Blackett v Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment
[2023] NSWPICMP 217
•23 May 2023
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Blackett v Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment [2023] NSWPICMP 217 |
| APPELLANT: | Hilton Blackett |
| RESPONDENT: | Secretary, Department of Planning & Environment |
| Appeal Panel | |
| MEMBER: | Jane Peacock |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Drew Dixon |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Mark Burns |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 23 May 2023 |
CATCHWORDS: | wORKERS cOMPENSATION - Assessments under the Table of Disabilities for injuries received before 1 January 2002 and Whole Person Impairment (WPI) as a threshold issue; error necessitating re-examination; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked in respect of Table of Disabilities assessment and confirmed in respect of WPI assessment. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 15 November 2022 Mr Hilton Blackett (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Neil Berry, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 21 October 2022.
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, 4th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural Direction PIC7.
The appellant requested a re-examination. As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because, for the reasons set out below, the Appeal Panel found error. Absent a finding of error the Appeal Panel has no power to require a worker undergo a re-examination see New South Wales Police Force v Registrar of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1792.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.
Further medical examination
Dr Mark Burns of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 10 May 2023 and reported to the Appeal Panel.
Medical Assessment Certificate
The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.
SUBMISSIONS
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
The matter was referred to the Medical Assessor as follows:
“The following matters have been referred for assessment (s 319 of the 1998 Act):
Date of injury: (1) 24 November 1998
Body parts/systems referred: Back
Right Leg at or above the knee
Left Leg at or above the knee
Bowel Function
Method of assessment:Table of Disabilities
Date of injury: (2) 24 November 1998
· Body parts/systems referred: Lumbar Spine
· Method of assessment: Whole Person Impairment”
The Medical Assessor issued certificate in respect of Table 1 - Assessment in accordance with the Table of Disabilities for injuries received before 1 January 2002 as follows:
Body Part
(describe the body part as per Table of Disabilities)
e.g. right leg at or above the knee
Date of injury
Total amount of permanent % loss of efficient use or impairment
Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition
Total permanent % loss of efficient use or impairment attributable to this injury (after deduction of any pre-existing impairment in column 4.)
Back
24/11/1998
35%
0%
35%
Right leg at or above the knee
24/11/1998
15%
0%
15%
Left leg at or above the knee
24/11/1998
5%
0%
5%
Bowel function
24/11/1998
15%
0%
15%
The Medical Assessor issued a certificate in accordance with Table 2 - Assessment in accordance with AMA 5 and NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002 as follows:
Body Part or system
Date of Injury
Chapter,
page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelinesChapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA5 Guides
% WPI
WPI deductions pursuant to S323 for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality (expressed as a fraction)
Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
Lumbar Spine
Activities of daily living
24/11/1998
Chapter 4
Page 28
Paragraphs 4.34 & 4.35
Chapter 15
Page 384
Table 15-3
DRE Category III
13%
0%
13%
Effects of Surgery
(Lumbar Spine)
24/11/1998
Chapter 4
Page 29
Table 4.2
(Modifiers following surgery) & Para 4.27
6%
0%
6%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)
18%
The worker appealed.
In summary the appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor had made an assessment of the basis of incorrect criteria and a demonstrable error as a result. The appellant submitted that the path of reasoning of the Medical Assessor could not be clearly followed and that as a result of this failure the Medical Assessor made a demonstrable error.
In summary, the respondent employer The Secretary, Department of Planning & Environment, submitted that the Medical Assessor did not make an assessment on the basis of incorrect criteria and did not make a demonstrable error. It was submitted that the path of reasoning could be followed and that the MAC should be confirmed.
The role of the Medical Assessor is to conduct an independent assessment on the day of examination. The Medical Assessor is required to take a history, conduct a physical examination, have regard to the special investigations, make a diagnosis and have due regard to other evidence and other medical opinion that is before the Medical Assessor. The Medical Assessor must bring his clinical expertise to bear and exercise his clinical judgement when making an assessment and must base that assessment upon the correct criteria.
