Corrective Services NSW v Singh - [2025] NSWPICMP 660

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Corrective Services NSW v Singh [2025] NSWPICMP 660
APPELLANT:	Corrective Services NSW
RESPONDENT:	Malwinder Singh
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Greg McGroder
DATE OF DECISION:	1 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment of lumbar spine and lower extremities; application by appellant to rely on fresh evidence as a ground of appeal; some evidence received on appeal and the Appeal Panel called for the complete copy of the clinical notes and records of the GP including records prior to the subject injury; Appeal Panel satisfied that the respondent worker had reached maximum medical improvement; Appeal Panel satisfied that there was an error in application of section 323 deduction and a deduction of one-tenth should be applied to the assessment of the left lower extremity (that is 0.4%); the assessment was 3.6% which was rounded up to 4% whole person impairment (WPI); the assessment of total WPI by the Appeal Panel was the same as that made by the Medical Assessor; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 6 June 2025 Corrective Service NSW (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr David Crocker, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
9 May 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):
·        availability of additional relevant information (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against);
·        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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Malwinder Singh (Mr Singh) suffered an injury to the right ankle on 16 December 2019 in his employment as a trainee custody officer with the appellant and as a result of…

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 Corrective Services NSW v Singh

Details

AGLC: Corrective Services NSW v Singh [2025] NSWPICMP 660
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 660
Decision Date: 1 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Corrective Services NSW appealed against a decision of the Workers Compensation Dust Disease Tribunal of New South Wales, which was presided over by a single member, Dr. G A Robertson. The central issue was whether the Tribunal erred in law by accepting that the respondent, Mr. Singh, had reached maximum medical improvement and by adjusting the assessment of whole person impairment. The Tribunal had concluded that there was an error in the application of section 323 deduction and that a deduction of one-tenth should be applied to the assessment of the left lower extremity, resulting in a 4% whole person impairment.

The court considered the evidence presented, including the clinical notes and records of the general practitioner. The Appeal Panel was satisfied that Mr. Singh had indeed reached maximum medical improvement and that there was a need to correct the assessment of whole person impairment. The court highlighted that the Appeal Panel had correctly identified the error in the application of the section 323 deduction, which warranted a reduction from 4% to 0.4% for the left lower extremity. Despite this adjustment, the final assessment of total whole person impairment remained consistent with the original Medical Assessment Certificate.

The court found that the Appeal Panel had exercised its discretion correctly by considering the fresh evidence provided. The evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Singh had reached maximum medical improvement and that the corrected assessment was accurate. The court confirmed that the final assessment of whole person impairment was correctly determined, and there was no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

The orders of the Workers Compensation Dust Disease Tribunal of New South Wales were affirmed, with no costs awarded to either party.

Orders