BPM v Co as It Italian Association of Assistance

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	BPM v Co As It Italian Association of Assistance [2025] NSWPICMP 505
APPELLANT:	BPM
RESPONDENT:	Co As It Italian Association of Assistance
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Ash Takyar
DATE OF DECISION:	14 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment of primary psychological injury by Medical Assessor (MA); appeal against assessment of two psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories (social functioning and employability); Appeal Panel accepted that the MA took an irrelevant consideration into account in assessing social functioning; assessment of social functioning remains the same after considering other descriptors; MA did not adequately explain how he assessed capacity for work; assessment of employability reviewed and assessed as Class 5; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 13 May 2025 [BPM] (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Yu Tang Shen, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on16 April 2025.
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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant suffered an injury on 30 June 2023 in her employment as an aged care assistant with Co As It Italian Association of Assistance (the respondent).
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 15 November 2024 in which she claimed lump sum compensation in respect of the psychiatric injury.
The matter was referred to Dr Yu Tang Shen, Medical Assessor, for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a psychological/psychiatric injury on 30 June 2023.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 14 April 2025 and assessed 7% WPI in respect of a psychiatric condition as a result of the injury on 30 June 2023.

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 requests a re-examination by a Member of the Appeal Panel, noting that the Medical Assessor had failed to properly assess capacity for employment.
The respondent does not consider that a re-examination of the appellant is required and that the Medical Assessor has set out sufficient details regarding the examination.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was sufficient information on which to make a decision.

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.

