Byron Shire Council v Bridge - [2025] NSWPICMP 822

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Byron Shire Council v Bridge [2025] NSWPICMP 822
APPELLANT:	Byron Shire Council
RESPONDENT:	Craig Bridge
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Lam-Po-Tang
DATE OF DECISION:	23 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); respondent worker suffered an injury of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to his employment as a police officer between 1990 and 2010 for which he received compensation for a permanent impairment of 17% whole person impairment (WPI); the respondent also suffered an injury of PTSD due to stressors to which he was exposed in his employment with the appellant between January 2021 and September 2022; Medical Assessor (MA) did not make any deduction pursuant to section 323 when assessing the respondent’s permanent impairment resulting from his injury with the appellant on the basis that the respondent’s PTSD due to his employment as a police officer had been successfully treated and that the respondent was functioning normally when he commenced his employment with the appellant; whether the MA erred by not making a deduction under section 323; Held – the MA erred; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 29 July 2025 the Byron Shire Council, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by
Dr Himanshu Singh, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 1 July 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, 4^th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant employed Craig Bridge, the respondent, as a community enforcement coordinator from January 2021. The respondent’s last day of work for the appellant was on 22 September 2023. Due to several matters that occurred during his employment the respondent suffered a psychological injury that has been variously diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
The respondent claimed compensation…

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 Byron Shire Council v Bridge 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: [2025] NSWPICMP 822
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Byron Shire Council contested a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued regarding a former employee, who claimed to have developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following his employment with the appellant between January 2021 and September 2022. The respondent had previously received workers' compensation for a permanent impairment of 17% whole person impairment (WPI) due to PTSD from his employment as a police officer between 1990 and 2010. The Medical Assessor (MA) did not make any deductions pursuant to section 323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 when assessing the respondent’s permanent impairment, concluding that the PTSD from the earlier employment had been successfully treated and that the respondent was functioning normally when he commenced employment with the appellant.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the MA erred in not making a deduction under section 323 of the Act. The court had to determine whether the MA's decision was reasonable and whether there was a basis for the deduction, given the respondent's previous history of PTSD. The court also needed to consider whether the MA's assessment of the respondent's condition at the time of employment with the appellant was accurate and if the previous treatment and recovery from PTSD were sufficiently accounted for in the assessment of the new injury.

In resolving the matter, the court found that the MA erred in not making a deduction under section 323. The court concluded that the MA failed to properly consider the impact of the respondent's prior PTSD on his current condition and did not adequately justify the decision to not make any deduction. The court determined that the MA's assessment did not sufficiently address the respondent's pre-existing condition and its potential influence on the current PTSD injury. Consequently, the court revoked the MAC and ordered a reassessment of the respondent’s claim, taking into account the previous history of PTSD.

Orders