Apps v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice

In the matter of Apps v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice, the worker sought a lump sum compensation claim following injuries to various parts of his body, including his cervical spine, lumbar spine, left upper extremity (shoulder), and lower left extremity (knee, foot, and ankle). The central dispute before the court was whether the worker’s lumbar spine should be included in the referral to a Medical Assessor (MA) for evaluation, given that no impairment was identified in this area. The matter was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issues the court needed to address revolved around the validity of the worker’s claim for impairment of the lumbar spine and the procedural requirements for making such a claim. Specifically, the court had to determine if the worker had made a valid claim for the lumbar spine injury that could form the basis of a “medical dispute,” and whether the referral to a MA was appropriate. The court examined the principles established in relevant authorities and the case of Shankar v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd, focusing on the requirements for a valid claim and the process for referral to a MA.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the claim was based on the combined assessment of the worker’s medicolegal doctor, which did not include any impairment assessment of the lumbar spine. Consequently, no valid claim had been made regarding any impairment to the lumbar spine that could be referred for assessment by a MA. The court held that the matter should be referred to a MA to assess the combined degree of permanent impairment resulting from the body parts to which rateable impairment had been identified by the worker’s medicolegal doctor.

The court’s decision highlighted the importance of a clear and valid claim for each body part to be assessed, and the need for procedural correctness in referring claims to a MA. The matter was ultimately referred to a MA for the assessment of the identified impairments, excluding the lumbar spine, in line with the court’s findings.