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.
The appellant’s submissions include the following:
(a)    Ground 1 - the Medical Assessor erred in taking into account conduct (attendance at church) under both the scale of social and recreational activities and the scale of social functioning. The Medical Assessor describes the appellant's attendance at church in identical terms in both scales.
(b)    This conduct should only have been considered under social and recreational activities and not under social functioning. By taking into account the appellant's ability to attend church in social functioning, the Medical Assessor took into account an irrelevant consideration and, accordingly, assigned a class 2 impairment in the area of social functioning when a class 3 impairment was justified.
(c)    Where a decision maker takes into account an irrelevant consideration, there is a jurisdictional error (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24).
(d)    A class 3 impairment in the scale of social functioning, would result in the appellant being assessed as having a 15% WPI.
(e)    Ground 2 - error with respect to employability – the Medical Assessor assigned class 3 impairment in the employability scale in contrast to both Dr Nagesh, who found class 5 impairment in this scale, and Dr Agnes Chan, who also assessed class 5 impairment in this scale.
(f)    The Medical Assessor decided that the appellant's subjective reporting of her motivation for work is determinative of the applicable class in employability. The Medical Assessor failed to otherwise evaluate the appellant's capacity for work.
(g)    However, as is clear from the classes set out at paragraph 4.1, the Medical Assessor must also take into account capacity for employment, which is distinct from motivation. A failure to take into account a relevant consideration amounts to a jurisdictional error (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd).
(h)    The Medical Assessor did not describe the appellant's capacity for work in terms of the hours or duties which she is capable of in a manner that is referable to the Psychiatric Impairment rating Scales (PIRS) scale of employability. In failing to properly consider this issue, the Medical Assessor has failed to take into account a relevant consideration or has failed to provide adequate reasons to justify his conclusions.
(i)    Consistent with the evidence of Dr Nagesh and Dr Chan, the appellant ought to have been assessed as having class 4 or 5 impairment in the scale of employability, which would have seen her impairment meet the 15% threshold.
The respondent’s submissions include the following:
(a)    Assessing permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on that day of assessment, taking into account the relevant medical history and available relevant medical information (paragraph 1.6 a of the Guidelines). Medical Assessors are required to exercise their clinical judgement in determining a diagnosis when assessing permanent impairment and making deductions for pre-existing injuries/conditions (paragraph 1.6 b of the Guidelines).
(b)    Social and recreational Activities - the Medical Assessor assessed class 3 impairment. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in failing to correctly categorise specific conduct, that being the appellant’s attendances at her church, correctly under the PIRS categories of social and recreational activities and social functioning.
(c)    The assessment for social and recreational activities should be confirmed noting that the appellant does not dispute the PIRS category elected by the Medical Assessor.
(d)    Ground 1 - social functioning - the Medical Assessor assessed class 2 impairment. The respondent agrees that the Medical Assessor has mentioned the appellant’s church attendances in both social functioning and social and recreational activities. However, the Medical Assessor also included other relevant information in these categories.
(e)    The assessments in these categories were not made on the church attendances alone.
(f)    The appellant’s submissions state that there may “be some overlap between some scales or categories of functional impairment”. As such, the respondent asserts that the appellant accepts that the Medical Assessor may, in some circumstances, rely on information in two categories. However, as this is not the sole information relied upon in these categories, the Medical Assessor has not erred in doing so and has justified their assessment appropriately based on the PIRS categories for each category independently.
(g)    There was no error in the Medical Assessor’s assessment of social functioning and there would be no basis for finding a class 3 impairment in this category, even if the mention of the appellant’s attendance on church was removed as a consideration.
(h)    The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant has had no periods of separation with her husband and has a good relationship with her children and sister. She also has friends who still contact her via telephone. The Medical Assessor has not recorded any evidence of periods of separation or domestic violence that would satisfy an assessment under class 3 for social functioning.
(i)    There is no error in this category and that the assessment of a class 2 impairment in this category was open to the Medical Assessor noting the assessment satisfies the PIRS category for class 2 which reflects “existing relationships strained, tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships”.
(j)    The appellant’s submissions indicated that if the Medical Assessor had assigned a class 3 impairment for social functioning, this would have resulted in an assessment of 15% WPI. The overall total assessment should not be the concern of the Medical Assessor when providing their assessment. The assessment should be made utilising the relevant PIRS categories and assigning the appropriate class from the information provided alongside their professional opinion. As such, the Medical Assessor has not erred in taking into consideration what the final assessment of WPI will be when making their assessment.
(k)    The assessment for social functioning should be confirmed.
(l)    Ground 2 - employability - The Medical Assessor assessed class 3 impairment on the basis that the Medical Assessor utilised the appellant’s own reporting on her capacity to work/desire to return to work. The Medical Assessor also made the assessment on the basis that no impairment could be taken from the appellant’s physical injury.
(m)     The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to form his own opinion on her employability and should have assessed class 4 or 5 impairment. The Medical Assessor was required to remove any consideration of impairment relating to her physical injury in the assessment and made the assessment on the basis of the psychiatric component only (SIRA Guidelines 1.22), which resulted in an assessment of a class 3 for employability.
(n)    The Medical Assessor is not required to identify the nature of employment that the appellant is capable of performing or whether any such work is in fact available (Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633).
(o)    The available evidence in the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) and Reply, including the self-reports from the appellant, does not prevent the Medical Assessor finding that at the date of the assessment, the applicant had a certain level of employability as a result of her psychological injury. It is within the expertise of the Medical Assessor to make that finding, and it was available to them on the applicant’s presentation and available evidence.
(p)    Further, the appellant has indicated in their submissions that if the Medical Assessor had assessed a class 4 or 5 for employability, the appellant would meet the 15% WPI threshold. Again, that it is not the responsibility nor the focus of the Medical Assessor to be influenced by the relevant thresholds for entitlement to compensation when making a determination as to which PIRS category applies.
(q)    The assessment for employability should be confirmed.
(r)    For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed and the MAC confirmed.

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.

