not exercise due diligence in prior MAC rejected on facts; exercise of discretion; discussion of Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd, and Hurst v Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company; mistake or oversight only a factor and not determinative of discretion to rescind under section 57 of the PIC Act; Held – COD rescinded to allow applicant to appeal MAC for threshold entitlements.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: Finding 1. The applicant has suffered deterioration in the degree of permanent impairment as assessed in the medical assessment dated 2 November 2021. 2. The scope of the medical dispute is the assessment of permanent impairment for the lumbar spine and the right lower extremity (ankle/hindfoot). Orders 3. The Certificate of Determination dated 7 December 2021 is rescinded pursuant to s 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. 4. The applicant is directed to file an application to appeal the medical assessment dated 2 November 2021 within 14 days of the issuing of these reasons. That appeal is limited to an assessment for all threshold purposes of the degree of permanent impairment of the lumbar spine and right lower extremity (ankle/hindfoot).

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Mark Aliprad (the applicant) suffered an accepted work injury in the course of his employment with the respondent on 28 February 2018. He subsequently made a claim seeking compensation (at least) pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
In a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) dated 2 November 2021 the applicant was assessed at 8% whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of the injury. Medical Assessor Meakin assessed the applicant’s WPI at 6% for the lumbar spine and 2% for the right lower extremity (ankle). No other body parts were claimed or referred for assessment.
A Certificate of Determination was issued on 7 December…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aliprad v Abbey Manufacturing Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 169
Decision Date: 23 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Aliprad v Abbey Manufacturing Group Pty Ltd, the applicant, Aliprad, contested a Certificate of Determination (COD) issued by the respondent, Abbey Manufacturing Group Pty Ltd. Aliprad, who had suffered an injury in 2018, underwent a medical assessment in 2021 which assessed his whole person impairment at 8%. He did not appeal this assessment. However, Aliprad later experienced significant fusion of his lumbar spine, which he argued indicated a deterioration of his permanent impairment. He sought to rescind the COD to pursue an appeal for threshold purposes, specifically to challenge the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on the basis that the initial claim was limited to compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to rescind the COD to appeal the MAC for threshold purposes. This involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, and the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. The court considered the principles established in Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice v Cannell, Skates v Hills Industries Ltd, and subsequent Court of Appeal decisions. It examined the contextual provisions and the meaning of “in connection with a claim” under section 319 of the 1998 Act, and applied R v Khazaal. The court found that the medical assessment was used for all purposes, as indicated by provisions such as section 322A(2) of the 1998 Act.

The court rejected the argument that Aliprad had not exercised due diligence in the prior MAC, noting the specific facts of the case. It exercised its discretion under section 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, considering the factors in Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd and Hurst v Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company. The court held that a mistake or oversight was only one factor and not determinative of the discretion to rescind. Consequently, the court rescinded the COD to allow Aliprad to appeal the MAC for threshold entitlements.

Orders