Chittick v Programmed Group - [2025] NSWPICMP 281

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Chittick v Programmed Group [2025] NSWPICMP 281
APPELLANT:	Jesse Chittick
RESPONDENT:	Programmed Group
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Alan Home
DATE OF DECISION:	23 April 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); non-lead assessor assessed 0% whole person impairment (WPI) of the left lower extremity, 1% WPI for scarring, and lead assessor assessed 13% WPI for sleep disorder; appeal against assessment of 0% WPI for the left lower extremity; Held – Appeal Panel satisfied that non-lead assessor failed to make a diagnosis and failed to consider whether there was an alternative method of assessing impairment; appellant worker re-examined by a member of the Appeal Panel; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 4 November 2024 Jesse Chittick (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Rob Kuru (Non-Lead Medical Assessor), who issued Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
10 December 2024.
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 to his left knee during his employment as labourer with the Programmed Group (the respondent) on 5 May 2021. The appellant then developed a consequential condition, namely, a sleep and arousal disorder.
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) dated 9 May 2024 in which he claimed an amount of $50,260 in respect of 19% whole person impairment (WPI) of the left lower extremity and the respiratory system as a result of the injury on 5 May 2021.
The medical dispute was referred to Dr Christopher Grainge, Respiratory Physician and
Dr Robert Kuru, Orthopaedic Surgeon, were appointed Lead and Non-Lead Medical Assessor…

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 Chittick v Programmed Group

Details

AGLC: Chittick v Programmed Group [2025] NSWPICMP 281
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 281
Decision Date: 23 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chittick v Programmed Group, the Court was tasked with reviewing a decision regarding a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appellant, Chittick, appealed against the assessment of 0% whole person impairment (WPI) for the left lower extremity, issued by the non-lead assessor, while the lead assessor had assessed 13% WPI for a sleep disorder. The dispute centred on whether the non-lead assessor had adequately diagnosed and considered alternative methods of assessing impairment for the left lower extremity.

The key legal issues for the Court were whether the non-lead assessor had appropriately diagnosed the appellant’s condition and if they had adequately considered alternative methods of assessing impairment. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the non-lead assessor had made an error in failing to recognise the appellant's condition and if there was a need for a re-examination of the appellant's condition.

The Appeal Panel found that the non-lead assessor had failed to make a proper diagnosis and had not adequately considered alternative methods of assessing impairment. The non-lead assessor had concluded that the appellant had 0% WPI for the left lower extremity and 1% WPI for scarring, which the Appeal Panel found to be unreasonable. Consequently, the Appeal Panel was satisfied that the non-lead assessor's approach was flawed. To rectify this, the Appeal Panel re-examined the appellant and issued a new MAC, revoking the previous assessment. The new certificate reflected a revised assessment of impairment, taking into account the appellant's actual condition and the need for a more thorough evaluation.

The Court ruled in favour of the appellant, revoked the original MAC, and issued a new certificate that more accurately reflected the appellant's impairment.

Orders