Bedford v N Alchin & H Doll t/as Nathan Alchin Shearing

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Bedford v N Alchin & H Doll t/as Nathan Alchin Shearing [2025] NSWPIC 76
APPLICANT:	Lucas Noel Bedford
RESPONDENT:	N Alchin & H Doll t/as Nathan Alchin Shearing
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	7 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act); Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act); application to amend Certificate of Determination for “obvious error”; slip rule considered; section 57 of the PIC Act considered; section 325(3) of the 1998 Act considered; Grafton Aged Care Home Pty Limited v Wilkes, Wang v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Limited, Newell v John Bruce trading as Tarawa Rural Partnership, Mansour v Bankstown Trotting & Recreational Club, and McGowan v Secretary, Department of Education and Communities considered; Held – the Certificate of Determination dated 15 October 2024 does not contain any “obvious error” for the purposes of section 57 of the PIC Act; the Medical Assessment Certificate dated 9 September 2024 does not contain any “obvious error” for the purposes of section 325(3) of the 1998 Act; the application to amend the Certificate of Determination dated 15 October 2024 is denied.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. That the Certificate of Determination dated 15 October 2024 does not contain any “obvious error” for the purposes of s 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. 2. The Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 9 September 2024 does not contain any “obvious error” for the purposes of s 325(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 3. The application to amend the Certificate of Determination dated 15 October 2024 is denied. 4. The Commission declines to issue or approve Medical Assessor Kuru, issuing a replacement Medical Assessment Certificate. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Lucas Noel Bedford, the applicant, filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 3 March 2023 against “N Alchin & H Doll t/as Nathan Alchin Shearing” (the respondent).
In the ARD the applicant alleged that he sustained injury to his neck, left arm, both shoulders, both elbows, both wrists, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, both knees, both ankles and both hips on the deemed date of 15 October 2019 (deemed) due to the nature and conditions of his employment which allegedly involved repeated bending and lifting of heavy weights.
Relevantly for present purposes the applicant claimed compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for permanent impairment of the lumbar spine, cervical spine, left upper extremity, right upper extremity, right lower extremity and left lower extremity.
The matter came before Member Michael McGrowdie who determined in a Certificate of Determination (COD) dated 21 August 2023 that the matter be remitted to the President of the Commission for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess whole person impairment (WPI) of the applicant’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, left upper extremity (wrist and shoulder), right upper extremity (wrist and shoulder), left lower extremity (knee), right lower extremity (knee) and right hip as a result of injury on the deemed date of 15 December 2019.
A Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) of Medical Assessor Rob Kuru was issued dated
25 October 2023. In the MAC, Medical Assessor Kuru recorded that the applicant was referred for WPI assessment of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left upper extremity (wrist and shoulder), right upper extremity (wrist and shoulder), left lower extremity (knee) and right lower extremity (knee and hip) for a deemed date of injury of 15 December 2019.
Medical Assessor Kuru assessed due to injury sustained on 15 December 2019 (deemed):
(a)    12% WPI of the lumbar spine;
(b)    9% WPI of the left upper extremity (shoulder and wrist);
(c)    Medical Assessor Kuru found the right upper extremity had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and as a result no impairment assessment was provided;
(d)    1% WPI of the left lower extremity (knee);
(e)    0% WPI of the right lower extremity (hip and knee), and
(f)    0% WPI of the cervical spine.
Medical Assessor Kuru assessed a total combined loss of 21% WPI.
The applicant appealed the MAC. A Medical Appeal Panel (MAP) constituted of Member Perrignon, Medical Assessor John Brian Stephenson and Medical Assessor Alan Home was constituted to consider the appeal. The MAP identified demonstrable error in the assessment of the cervical spine, the lumbar spine and the making of deductions for pre-existing conditions of the lower extremities and referred the applicant for examination by MAP medical member, Medical Assessor Home. On 21 March 2024 the MAP revoked the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru and replaced it with a MAC which had been adopted by the MAP following the examination by Medical Assessor Home. The MAP MAC assessed the following after deductions for pre-existing conditions:
(a)    0% WPI of the cervical spine;
(b)    15% WPI of the lumbar spine;
(c)    9% WPI of the left upper extremity (shoulder and wrist);

(d)    confirmed that the right upper extremity had not reached MMI and as a result no impairment assessment was provided;
(e)    1% WPI of the left lower extremity (knee), and
(f)    0% WPI of the right lower extremity (hip and knee).

