Campbell v Cottee Parker Architects - [2025] NSWPICMP 841

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Campbell v Cottee Parker Architects [2025] NSWPICMP 841
APPELLANT:	Christine Lori Campbell
RESPONDENT:	Cottee Parker Architects
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Baker
DATE OF DECISION:	30 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appellant submits that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred by failing to provide adequate reasons; failed to take into account relevant considerations; failed to correctly apply the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), and did not afford the appellant procedural fairness; Held – MA erred in his assessment of three of the PIRS categories and his section 323 deduction; Appeal Panel found reasons adequate and no error in the PIRS assessments; error in section 323 deduction; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 30 July 2025, Christine Lori Campbell (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 10 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) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

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 although one was requested, we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal, for reasons which will become apparent below.

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…

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 Campbell v Cottee Parker Architects 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 841
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v Cottee Parker Architects involved a dispute concerning a worker's compensation claim. The appellant, Campbell, sought to challenge a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Campbell argued that the Medical Assessor (MA) had erred in various ways, including failing to provide adequate reasons, omitting relevant considerations, misapplying the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), and not observing procedural fairness. The matter was heard and determined by the Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Regulator.

The court was tasked with determining whether the MA had made any errors in the assessment of the appellant's psychiatric impairments and whether these errors warranted a review of the MAC. Specifically, the appellant claimed that the MA had misapplied the PIRS by incorrectly categorising the severity of the psychiatric impairments, and had also erred in making a deduction under section 323 of the Act. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the MA's reasons were inadequate and that the process did not afford procedural fairness.

In examining the arguments, the Appeal Panel found that while the MA had indeed erred in assessing three of the PIRS categories and in making the section 323 deduction, the reasons provided by the MA were adequate. The Panel concluded that there was no error in the other PIRS assessments, and that the appellant had not been denied procedural fairness. Consequently, the Appeal Panel revoked the MAC, acknowledging the errors made by the MA in the specific areas identified by the appellant. This decision underscored the importance of accuracy in medical assessments under the Workers Compensation Act and the need for clear and adequate reasoning in such assessments.

Orders