| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | CHC v Park Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 474 |
| APPLICANT: | CHC |
| RESPONDENT: | Park Pty Ltd |
| PRINCIPAL MEMBER: | Glenn Capel |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 11 September 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; application for reconsideration seeking a revocation of a Certificate of Determination and a referral to another Medical Assessor (MA) pursuant to section 329; challenge to assessment of MA on basis of miscalculation of whole person impairment, deduction pursuant to section 323, lack of detailed reasons, and in the interests of justice; State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) v Kaur, Campbelltown City Council v Vegan, Ferguson v State of New South Wales, Marks v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 2), Cole v Wenaline Pty Limited, Howell v Stringvale Pty Ltd, and Samuel v Sebel Furniture Limited discussed and followed; Held – no merit in applicant’s application; application declined. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. The applicant’s application pursuant to s 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 for reconsideration of the orders made in the Certificate of Determination dated 4 June 2025 to allow for referral of his claim to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 329 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 is declined. 2. The orders in the Certificate of Determination dated 4 June 2025 are confirmed. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
[CHC] (the applicant) sustained a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with Park Pty Ltd (the respondent) on 1 February 2023 (deemed).
Liability was accepted by Employers Mutual Ltd (the insurer), and it appears that the insurer continues to pay the applicant weekly compensation and medical expenses.
On 3 September 2024, the applicant’s solicitor served a served a notice of claim on the insurer in respect of lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
The applicant relied on a report of Dr Khan dated 21 August 2024. Dr Khan assessed 17% whole person impairment (WPI) due to a psychological injury sustained on 1 February 2023.
On 15 January 2025, the insurer responded to the applicant’s claim and indicated that according to its independent medical specialist, Dr Pothala, who reported on 15 November 2024, the degree of permanent impairment was not capable of assessment because maximum medical improvement had not been reached.
The applicant’s solicitor filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 8 February 2025. The applicant claimed lump sum compensation in respect of 17% WPI due to injury sustained on 1 February 2023 (deemed).
The applicant’s claim was referred directly to Medical Assessor Singh who was requested to assess the degree of impairment as follows:
“Date of Injury: 1 February 2023 (deemed)
Body part/s referred: Psychological/Psychiatric disorder
Method of assessment: Whole…
Continue reading CHC v Park Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CHC v Park Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 474
- Case
- [2025] NSWPIC 474
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory framework governing medical assessments and reconsiderations. It noted that under section 322A of the 1998 Act, only one assessment of the degree of permanent impairment may be made. Section 326 of the 1998 Act provides that an assessment certified in a medical assessment certificate is conclusively presumed to be correct as to certain matters. The court also considered the grounds for appeal and reconsideration under sections 327 and 329 of the 1998 Act. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the court found that there was no merit in CHC's application for reconsideration.
The court declined CHC's application for reconsideration of the Certificate of Determination. The court found that there were no errors in the assessment, and that the assessment complied with the statutory requirements. The court also found that the reconsideration was not in the interests of justice.