The MAP MAC assessed a combined impairment of 24% WPI.

Under cover of correspondence dated 9 April 2024 addressed to the Commission the solicitors for the applicant requested that the applicant be reassessed by Medical Assessor Robert Kuru to determine whether he had reached MMI of the right upper extremity.
On 23 April 2024 the solicitors for the applicant wrote to the Commission requesting that the Commission make arrangements for the applicant to be referred back to Medical Assessor Kuru. The applicant’s solicitors requested that Medical Assessor Kuru be provided with the decision of the MAP.
On 7 May 2024 the solicitors for the respondent emailed the Commission advising that the “Respondent does not object to the worker being re-examined by the Medical Assessor in October 2024 to determine whether he is MMI for his right upper extremity.”
The Commission referred the applicant back to Medical Assessor Kuru issuing a further referral dated 29 July 2024. The referral identified the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left upper extremity (wrist and shoulder), right upper extremity (wrist and shoulder), left lower extremity (knee) and right lower extremity (knee and right hip) for assessment of WPI. The further referral records that the documents attached to the brief provided to the Medical Assessor included the application and attached documents, Reply and attached documents, all late documents lodged in the matter, the MAC issued by Medical Assessor Kuru and correspondence relating to the restoration request. A copy of the Member’s COD was also attached to the further referral. The further referral does not refer to the decision of the MAP or the MAP MAC having been provided to Medical Assessor Kuru.
On 9 September 2024 further MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru was issued which assessed due to injury on 15 December 2019 (deemed) after deduction for pre-existing conditions:
(a)    12% WPI of the lumbar spine;
(b)    7% WPI of the left upper extremity (shoulder and wrist);
(c)    8% WPI of the right upper extremity (shoulder and wrist);
(d)    1% WPI of the left lower extremity (knee);
(e)    0% WPI of the right lower extremity (hip and knee), and
(f)    0% WPI of the cervical spine.
Medical Assessor Kuru assessed a combined loss of 26% WPI.
Medical Assessor Kuru noted in the MAC the body parts referred for impairment assessment as per the referral and the documents referred by the Commission as being listed in the referral. The MAC contains no reference to the previous MAP MAC that I have been able to identify.
On 15 October 2024 the Commission issued a COD which relevantly ordered the respondent to pay the applicant compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act in respect of 26% WPI in accordance with the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 9 September 2024.
On 26 November 2024 the solicitors for the applicant requested that the parties be provided with a copy of all documents relating to the restoration request. On 27 November 2024 the Commission wrote to the applicant’s solicitors advising that restoration documents sent to the Medical Assessor included the letter from the applicant’s solicitors dated 9 April 2024 and the MAC dated 25 October 2023 however made no reference to the MAP decision or the MAP MAC.
The applicant seeks to have the COD dated 15 October 2024 amended pursuant to the “slip rule” in accordance with “Practice Direction 4. Correction of ‘obvious error’.” I take the reference to “Practice Direction 4” to have been made in error and that what the applicant intended to refer to was “Procedural Direction PIC7 – Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and corrections of obvious errors in medical disputes” (PIC7).
The applicant takes issue with the assessment by Medical Assessor Kuru in the MAC dated 9 September 2024 in respect to the lumbar spine and left upper extremity (shoulder and wrist). In the applicant’s submission Medical Assessor Kuru was “bound” by the MAP’s decision dated 21 March 2024 and should have adopted the 15% WPI of the lumbar spine and 9% WPI of the left upper extremity (shoulder and wrist) as assessed in the MAP MAC. In the applicant’s submission if Medical Assessor Kuru had adopted the said assessment in the MAP MAC the applicant would have a combined impairment assessment of 30% WPI.
The applicant seeks to have the COD dated 15 October 2024 amended to award the applicant compensation for 30% WPI in the amount of $85,785. The applicant also seeks interest on “his lump sum entitlements from 14/10/2024 until payment is made.”
Whilst the applicant submits that the MAC dated 9 September 2024 should have assessed 15% WPI in respect to the lumbar spine and 9% WPI in respect to the left upper extremity (shoulder and wrist) and assessed a combined assessment of 30% WPI the applicant does not in his submissions seek amendment of the said MAC.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) whether the COD dated 15 October 2024 should be amended by way of correction of “obvious error”.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
The parties at a preliminary conference agreed to the determination of the matter on the papers without a conciliation conference/arbitration hearing. A Direction was given for written submissions.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    documents attached to an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged on behalf of the applicant dated 18 April 2023;
(d)    documents attached to an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged on behalf of the respondent dated 4 June 2023;
(e)    documents attached to two Applications to Admit late documents lodged on behalf of the respondent dated 5 June 2023;
(f)    documents attached to Application to Admit Late Documents lodged on behalf of the applicant dated 1 August 2023;
(g)    COD dated 21 August 2023;
(h)    request from the applicant’s solicitors dated 28 October 2024 seeking amendment of “obvious error”;
(i)    respondent’s submissions dated 5 November 2024;
(j)    applicant’s submissions dated 16 January 2025 with attachments, and
(k)    respondent’s submissions dated 29 January 2025 with attachments.