The Medical Assessor recorded a history as follows:
“Brief history of the incident/onset of symptoms and of subsequent related events, including treatment:
The claimant told me that he was employed by the National Parks and Wildlife Services for 25 years rising to the position of Senior Fields Officer.
On 24 November 1998, he and other co-workers were working in the Ku-ring-gai National Park, unloading bags of ice from a truck to load into a cold storage room to be sold to people coming to the beach from their boats.
The bags were unloaded from the vehicle and then handed from worker to worker and while lifting and twisting Mr Blackett developed pain in the back and very rapidly it extended down the right leg. The pain became increasingly severe and he had to stop work and was unable to return. He consulted his general practitioner, Dr Konduru and was referred to Dr Richard Hudson, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who carried out a laminectomy and discectomy at L4/5 in February 2001.
Unfortunately, there was no improvement in his condition. He was subsequently reviewed by A/Professor Lali Sekhon, Neurosurgeon, and he was admitted to Dalcross Hospital in July 2003 and underwent a repeat L4/5 discectomy.
Mr Blackett was then referred for a Pain Management course but this did not help and he was then referred to Dr Ian Farey, Cervical Spine Surgeon, and a third procedure was carried out on his back in January 2007, and it would appear that sequestrated disc material at L4/5 was removed. By this stage, Mr Blackett had pain in his left leg but not as severe in his right leg and over time his leg pain became progressively more severe.
· Present symptoms:
Mr Blackett told me that he uses a TENS machine to control his back pain. He has been unable to return to any form of work. He continues to have pain in both legs, the right leg is much worse than the left and he gets spasms and these have led to falls.
His sleep is disturbed at least three times a night and at each disturbance he gets up and walks through to the kitchen and stretches and then returns to bed.
He is able to drive locally but he cannot sit for more than half an hour at a time and in fact a neighbour brought him today to the appointment and they had to pull over half way in order for him to get out of the vehicle and walk around.
Over the years, he has developed constipation and he has tried a number of medications and dietary changes but these have not helped. He goes to the toilet approximately every four days and it is quite painful and there is blood on the toilet paper when he finishes. Apart from that, Mr Blackett had no other complaints.
· Present treatment:
Mr Blackett told me today that he takes a series of medications both of a morning and of an evening. He takes:
·Atacand
·Seroquel
·Aspirin
·Arcoxia
·Norflex
·Neomercazole
·Pariet
·Lipitor and
·Panadeine Forte is reserved for when his pain is severe.
· Details of any previous or subsequent accidents, injuries or condition:
Mr Blackett sustained a head and neck injury in the course of his duties in October 1997 when he was hit by the ramp tailgate when unloading a bobcat. He suffered neck and head injuries and subsequently has had three operations on his neck, the last one being a cervical fusion.
He has also had a fall at home injuring his right shoulder requiring surgery. Currently he has lacerated the lateral aspect of his left foot and has a small ulcer which is being dressed. Mr Blackett indicated that he has had multiple falls over the years including falls in the bathroom.
· General health:
The claimant told me that apart from his injuries and falls his health has been otherwise quite good and he is not aware of any serious issues.
· Work history including previous work history if relevant:
Mr Blackett left school at 13 years of age and he first worked as a cutter and layer in making women’s clothing. He then worked as a process worker for various companies. He then worked as a milk tanker driver and as an interstate truck driver before obtaining the work with National Parks and Wildlife.
· Social activities/ADL:
Mr Blackett is a married man with six adult children. They live in a single storey-house at Terrey Hills and he pays somebody to do the lawns and maintenance. His wife is an accountant who works on a sub-contract basis for a firm keeping their books.”
The Medical Assessor recorded his findings on physical examination as follows:
“Mr Blackett was a tall, solidly built man who had a beard and moustache. He was noted to be 181cm in height and 80kgs in weight. He walked without a limp but was uncomfortable sitting and had to stand during the interview.