Ground 1 - Social Functioning

The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in taking into account conduct (attendance at church) under both social and recreational activities in the scale of social functioning.
The appellant submits that this conduct should only have been considered under social and recreational activities and not social functioning. The appellant argues that in taking into account the ability to attend church in social functioning, the Medical Assessor has taken into account an irrelevant consideration and, accordingly, has assigned a class 2 impairment in the scale of social functioning when a class 3 impairment was justified.
The respondent concedes that the Medical Assessor mentioned the appellant’s church attendances in both social functioning and social and recreational activities.
The examples under Table 11.4 for “Social functioning” in the Guidelines are:
“Class 2: Mild impairment: Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.
Class 3: Moderate impairment: Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children.”
The Medical Assessor assessed class 2 in relation to social functioning noting:
“Since the subject injury, she said her relationship with her husband has been “filled with conflicts” with her husband and children, though she clarified that there was no physical violence, and she has not separated from her husband. She said her relationship with her children are generally good, but obviously them seeing her crying is not easy. She said her relationship with her sister remains generally ok, and she has been trying to help her.
Since the subject injury, she said she has lost some friends, though they still ring her. She said she has been more withdrawn as she doesn’t want to do anything. In Sydney, she said she is no longer seeing her friends as she has become more isolated. She said in Messina, she has not gone anywhere. She said she attends Church at Messina, which is situated next door.
In Sydney, she attends a Church in Leichhardt with her husband when she feels up to it, which is when she feels up to it, at times she goes every Sunday and other times she remains in bed. She said when she attends Church, she spends the entire duration of Mass, and she keeps herself separate from other people to avoid chatting and so she can return home.
While she has lost many friends, she remains close to her children, and while her relationship with her husband has been more strained, there has not been any instances of separation or violence, so she has mild impairment.”
In commenting on the other medical opinions, the Medical Assessor noted:
“I also think her ongoing relationship with her family implies a mild
impairment in social functioning.”
In her statement dated 20 May 2024, the appellant stated at paragraph 28 that as a result of her injury she developed disabilities including abrupt mood swings, isolation, reluctance to trust others and social withdrawal.
Dr Abhishek Nagesh, consultant psychiatrist, in his report dated 26 March 2024, assessed a class 4 for “social relationships” providing the following reasons:
“I have assessed her as class 2, mild impairment.
My rationale is your client’s relationship with her husband is severely strained. Her husband is frustrated and not happy that he has to work additional hours and do extra jobs as [BPM] is not working at the moment. She has lost contact with the majority of her friends hence.”
Dr Agnes Chan, consultant psychiatrist, in a report dated 26 July 2024, assessed a class 1 for “functioning” providing the following reasons: “Maintains close relationship with husband and son. Speaks positively of both of them. Harmonious existence with son who is currently her carer. Doing well especially in context of breast cancer treatment.”
The Appeal Panel accepts that the following history of church attendance were included in the reasons for decision in the assessment of social and recreational activities and in the reasons for decision in the assessment of social functioning:
“She said she attends Church at Messina, which is situated next door.
In Sydney, she attends a Church in Leichhardt with her husband when she feels up to it, which is when she feels up to it, at times she goes every Sunday and other times she remains in bed. She said when she attends Church, she spends the entire duration of Mass, and she keeps herself separate from other people to avoid chatting and so she can return home”.
In Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW) [2020] NSWCA 86 at 57-78) the Court of Appeal at [85] Bell P and Payne JA, Emmett A JA agreeing, said:
“85. The argument advanced by Mr Hooke SC on behalf of Ms Ballas was that, in giving his reasons for the particular rating of 2 assigned to the ‘social and recreational activities’ area of impairment ... Dr Hong took into account matters that, whilst they may have been relevant to other areas of impairment that fell for assessment such as ‘travel’ and ‘social functioning’, did not bear upon that area identified as ‘social and recreational activities’. ...”
The Court found that even if there might, as a matter of English language, be some overlap in a claimant’s conduct between the different categories (or scales) within the PIRS, a Medical Assessor had no discretion as to which category such conduct should be ascribed.
From [92] the Court said:
“92. ...The scales are fixed and are treated by the Guidelines as distinct from each other. The structure of the Guidelines, and the mandated use of a standardised form on which an AMS must specify the ‘class’ he or she assigns to each ‘scale’ and give his or her reasons for doing so, are designed to add transparency and rigour to the exercise of WPI assessment.
93.Whilst it is no doubt correct that an AMS must exercise a degree of clinical judgment in assigning a class of seriousness to each area which he or she is required to address in completing a medical assessment, the characterisation of conduct as going to ‘social and recreational activities’ on the one hand, as opposed to any of the other five scales on the other hand, is not a matter of discretion.
94.... If conduct is wrongly assigned to one scale, when it should have been assigned to another, this will result in the AMS taking into account an irrelevant consideration in the context of assigning a class to each of the distinct scales. This will inevitably bear upon the calculation of the WPI which is critical for an injured worker’s entitlement to compensation.”