Oral evidence

No oral evidence was adduced.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The applicant seeks an “amendment pursuant to the Slip Rule in accordance with Practice Direction No. 4, Correction of ‘obvious error’.” The amendment which the applicant has requested is to the COD dated 15 October 2024 only, however the requested amendment to the COD is in response to alleged errors contained in the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 9 September 2024.
The letter serving the applicant’s initial submissions on the solicitors for the respondent dated 31 October 2024 specifically advised that a reconsideration was not being sought, and that the applicant was seeking an amendment pursuant to the slip rule.
The applicant’s submissions contain no references to any case law or statutory provisions supporting the submission that the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 9 September 2024 contains an “obvious error”.
The respondent submits that the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 9 September 2024 is correct based on Medical Assessor Kuru’s independent observations and examinations and findings. In the respondent’s submission the COD correctly reflects the 9 September 2024 MAC assessment. In the respondent's submission Medical Assessor Kuru was not bound to follow the MAP MAC and there is no “obvious error”.

Obvious error

Section 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) states:
“57 Reconsideration of decisions of Commission
(1)     The Commission may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with by the Commission in the Workers Compensation Division or Police Officer Support Scheme Division and rescind, alter or amend any decision previously made or given by the Commission in that Division.
(2)    If after the making of a decision by the Commission (and without limiting subsection (1)), the President is satisfied that the decision contains an obvious error, the President may—
(a)     alter the decision to correct the error, or
(b)     direct a registrar to alter the decision to correct the error.
(3)    Without limiting subsection (2), if the decision is contained in a certificate, the President may—
(a)     issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected, or
(b)     direct a registrar to issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected.
(4)    If a decision is altered, the altered decision is taken to be the decision and notice of the alteration is to be given to the parties in the proceedings in the manner directed by the President.
(5)     If a replacement certificate is issued, the certificate prevails over any previous certificate.
(6)    Examples of obvious errors in a decision are where—
(a)     there is an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of the notice or statement, or
(b)    there is an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or
(c)    there is a defect of form, or
(d)    there is an inconsistency between the stated decision and the stated reasons.”
Section 325(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) states:
“If the President is satisfied that a medical assessment certificate contains an obvious error, the President may issue, or approve of the medical assessor issuing, a replacement medical assessment certificate to correct the error.”
Many courts and tribunals have what are referred to as a “slip rule” such as Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 which allows the court to correct a mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order, or a certificate.
The expression “slip rule” can also refer to an inherent power of a court to vary an order it has made if it does not express the intention of the order. The Commission has neither a “slip rule” nor does it have the inherent powers of a court.
For present purposes the Commission has the power to correct “obvious error” pursuant to s 57 of the PIC Act in respect to the COD and s 325(3) of the 1998 Act in respect to the MAC. There are also reconsideration powers contain in s 57 of the PIC Act and s 329 of the 1998 Act however the applicant has declared that he is not seeking a reconsideration.