Cervical Spine
The claimant was noted to have anterior and posterior scars consistent with his cervical spine surgery. All movements were reduced to two thirds of the normal range. There was no muscle spasm and no alteration of muscle contour.
Upper Extremities
Mr Blackett had a restricted range of movement at both shoulders. Reflexes, sensation and power were intact.
Thoracolumbar Spine
The claimant had flattening of the lumbar lordosis. There was a midline scar in the lower back which was 14cm in length. It was well healed and not tender to palpation. He demonstrated a third of the normal range of flexion and extension and half the normal range of extension.
Lower Extremities
With the claimant seated, he demonstrated absent reflex in the right leg but reduced reflexes in the left leg. There was altered sensation in the L5 dermatome in the right leg. There was no unilateral muscle wasting.
With Mr Blackett supine, he demonstrated 40 degrees of straight leg raising on both sides. There was no unilateral muscle wasting.
Abdomen
The claimant’s abdomen was slightly protuberant. There was tenderness in the epigastrium. There was no guarding, rigidity or rebound and there were no palpable masses.
Anal examination was normal but internal anal examination was not performed.
No other physical examination was carried out.”
The Medical Assessor recorded detail of the special investigations to which he had regard as follows:
“CT Lumbar Spine dated 7 December 1998 reports a central disc bulge at L5/S1.
CT Lumbar Spine dated 15 January 2001 reports multilevel spondylosis. There was disc material in the right neural foramina at L3/4 and L4/5.
MRI Lumbar Spine dated 13 July 2020 showed some facet joint arthrosis causing thecal compression on the left at L3/4. There was moderate narrowing of the intervertebral foramen on the right due to a broad based disc bulge and osteophyte.”
The Medical Assessor summarised the injury and his diagnosis as follows, noting the appellant was consistent in his presentation:
“Summary of injuries and diagnoses:
Mr Blackett has a history of sustaining an L4/5 disc injury which required three episodes of surgery. There are radicular complaints in the right leg, but not in the left leg.
Consistency of presentation
Mr Blackett was co-operative throughout the interview and examination and there was no evidence of any illness behaviour or exaggeration on the claimant’s part.”
The Medical Assessor explained his assessment of impairment as follows:
“I am asked to assess Mr Blackett in terms of his back, right leg at or above the knee, left leg at or above the knee and bowel function using the Table of Disabilities for an injury sustained on 24 November 1998.
Back
The claimant complains of continuing pain with disturbance at night and limitation of physical activities, as such his wife helps him with the washing of his lower limbs. He has had three episodes of discectomy and laminectomy and I would therefore assess him as having a 35% impairment of his back.
Right Leg at or above the knee
Examination of the right leg reveals absent reflexes and disturbance of sensation in the L5 dermatome and therefore I would assess him as having a15% loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee.
Left Leg at or above the knee
The claimant has reduced reflexes but no evidence of specific radiculopathy but there is pain in the left leg which is not as severe as that in the right leg and I would therefore assess him as having a 5% loss of efficient use of the left leg at or above the knee.
Bowel Function
With regards to the claimant’s bowel function, he gives a history of constipation with painful defaecation and blood staining on the toilet paper but no evidence of haemorrhoids. He goes to the toilet once every four days and on these grounds I would assess his bowel function at a 15% loss of use.
WHOLE PERSON IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT
I am also asked to assess the claimant’s lumbar spine in terms of the Whole Person Impairment method.
He has a history of injury, restriction of movement and three episodes of surgery and radicular complaints in the right leg. I refer you to the AMA 5th Edition of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Table 15-3 on page 384 and he would be placed in DRE Category III and I would assign a 10% Whole Person Impairment.
The impact of this injury on the activities of daily living is assessed using the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th Edition and I refer you to Paragraphs 4.34 and 4.35 on Page 28. Mr Blackett indicates that his wife has to help him wash his lower limbs and his is unable to carry out inside and outside activities and I would therefore assess him as having a 3% Whole Person Impairment for the impact of the injury on his activities of daily living giving him a 13% Whole Person Impairment.
