Campbell-Ellis v Interrelate Limited - [2024] NSWPICMP 97

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Campbell-Ellis v Interrelate Limited [2024] NSWPICMP 97
APPELLANT:	Matthew Campbell-Ellis
RESPONDENT:	Interrelate Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Ash Takyar
DATE OF DECISION:	22 February 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Assessment of the degree of permanent impairment from psychological injury; whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred in finding appellant had not achieved maximum medical improvement; whether MA erred by having regard to likely change in appellant’s social circumstances as well as likely change in treatment when considering whether appellant had achieved maximum medical improvement; Appeal Panel found MA did not make any error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 26 September 2023 Matthew Campbell-Ellis, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Clayton Smith, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 31 August 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 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 (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.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On or around 5 September 2022 the appellant registered with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) an Application to Resolve a Dispute seeking determination of claims he had made against his employer, Interrelate Limited, the respondent, for:
(a)    weekly payments of compensation for an incapacity;
(b)    compensation for medical expenses he incurred for treatment, and
(c)    compensation for permanent impairment, the degree of which he particularised as 15% whole person impairment (WPI).
He particularised the injury, to which he claimed these entitlements related, in these terms: “the worker was diagnosed with PTSD and depression as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment”. The date of injury was particularised as 17 June 2020.
The claim relating to the appellant’s compensation for permanent impairment was referred to the Medical Assessor to assess several medical disputes relating to his injury, including whether the degree of permanent impairment the appellant has from his injury is fully ascertainable.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 11 November 2022, and on that occasion took a history that the appellant had consulted his general practitioner around July 2020, who referred him to…

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 Campbell-Ellis v Interrelate Limited

Details

AGLC: Campbell-Ellis v Interrelate Limited [2024] NSWPICMP 97
Case: [2024] NSWPICMP 97
Decision Date: 22 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Campbell-Ellis v Interrelate Limited, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to review a decision pertaining to the assessment of permanent impairment arising from psychological injury. The appellant, Campbell-Ellis, challenged the determination of the Medical Assessor (MA) who concluded that she had not achieved maximum medical improvement. The crux of the appeal was whether the MA erred in his assessment by considering both the likely change in Campbell-Ellis’s social circumstances and the likely change in her treatment when determining her level of impairment.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions concerning the assessment of psychological injury and the determination of permanent impairment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the MA was correct in taking into account the potential future changes in Campbell-Ellis’s social circumstances and her treatment when evaluating her current state of health and the extent of her impairment. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the MA’s approach in assessing the degree of permanent impairment was in accordance with the applicable legal standards and principles.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Appeal Panel had correctly concluded that the MA did not make any error in his assessment. The court held that the MA’s consideration of both the likely changes in social circumstances and treatment was a permissible approach under the applicable legislative framework. The court also confirmed that the Medical Assessment Certificate was valid and correctly reflected the appellant’s state of health at the time of assessment. The Appeal Panel’s decision was thus upheld, and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the decision of the Appeal Panel and affirmed the Medical Assessment Certificate. Campbell-Ellis’s appeal was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. The court’s decision underscored the importance of a comprehensive and legally sound approach in the assessment of psychological injuries and permanent impairment, ensuring that all relevant factors are appropriately considered.

Orders