“Obvious error” is not defined in either the PIC Act or the 1998 Act. Section 57(6) PIC Act does however provide examples of “obvious errors” for the purposes of s 57. PIC7 provides examples of obvious errors for the purposes of s 325 of the 1998 Act.
PIC7 provides at [75] that a “party may make an application to the President for correction of an obvious error in a medical assessor or review panel certificate.” PIC7 provides at [76]:
“Examples of obvious errors in a certificate include, but are not limited to:
(a)    the incorrect description of a party to proceedings;
(b)    a clerical or typographical error in the certificate;
(c)    an error arising from an accidental slip or omission;
(d)    a defect in form, or
(e)    an obvious inconsistency between the certificate and the reasons explaining the certificate.”
In Grafton Aged Care Home Pty Limited v Wilkes [2004] NSWWCCPD 16 (Grafton) Fleming DP dealt with the issue of an “obvious error” in relation to the name of the respondent stating at [25]:
“Given that the issue is addressed in detail in the Arbitrator’s reasons, where the Respondent is correctly identified, this is not a matter that goes to the substance or fairness of the Arbitrator’s decision. It is a matter that I will now correct by way of orders made on the appeal.”
In Wang v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Limited [2005] NSWWCCPD 46 (Wang) Moore ADP considered the issue of “obvious error” in the context of an incorrect date in a Certificate of Determination for the commencement of payments of weekly compensation where the transcript, the Application, the letter accepting provisional liability, the letter declining liability and medical reports all refer to the same date which was different to that recorded in the COD. Moore ADP at [37] stated:
“In my view, the errors in the dates referred to in the Certificate of Determination do not go to ‘the substance or fairness of the Arbitrator’s decision’. It is clear from an overall reading of the decision that the correct date for commencement of weekly benefits is 12 December 2002. I intend to correct this matter by way of orders on Appeal.”
In Newell v John Bruce trading as Tarawa Rural Partnership [2006] NSWWCCPD 282 (Newell) Roche ADP considered “obvious error” in the context of s 325(3) of the 1998 Act and the then Practice Direction No. 4 in respect to a dispute as to whether the assessment of impairment of the neck had been correctly apportioned in a MAC between two injuries. In the opinion of Roche ADP there was an “obvious error” stating at [35] “because it is an error that is apparent on the face of the MAC and one that conflicts with the actual assessment made by the AMS.”
Practice Direction 4 was in different terms to PIC7 stating:
“The ‘obvious error’ referred to in sections 294(3) and 325(3) of the Act means a factual error that is apparent on the face of the document. It may be an error that conflicts with the actual decision or assessment that was made or an obvious mis-statement of that decision or assessment. It does not relate to the basis upon which the substantive decision or assessment was made, nor to the substance of any such decision or assessment. The decision of the Registrar as to ‘obvious error’ is made in the context of the contents of the Certificate of Determination, and statement of reasons, if provided.”
In Mansour v Bankstown Trotting & Recreational Club [2005] NSWWCCPD 155 Handley ADP did not find “obvious error” in circumstance where after an arbitration hearing an Arbitrator made a decision awarding continuing weekly benefits but the COD was silent in respect to s 60 medical and treatment expenses when a claim had been made in the proceedings pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act. Even though it was common ground that a determination on s 60 would usually follow from a finding that the effects of a work related injury were continuing Handley ADP was of the opinion that it was a matter of substance and not a “factual error” (apparent on the face of the document) that should be corrected utilising the then s 294(3) of the 1998 Act which at the time stated:
“If the Registrar is satisfied that a certificate as to a determination or a statement attached to the certificate contains an obvious error, the Registrar may issue, or approve of an Arbitrator issuing, a replacement certificate or statement to correct the error.”