The effects of surgery should be assessed using Table 4.2 (Modifiers for DRE Categories following surgery) on page 29 of the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th Edition and Paragraph 4.27. The claimant has residual radiculopathy in the right leg which is a 3% Whole Person Impairment. He has had a second operation which is a 2% Whole Person Impairment and a 1% for the third operation giving him an additional 6%.
The 6% should be combined with the 13% using the Combined Values Chart on page 604 giving the claimant a Total Whole Person Impairment of 18%.”
The Medical Assessor made brief comment on the other medical opinion before him as follows:
“My brief comments regarding the other medical opinions and findings submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the reasons why my opinion differs
Report of Dr Michael Fearnside dated 31 August 2020 and 22 October 2020 he confirms the claimant’ history and assesses him as having a 50% permanent impairment of the back and a 20% permanent loss of efficient use of the right leg and a 25% loss of use of efficient use of the left leg.
He assesses the patient’s lumbar spine as a 15% Whole Person Impairment, however, he does not take into account the impact of this injury on the activities of daily living because he has assessed it with the cervical spine. However, the history Mr Blackett gives is that it is the back injury that has impacted on his activities of daily living.
The Medical Assessment Panel assessed the claimant’s permanent loss of use of the back at 30% and the right leg at or above the knee at 15% and made no assessment for the left leg.
Report of Dr David Bowers dated 18 November 2003 – Dr Bowers assessed the claimant as having a permanent impairment of the back of 30% and 0% for the right leg.
Dr John Stephen provides multiple reports which confirm the claimant’s history and in his report dated 23 June 2022 he has assessed the claimant’s lumbar spine at 15% Whole Person Impairment as he found no radiculopathy, however today I found residual radiculopathy in the right leg. He also assessed the claimant in terms of the Table of Disabilities giving him a 45% permanent impairment of the back; a 20% permanent loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee and a 10% permanent loss of efficient use of the left leg at or above the knee.”
The Appeal Panel notes that the appellant complains on appeal about the assessment of 15% for permanent loss of bowel function notwithstanding that the assessment exceeds that claimed by the appellant which was 10% for permanent loss of bowel function based on assessment by the Independent Medical Expert (IME) qualified on behalf of the appellant, Associate Professor Fearnside who assessed 10% with the following reasoning:
“As he has severe constipation and is likely to require ongoing medications, there is a permanent impairment for bowel function of 10%.”
The Appeal Panel could discern no error in the assessment by the Medical Assessor of 15% permanent loss in respect of bowel function which the Appeal Panel considers was adequately explained and assessed upon correct criteria, such that there was no demonstrable error.
The Appeal Panel considered that the Medical Assessor erred in respect of the assessment of the back and left and right legs and in respect of the lumbar spine on the basis that the path of reasoning was not adequately explained.
On this basis, the Appeal Panel requested that Dr Mark Burns, a member of the Appeal Panel who is a Medical Assessor, conduct a re-examination of the appellant and report to the Appeal Panel.
Dr Mark Burns reported to the Appeal Panel as follows:
“PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
APPEAL AGAINST MEDICAL ASSESSMENT
REPORT OF THE EXAMINATION BY MEDICAL ASSESSOR
MEMBER OF THE APPEAL PANEL
Matter Number:
M1-W6085/22
Appellant:
Hilton Blackett
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment
Date of Determination:
21 October 2022
Examination Conducted By: Assessor Mark Burns
Date of Examination: 10 May 2023
Attendance: Hilton Blackett
1. The workers medical history, where it differs from previous records.
Mr Blackett confirmed the history, which was taken by Assessor Berry.
