Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell - [2025] NSWPICMP 185

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell [2025] NSWPICMP 185
APPELLANT:	Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Peter Tideswell
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Chris Oates
DATE OF DECISION:	20 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; calculation errors; accepted by the respondent; section 323; evidence of complaints and investigations shortly before work injury; consideration of pathology of those complaints in context of significant and traumatic injury; Medical Assessor failed to consider relevant evidence and failed to provide adequate reasons; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked; deductions of one-tenth made for left shoulder and left knee.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 2 December 2024, Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Rob Kuru, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 5 November 2024.
The appellant relies on the following ground of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
· 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.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th edition
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr Tideswell was employed by the appellant as a carpenter. On 2 April 2019, he had installed a staircase as part of his duties. As he worked on installing the landing of the staircase, it collapsed, causing his arms to bend backwards. His colleagues had to extract him from under the landing.
In the immediate aftermath of the injury, Mr Tideswell underwent surgical repair of the triceps. This was complicated by infection. He also had problems with his left knee, both shoulders and cervical spine.
What followed was the expected course in an injury of this nature. Mr Tideswell had a complex course of treatment as set out in his statement. He made a claim for lump sum compensation, which was disputed by the appellant on the basis of liability for the cervical spine. That dispute was brought to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission), resulting…

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 Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell 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 185
Decision Date: 20 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd v Tideswell, the plaintiff sought a review of a decision made by a Medical Assessor under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The plaintiff, an employee of Classic Carpentry Services Pty Ltd, had suffered injuries at work, and the Medical Assessor had determined the degree of impairment resulting from the injury. The dispute centred on the accuracy of the impairment calculation, with the plaintiff arguing that the Medical Assessor had failed to properly consider relevant evidence, leading to an incorrect assessment of the degree of impairment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Medical Assessor had erred in the calculation of the plaintiff's degree of impairment. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Medical Assessor had failed to consider evidence of the plaintiff's pre-existing complaints and investigations, and whether this omission, coupled with the failure to provide adequate reasons, constituted a significant error warranting the revocation of the Medical Assessment Certificate. The court also needed to decide if the evidence of the pre-existing complaints and their pathology should have been considered in the context of the significant and traumatic injury sustained at work.

The court found that the Medical Assessor had indeed failed to consider relevant evidence, including the pathology of the pre-existing complaints, and had not provided adequate reasons for the impairment calculation. The court concluded that the failure to consider this evidence and the lack of adequate reasons constituted a significant error. As a result, the court revoked the Medical Assessment Certificate and made deductions of one-tenth for the left shoulder and left knee injuries. This decision was based on the understanding that the pre-existing conditions, while not directly related to the work injury, could have influenced the overall degree of impairment.

In light of the above findings, the court ordered that the Medical Assessment Certificate be revoked and that the degree of impairment be recalculated, with specific deductions for the left shoulder and left knee injuries. The court's decision underscored the importance of thorough and comprehensive assessments in workers' compensation cases, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered in the context of the claimant's overall condition.

Orders