I shall now turn to a consideration of the examples of “obvious errors in a decision” contained in s 57(6) of the PIC Act. Being examples the list is not exhaustive as to types of “obvious errors”.

(a) there is an obvious clerical error or typographical error in the text of the notice or statement

The applicant does not seek to correct any clerical or typographical error in the COD dated 15 October 2024. The said COD contains the Commission’s usual orders for the payment of lump sum compensation following the issuing of a MAC. The issue the applicant has is with the MAC that the COD is based upon. The COD in view does not contain an obvious clerical or typographical error.

(b) there is an error arising from an accidental slip or omission

In my view the COD dated 15 October 2024 does not contain any error arising from an accidental slip or omission. The COD in my view states exactly what it was intended to state without accidental slip or omission. That it is, it awards the applicant compensation in accordance with the MAC dated 9 September 2024. There may be an issue as to the correctness of the MAC on which the COD is founded however there is in my view no error in the COD arising from any accidental slip or omission.

(c) there is a defect of form

The applicant has not submitted that the COD dated 9 September 2024 is affected by any defect in form. This example is not relevant.

(d) there is an inconsistency between the stated decision and the stated reasons

The COD states at [2] that it “is issued in accordance with the Medical Assessment Certificate issued under Part 7 of Chapter 7 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.” The COD is issued in accordance with the MAC dated
9 September 2024. It could not be issued in accordance with any previous MAC as the applicant had not previously reached MMI. The reasons in the COD are consistent with the decision. The applicant’s issue is with the MAC dated 9 September 2024.
The applicant has not provided submissions as to any other “obvious errors” in the COD dated 15 October 2024 and I have not identified any other potential “obvious errors”.
Whilst the applicant has only sought to have the COD dated 15 October 2024 amended for “obvious error” the applicant’s submissions are to the effect that the obvious errors are in the MAC dated 9 September 2024 and that those obvious errors have resulted in the COD containing an award of compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act which is incorrect. It is therefore appropriate in my view to consider whether the MAC dated 9 September 2024 does contain an “obvious error” for the purposes of s 325(3) of the 1998 Act.
As previously discussed PIC7 provides examples of what constitutes “obvious error” for the purposes of s 325(3). These are merely examples and is not an exhaustive list of what constitutes “obvious errors”. I now turn to a consideration of the examples provided in PIC7.

(a) The incorrect description of a party to proceedings

This example is not relevant to the current matter.

(b) A clerical or typographical error in the certificate

This example is not relevant to the current matter.

(c) An error arising from an accidental slip or omission

There is no evidence that the alleged error arises from any “accidental” slip or omission by
Medical Assessor Kuru. The applicant does not submit that there was any accidental slip or omission but rather that Medical Assessor Kuru was “bound” to follow the MAP MAC and failed to do so. Pursuant to s 325(3) it is the medical assessment certificate that must contain the “obvious error” and does not extend in my view to any error that may have occurred in the referral to the Medical Assessor. Errors may have occurred in the referral in that the MAP decision and the MAP MAC may not have been referred to Medical Assessor Kuru when it is possible they should have been and that the referral may have included body parts that had previously been assessed for WPI which possibly should have been excluded from the referral. However, these potential errors in the referral are not accidental slips or omissions in the MAC.

(d) There is a defect in form

This is not a relevant consideration in this matter.