The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the Medical Assessor took into account an irrelevant consideration in assigning a class to the scale of social functioning. Taking into account an irrelevant consideration results in the assessment in the scale of social functioning being made on the basis of incorrect criteria and is a demonstrable error. This ground of appeal is made out.
The Appeal Panel reviewed the evidence in this matter. The Appeal Panel noted that by removing the part of the reasons in Table 11.8 of the MAC concerning church attendance, the remaining reasons are:
“Since the subject injury, she said her relationship with her husband has been “filled with conflicts” with her husband and children, though she clarified that there was no physical violence, and she has not separated from her husband. She said her relationship with her children are generally good, but obviously them seeing her crying is not easy. She said her relationship with her sister remains generally ok, and she has been trying to help her.
Since the subject injury, she said she has lost some friends, though they still ring her. She said she has been more withdrawn as she doesn’t want to do anything. In Sydney, she said she is no longer seeing her friends as she has become more isolated. She said in Messina, she has not gone anywhere.
While she has lost many friends, she remains close to her children, and while her relationship with her husband has been more strained, there has not been any instances of separation or violence, so she has mild impairment.”
The Appeal Panel is of the view that the remaining reasons are class 2 descriptors. The Medical Assessor noted that although there is some strain in the appellant’s relationship with her husband, there has been no period of separation or physical violence. The Appeal Panel found no evidence that the appellant’s relationship with her husband was severely strained. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant remains close to her children and there has been a loss of some friendships but friends still ring her. The Appeal Panel therefore assesses class 2 for social functioning.
While the Appeal Panel is satisfied that there is a demonstrable error in the MAC in relation to the ratings in the PIRS category of social functioning and this ground of appeal is made out, the assessment in this scale remains unchanged.

