Blacklock v Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPICMP 690

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Blacklock v Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPICMP 690
APPELLANT:	Robert Blacklock
RESPONDENT:	Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
SENIOR MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Ash Takyar
DATE OF DECISION:	20 December 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Appeal in relation to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories; appellant complained that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in assessing a Class 2 in respect of concentration, persistence and pace, where a Class 3 was more appropriate; whether MA had incorrectly applied the relevant Guidelines including the PIRS Guidelines issued by WorkCover; Held - assessment of Class 2 was an appropriate classification; no error found; the Medical Appeal Panel considered that the MA had clearly articulated on what basis he found the appellant’s classification as Class 2; the MA was not required to provide an extensive or detailed explanation of the criteria applied in reaching his professional judgment; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 19 September 2023 Robert Blacklock (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor (MA), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 4 September 2023.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act):
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The delegate was 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 (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 was employed by Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd (the respondent) as the manager of a warehouse. He sustained a psychological injury arising from the nature and conditions of employment.

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.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because the Appeal Panel determined there was sufficient evidence on which to make a determination.…

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 Blacklock v Dahlsens Building Centres 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: [2023] NSWPICMP 690
Decision Date: 20 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blacklock v Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd involves an appeal against a medical assessment related to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories. The appellant, Mr. Blacklock, argued that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in assessing a Class 2 for concentration, persistence, and pace, claiming that a Class 3 classification was more appropriate. The dispute was heard and determined by the court, which was required to decide whether the MA had correctly applied the relevant Guidelines, including the PIRS Guidelines issued by WorkCover.

The legal issues before the court included whether the MA's assessment was in accordance with the relevant guidelines and whether the MA provided an adequate explanation for his classification. The appellant contended that the MA failed to provide an extensive or detailed explanation of the criteria applied, which was necessary for a proper assessment under the guidelines. The court needed to determine if the MA's assessment was appropriate and if the MA was required to provide a more detailed explanation of the criteria applied.

The court found that the MA's assessment of Class 2 was an appropriate classification. It was determined that the MA had clearly articulated the basis for finding the appellant’s classification as Class 2. The court held that the MA was not required to provide an extensive or detailed explanation of the criteria applied in reaching his professional judgment. The Medical Appeal Panel confirmed that the MA's assessment was in line with the relevant guidelines and found no error in the classification. The court upheld the Medical Assessment Certificate.

No further orders were made by the court, as the assessment was confirmed as appropriate. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original classification by the MA was upheld.

Orders