2. Additional history since the original Medical Assessment Certificate was performed.
Mr Blackett reported that since he was reviewed by Assessor Berry in October 2022 he has been referred to a new Pain Specialist. He is currently seeing Dr Jane Standen for the last 6 months. The referral was made by his General Practitioner. Dr Standen has trialled a number of different treatments in that period of time. This has included injections to the left and right side of the low back with nerve ablations. He has also had facet joint injections. The injections and ablations in the lumbar spine gave him short term relief only.
He also had a trial of a spinal cord stimulator but this was unsuccessful. More recently he has been commenced on Cannabis Oil with some minor improvement in pain. He is currently seeing Dr Standen on a monthly basis and reports that his pain has improved slightly and is now more in the left leg than the right leg as it was previously.
Current symptoms:
He reports that he has pain in the left leg and that on the visual analogue scale it varies between 6/10 to 8/10. On the left side the pain radiates down the lateral side of thigh but does not go below the knee. The left pain is constant. On the right side the pain comes and goes and is not constant but tends to radiate only to the right buttock. It is present though on most days. Significant spasms he was having mostly on the right side have now eased off over the last month.
Current treatment:
He continues to see Dr Kondufu, his General Practitioner every 1 – 2 months mostly for prescriptions as needed. He is currently seeing Dr Standen, the Pain Management Specialist on a monthly basis. He is not attending physiotherapy or having any other physical modality. He is though on a substantial amount of medication. He is currently taking Panadeine Forte 2 tablets 3 times a day, Pariet, Lipitor, Seroquel, Norflex, Cymbalta and Atacand.
Social activities/ADL
Mr Blackett reported that he is married with adult children who no longer live at home. His wife works full time. At the time of the injury in November 1998 they were living in a 2 storey house. Over time going up and down stairs became difficult so they sold the house 7 years ago and now live in a single storey home.
With respect to the garden and lawn mowing he is not capable of doing any of this activity and has paid to have it done since the back injury.
With respect to cooking before he initially injured his back he occasionally helped his wife with the cooking but has not been able to do so since the back injury and back operations.
With respect to cleaning he did share the cleaning with his wife before the back injury and operations but states that they now have cleaners that come every 2 weeks and his wife does the majority of light cleaning in between times.
With respect to washing and hanging the clothing on the line he reported that prior to his back injury and surgery he did occasionally assist his wife. She does all of this activity at the current time.
He reported that his wife is also doing all of the current shopping.
He reports that they have a pool at their current address and that he pays to have this cleaned and looked after.
It appears though that he does have a hobby, which he has continued doing albeit with some difficulty. He ‘plays’ with old motorbikes and a car, which he has at the house. He does a little bit when he can, which is not very often.
When discussing self-care activities he reports that he can go to the toilet by himself and is capable of feeding himself. With respect to dressing he has a significant degree of stiffness in the lumbar spine and needs help in putting on shoes and socks. With respect to washing himself he reports that he also cannot do his feet and areas of his back and his wife assists him with this activity as well.3. Findings on clinical examination
Mr Blackett was 176cms tall and weighed 95.7kgs. He was noted to walk slowly but did not have any assistive aids. I did note that his balance was slightly poor. When requested he was able to take off the upper clothing but would not have been able to take off his shoes (he was wearing slip-ons).
Lumbar spine:
He reported tenderness from L2 down to L5 on both the left and right sides. There was no evidence of muscle spasm or muscle guarding but there was a decrease in lumbar lordosis. Flexion was 25% of predicted but extension 50% of predicted. Lateral tilt to the left and right was symmetrical at 25% of predicted. Straight leg raising on the right and left sides was 20° with reports of significant low back and buttock pain but no report of pain down into the leg below the knees. This was essentially a negative sciatic stretch test.
Neurological examination of both lower limbs revealed normal power and tone. On the left side he reported tingling in the lateral thigh and calf. There was no evidence though of significant decrease in sensation on the right side or the left side.
Ankle reflexes on both sides were present and symmetrical. Medial hamstring reflexes on each side were slightly depressed but again symmetrical. There was a decreased knee reflex on the right side but an absent knee reflex on the left side.The circumference of the right leg 10cm above the patella was 50cm compared to 48cm on the left. The circumference of the right mid-calf was 42cm compared with 41cm on the left.