Employability

The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor decided that the appellant's subjective reporting of her motivation for work is determinative of the applicable class in employability and the Medical Assessor failed to otherwise evaluate the appellant's capacity for work. The appellant argues that as is clear from the classes set out in table 11.6 of the Guidelines, the Medical Assessor must also take into account capacity for employment, which is distinct from motivation.
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor does not describe the appellant's capacity for work in terms of the hours or duties which she is capable of in a manner that is referable to the PIRS scale of employability. The appellant argues that in failing to properly consider this issue, the Medical Assessor has failed to take into account a relevant consideration or has failed to provide adequate reasons to justify his conclusions.
The appellant submits that, consistent with the evidence of Dr Nagesh and Dr Chan, she ought to have been assessed as having class 4 or 5 impairment in the scale of employability.
The examples under Table 11.6 for “Employability” in the Guidelines are:
“Class 3: Moderate impairment: Cannot work at all in same position. Can perform less than 20 hours per week in a different position, which requires less skill or is qualitatively different (eg less stressful).
Class 4: Severe impairment: cannot work more than one or two days at a time, less than 20 hours per fortnight. Pace is reduced, attendance is erratic.
Class 5: Totally impaired: Cannot work at all”.
The Medical Assessor assessed the appellant as class 3 for employability. In the PIRS Rating Form, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“Employability - class 3.
Since the subject injury, she said she has not been able to return to work or look after alternative work. She said she had asked for light duties, but her employer did not allow her and terminated her. She said that after being terminated, she wanted to continue working, and there were jobs she could have done. However, after being fired, she said that her substitute was someone who had an injury and she said she felt she was discriminated against. She said given her shoulder injury, she could not do much, and even with the jobs she has applied for, due to her injury, she said she was not able to undertake those jobs, such as washing pots and pans.
Her impairment is partially contributed to by her nonassessable physical injury, and from a psychiatric perspective, she had been motivated to return to a job if not for her physical injury, so she has moderate impairment.”
Under “Social Activities/ADL”, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“She said she has done a few loads of laundry, but she has relied on her son do most of the domiciliary tasks. She said that there has been a lot of confusion, and sometimes bending down will be too much and she becomes confused and mix up the dark colours and white colours…
She said she tried to drive twice, has been able to drive, though she avoids the city, and she gets anxious and feels her head spin. She said she has been always in the company of her husband or her son, as she would get confused and struggle to understand where she was going”.
In commenting on the other medical opinions, the Medical Assessor noted:
“She has some willingness to return to work, if not for her physical injury, so I also disagree with the employability rating being totally impaired.”
In her statement dated 20 May 2024, the appellant stated at paragraph 31: “The prospects of finding another fulfilling job with similar duties are very unlikely.”
At paragraph 36 of her statement the appellant wrote:
“I have a very limited understanding of speaking, reading or writing English. This, in conjunction with my age and capacity for reduced duties only makes it difficult for me to find jobs that are suited to me. Due to my combination of physical and psychological symptoms, as well as my limited command of English and ability to work on a computer, I do not think there is any work I could realistically do at this stage.”
Dr Nagesh, in his report dated 26 March 2024, noted that the appellant remained symptomatic and was totally incapacitated for work. He assessed a class 5 for employability providing the following reasons: “I have assessed her as class 5, totally impaired. My rationale is your client cannot work at all.”
Dr Chen, in her report dated 26 July 2024, assessed a class 5 for employability providing the following reasons:
“Breakdown in relationship with Coasit - [BPM] does not wish to return to work there. Unable to be employed in the open labour market currently as undergoing breast cancer treatment and overseas.”
In a report dated 3 May 2024, Ms Kylie Warry, Rehabilitation Counsellor and Vocational Assessor, concluded that the appellant had severe psychological symptoms and was struggling with the following psychological challenges that were critical with regards to managing employment:
“▪ Reduced ability to cope in an environment related to her
previous work environment due to increased anxiety and depression
▪ Reduced ability to focus
▪ Reduced ability to concentrate
▪ Poor decision-making ability
▪ Reduced ability to communicate effectively (becomes very emotional)
▪ Reduced problem-solving ability
▪ Reduced administrative capacity (for life such as paying bills, banking etc, negotiating the compensation system) due to stress, chronic pain and fatigue
▪ Reduced organisational skills
▪ Reduced interpersonal skills
▪ Reduced tolerance for stress
▪ Reduced tolerance for conflict
▪ Reduced ability to manage her emotions
▪ Inability to be reliable or consistent in her attendance (crucial
for employment)
▪ Struggles to trust people and authority
▪ Very low confidence
▪ Very low motivation
▪ Social isolation
▪ Avoidance of people”.
Ms Warry concluded that the appellant was not fit for any work.
The Appeal Panel accept that motivation to work is not determinative of the applicable class in employability. The Appeal Panel notes that the appellant has not worked since about September 2022.
Both Dr Nagesh and Dr Chan assessed the appellant as having class 5 impairment in the scale of employability.
The Appeal Panel finds that the reasoning process was not sufficiently clear and the Medical Assessor did not adequately explain how he assessed the appellant’s capacity for work. The failure to give adequate reasons is a demonstrable error. This ground of appeal is made out.
The Appeal Panel reviewed the evidence in this matter. The fact that the appellant expressed a willingness to work is not an indicator of a capacity to work. The appellant is not carrying out any activities which could attract remuneration. The appellant was an assistant and helped elderly clients, and attended to their needs. Considering the appellant’s current functioning, such as getting confused doing laundry and mixing up colours, the assessments of Dr Nagesh and Dr Chan and the report of Ms Warry, the Appeal Panel assesses the appellant as class 5 for employability.
One final matter was raised by the appellant under both grounds of appeal, that is, if the Medical Assessor had assessed a class 4 or 5 for employability and class 3 for social functioning, the appellant would meet the 15% WPI threshold. The Appeal Panel accepts the respondent’s submission that this is not a matter to be taken into account in the assessment of the class in each of the PIRS scales.
Therefore, the Appeal Panel finds that the PIRS scales score 2 3 2 2 2 5, ascending order 2 2 2 2 2 3 5, median class 2, aggregate 16 so that the WPI = 9%.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 16 April 2025 should be revoked, 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 after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W28830/24
Applicant:	[BPM]
Respondent:	Co As It Italian Association of Assistance

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 Yu Tang Shen and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:

Table - whole person impairment (WPI)

Body Part or system

Date of Injury

Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines

Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides

% WPI

Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition

Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)

1.Psychiatric injury

30 June 2023

Chapter 11

Page 54

Chapter 14

Pg361-365

Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)

[2025] NSWPICMP 505

14 July 2025