BLS v BizPay Group Ltd - [2024] NSWPICMP 791

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	BLS v BizPay Group Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 791
APPELLANT:	BLS
RESPONDENT:	BizPay Group Limited
APPEAL PANEL
SENIOR MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
DATE OF DECISION:	25 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal in relation to the Medical Assessor’s (MA’s) assessments relating to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories; Held – Medical Appeal Panel confirmed the Medical Assessment Certificate and could find no error in the assessment of the MA; appeal regarded the application of section 323 was also rejected.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 24 June 2024 [BLS] (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Gerard Walsh, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 28 May 2024.
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, 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

[BLS] commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking lump sum compensation arising from a psychological injury due to the nature and conditions of employment.
It should be observed that there was no issue so far as primary liability was concerned and as a result the matter was referred to Medical Assessor Walsh. BizPay Group Limited (the respondent) had raised concerns regarding maximum medical improvement (MMI) and also level of whole person impairment (WPI) assessment.
Following the issuing of the MAC dated 28 May 2024, the appellant seeks to appeal the MAC on three grounds:

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…

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.

Continue reading BLS v BizPay Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: BLS v BizPay Group Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 791
Case: [2024] NSWPICMP 791
Decision Date: 25 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of BLS versus BizPay Group Ltd, which reached the court, involved a dispute over the assessments conducted by the Medical Assessor in relation to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories. The dispute was about the application of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and the subsequent decision to appeal the Medical Assessment Certificate. The matter was heard in the relevant court which was tasked with determining the validity of the assessments and the applicability of the statutory provisions in question.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the correctness of the Medical Assessor’s assessments regarding the psychiatric impairment rating scale categories and the application of section 323 of the Act. The court needed to determine whether the assessments were conducted correctly and if the application of the relevant statutory provisions was appropriate. This required a detailed examination of the evidence and the statutory framework to ascertain whether any errors were made in the assessments and whether the appeal was justified.

In considering the matter, the court found that the Medical Appeal Panel had confirmed the assessments made by the Medical Assessor and could find no error in those assessments. The Panel’s decision was upheld, indicating that the assessments were conducted in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court examined the application of section 323 of the Act and found that the appeal regarding its application was also without merit. The court concluded that the Medical Assessor’s assessments were correct and that there were no grounds to overturn the Panel’s decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the Medical Appeal Panel regarding the assessments and the application of section 323. The court’s decision stands as a confirmation of the correctness of the assessments and the appropriate application of the statutory provisions.

Orders