At the end of the consultation, he was able to stand on his heels and toes without significant difficulty even though he did hold onto the end of the couch for balance.4. Results of any additional investigations since the original Medical Assessment Certificate
He reported no further investigations have been done since October last year.
DISCUSSION
Threshold dispute:
My physical findings confirm that Mr Blackett’s lumbar spine assessment from Table 15-3 of AMA 5 is DRE III -10%WPI, with a further 3% WPI added for ADL’s.
From Table 4.2 of the NSW Guidelines, he has ongoing radiculopathy currently in his left leg with an absent ankle reflex and wasting in the left thigh and calf. This gives a further 3% WPI. He has a further 2% WPI for a second operation and 1% WPI for a third operation. These are added to give 6% WPI which would be combined with 13%WPI to give 18%WPI.
Table of Disabilities:
I note that Mr Blackett presented with improvement in symptoms and signs in his right leg but deterioration in his left leg. This is consistent with his complaints over time of bilateral radicular signs and symptoms.
On my physical findings today in the legs, I would assess 20% loss of efficient use of the left leg at or above the knee and 10% loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee. His main disability is in his low back.
He has marked restrictions in walking, bending, lifting and prolonged sitting. As mentioned previously he has difficult with almost all domestic activities, self-care and has moved house to avoid stair climbing. He has difficulty sleeping due to back pain and his sexual function has ceased due to back pain. He does not use mobility aids and his spasms have improved with recent treatment by Dr Standen, Pain Specialist.
I would assess his back impairment at 40% of the most extreme case.
Signed: Assessor Mark Burns
Date: 10 May 2023 “
The Appeal Panel adopts the report and findings of Dr Mark Burns.
The physical findings of Dr Burns confirm that the assessment of whole person impairment of 18% for the lumbar spine is correctly assessed upon the correct criteria and the MAC will be confirmed in that respect.
In respect of the assessment under the Table of Disabilities based upon the physical findings of Dr Burns on re-examination, the MAC will be revoked and the following certificate issued in its place, noting that the 15% assessed in respect of bowel function remains undisturbed on appeal:
Assessment in accordance with the Table of Disabilities for injuries received before
1 January 2002
Body Part
(describe the body part as per Table of Disabilities)
e.g. right leg at or above the knee
Date of injury
Total amount of permanent % loss of efficient use or impairment
Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition
Total permanent % loss of efficient use or impairment attributable to this injury (after deduction of any pre-existing impairment in column 4.)
Back
24/11/1998
40%
0%
40%
Right leg at or above the knee
24/11/1998
10%
0%
10%
Left leg at or above the knee
24/11/1998
20%
0%
20%
Bowel function
24/11/1998
15%
0%
15%
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 21 October 2022 should be confirmed in respect of the assessment of whole person impairment of the lumbar spine.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 21 October 2022 should be revoked in respect of the Assessment in accordance with the Table of Disabilities for injuries received before 1 January 2002 and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received before 1 January 2002
Matter Number: | W6085/22 |
Applicant: | Hilton Blackett |
Respondent: | Secretary, Department of Planning & Environment |
This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998.
The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Dr Neil Berry and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:
Assessment in accordance with the Table of Disabilities for injuries received before
1 January 2002
| Body Part (describe the body part as per Table of Disabilities) e.g. right leg at or above the knee | Date of injury | Total amount of permanent % loss of efficient use or impairment | Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition | Total permanent % loss of efficient use or impairment attributable to this injury (after deduction of any pre-existing impairment in column 4.) |
| Back | 24/11/1998 | 40% | 0% | 40% |
| Right leg at or above the knee | 24/11/1998 | 10% | 0% | 10% |
| Left leg at or above the knee | 24/11/1998 | 20% | 0% | 20% |
| Bowel function | 24/11/1998 | 15% | 0% | 15% |
0
2
0