The court made no orders for reconsideration or referral of the assessment to another medical assessor. The Certificate of Determination remains in force.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Section 57 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) deals with the reconsideration power of the Commission. It provides:“57 Reconsideration of decisions of Commission(1) The Commission may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with by the Commission in the Workers Compensation Division and rescind, alter or amend any decision previously made or given by the Commission in that Division.(2) If after the making of a decision by the Commission (and without limiting subsection (1)), the President is satisfied that the decision contains an obvious error, the President may—(a) alter the decision to correct the error, or(b) direct a registrar to alter the decision to correct the error.(3) Without limiting subsection (2), if the decision is contained in a certificate, the President may—(a) issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected, or(b) direct a registrar to issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected.(4) If a decision is altered, the altered decision is taken to be the decision and notice of the alteration is to be given to the parties in the proceedings in the manner directed by the President.(5) If a replacement certificate is issued, the certificate prevails over any previous certificate.(6) Examples of obvious errors in a decision are where—(a) there is an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of the notice or statement, or(b) there is an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or(c) there is a defect of form, or(d) there is an inconsistency between the stated decision the stated reasons.” A worker’s entitlement to lump sum compensation is governed by s 66 of the 1987 Act. It provides:“66 Entitlement to compensation for permanent impairment (1) A worker who receives an that results in a degree of permanent impairment greater than 10% is entitled to receive from the worker's employer compensation for that permanent impairment as provided by this section. Permanent impairment compensation is in addition to any other compensation under this Act.Note. No permanent impairment compensation is payable for a degree of permanent impairment of 10% or less. (1A) Only one claim can be made under this Act for permanent impairment compensation in respect of the permanent impairment that results from an injury…” There are a number of sections in the 1998 Act which are of relevance. These are as follows:“322A One assessment only of degree of permanent impairment(1) Only one assessment may be made of the degree of permanent impairment of an injured worker.(2) The medical assessment certificate that is given in connection with that assessment is the only medical assessment certificate that can be used in connection with any further or subsequent medical dispute about the degree of permanent impairment of the worker as a result of the injury concerned (whether the subsequent or further dispute is in connection with a claim for permanent impairment compensation, the commutation of a liability for compensation or a claim for work injury damages).(3) Accordingly, a medical dispute about the degree of permanent impairment of a worker as a result of an injury cannot be referred for, or be the subject of, assessment if a medical dispute about that matter has already been the subject of assessment and a medical assessment certificate under this Part.(4) This section does not affect the operation of section 327 (Appeal against medical assessment).”“326 Status of medical assessments(1) An assessment certified in a medical assessment certificate pursuant to a medical assessment under this Part is conclusively presumed to be correct as to the following matters in any proceedings before a court or the Commission with which the certificate is concerned:(a) the degree of permanent impairment of the worker as a result of an injury,(b) whether any proportion of permanent impairment is due to any previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality,(c) the nature and extent of loss of hearing suffered by a worker,(d) whether impairment is permanent,(e) whether the degree of permanent impairment is fully ascertainable.(2) As to any other matter, the assessment certified is evidence (but not conclusive evidence) in any such proceedings.”327 Appeal against medical assessment(1) A party to a medical dispute may appeal against a medical assessment under this Part, but only in respect of a matter that is appealable under this section and only on the grounds for appeal under this section. (2) A matter is appealable under this section if it is a matter as to which the assessment of an approved medical specialist certified in a medical assessment certificate under this Part is conclusively presumed to be correct in proceedings before a court or the Commission. (3) The grounds for appeal under this section are any of the following grounds: (a) deterioration of the worker’s condition that results in an increase in the degree of permanent impairment, (b) availability of additional relevant information (but only if the additional information was not available to, and could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against), (c) the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, (d) the medical assessment certificate contains a demonstrable error.(4) An appeal is to be made by application to the Registrar. The appeal is not to proceed unless the Registrar is satisfied that, on the face of the application and any submissions made to the Registrar, at least one of the grounds for appeal specified in subsection (3) has been made out.(5) If the appeal is on a ground referred to in subsection (3) (c) or (d), the appeal must be made within 28 days after the medical assessment appealed against, unless the Registrar is satisfied that special circumstances justify an increase in the period for an appeal(6) The Registrar may refer a medical assessment for further assessment under section 329 as an alternative to an appeal against the assessment (but only if the matter could otherwise have proceeded on appeal under this section).Note.Section 329 also allows the Registrar to refer a medical assessment back to the approved medical specialist for reconsideration (whether or not the medical assessment could be appealed under this section).(7) There is to be no appeal against a medical assessment once the dispute concerned has been the subject of determination by a court or the Commission or agreement registered under section 66A of the 1987 Act….”“329 Referral of matter for further medical assessment or reconsideration(1) A matter referred for assessment under this Part may be referred again on one or more further occasions for assessment in accordance with this Part, but only by:(a) the Registrar as an alternative to an appeal against the assessment as provided by section 327, or(b) a court or the Commission.(1A) A matter referred for assessment under this Part may be referred again on one or more further occasions by the Registrar to the approved medical specialist for reconsideration.(2) A certificate as to a matter referred again for further assessment or reconsideration prevails over any previous certificate as to the matter to the extent of any inconsistency.”