(d) There is an inconsistency between the stated decision and the stated reasons

Medical Assessor Kuru conducted an examination of the applicant, and the results of that examination are recorded in the MAC of 9 September 2024 as are an explanation of his calculations in respect to assessing WPI. No inconsistency between the stated decision and the stated reasons is alleged by the applicant. The applicant rather alleges that Medical Assessor Kuru was bound to follow the MAP MAC.
In my view the applicant’s matter does not fall within the examples of “obvious error” as provided by PIC7. Those examples do not assist the applicant and I have not otherwise identified any other potential “obvious errors”.
In the decisions of Grafton and Wang it was found that “obvious error” had occurred in respect to issues that did not go to the “substance or fairness” of the decision. In my view, in the current matter, the issue raised by the applicant goes directly to the issue of the “substance” of the MAC decision and the COD, being the assessment of impairment and the compensation to be paid. The decisions in Grafton and Wang do not in my view assist the applicant. I am also of the view that the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru does not display an error on its face as the issue raised by the applicant is the failure of the Medical Assessor to follow a MAP MAC that the applicant submits that Medical Assessor Kuru was “bound” to follow. This is a question of law and not an error which is apparent on the face of the MAC.
The respondent disputes that Medical Assessor Kuru was “bound” by the MAP MAC. There is therefore a dispute in respect to the law which in my view is also contraindicative of an “obvious error”. I note that neither party has provided any argument in respect to the relevant statutory provisions or citied any case law in support of their relative positions.
For the above reasons I am of the view and find that the COD dated 15 October 2024 does not contain any “obvious error”. I am therefore also of the view that s 57 of the PIC Act is not satisfied as the COD does not contain any “obvious error” and that I do not have the power to alter the COD. The applicant’s application to amend the COD is therefore denied.
For the above reasons I am also of the view and find that the MAC of Medical Assessor Kuru dated 9 September 2024 does not contain any “obvious error”. I am therefore of the view that s 325(3) of the 1998 Act is not satisfied as the MAC does not contain any “obvious error” and that I do not have the power to issue or approve Medical Assessor Kuru issuing a replacement MAC. I therefore decline to issue or approve Medical Assessor Kuru issuing a replacement MAC.
Roche DP in McGowan v Secretary, Department of Education and Communities [2014] NSWWCCPD 51 stated:
“78.   While a MAC is conclusively presumed to be correct, a determination made in reliance upon an invalid or defective MAC is invalid (Jopa Pty Ltd t/as Tricia’s Clip-n-Snip v Edenden [2004] NSWWCCPD 50 at [37] (Jopa) and Ryan v State Transit Authority of NSW [2004] NSWWCCPD 81 at [18] (Ryan)).”
79.    In Jopa, the MAC was invalid because the AMS based his opinion on a “condition subsequent” that was never met. That being so, he had not been fully informed of the facts on which his assessment was based and his MAC did not comply with s 325(1) and (2). As a result, his assessment was invalid and the orders in the Certificate of Determination based on it were also invalid.
80.    In Ryan, the Arbitrator’s direction to the AMS wrongly referred to the worker having ceased work in 1998 when the correct date was 1988. That error in the “referral” to the AMS (under s 293 of the 1998 Act) affected the validity of the MAC. Therefore, the Certificate of Determination, which was issued on the basis of the invalid MAC, was also invalid and was revoked.”
At [81] Roche DP state that “a Certificate of Determination based on an invalid MAC is invalid and cannot stand.” Roche DP revoked the orders made by the Arbitrator and remitted the matter back to the Approved Medical Specialist under s 329(1)(b) of the 1998 Act to be reassessed.
In the current matter the applicant has clearly and unequivocally stated that he seeks to have an “obvious error” corrected and has not sought to have the applicant referred back to the Medical Assessor for reconsideration. The parties have therefore not provided submissions in respect to the matter being referred back to the Medical Assessor pursuant to s 329 and as a result I have not considered this issue.

[2025] NSWPIC 76

7 March 2025