Crawley v Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 794

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Crawley v Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 794
APPELLANT:	Robert John Clifton Crawley
RESPONDENT:	Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Robert Payten
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Brian Williams
DATE OF DECISION:	16 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); claim in respect of bilateral sensorineural loss of hearing resulting from exposure to loud noise in his employment; Medical Assessor (MA) assessed 13% whole person impairment (WPI) and deducted 7% on a pro rata basis pursuant to section 323; Appeal Panel found that the MA erred in making a pro rata deduction as there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant had been exposed to an unacceptable noise level for a sufficient length of time; Appeal Panel called for audiograms; worker re-examined in order to obtain a detailed history of noise exposure in his various employments; Appeal panel found appellant’s first employment in NSW with the tendencies, incidents, and characteristics to be capable of causing noise induced hearing loss on the balance of probabilities is October 2015 after he moved back to NSW from Queensland; Appeal Panel therefore found that the appellant has a pre-existing injury, condition, or abnormality of 8% WPI and an exact section 323 deduction can be made; Held – MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 2 April 2025 Robert John Clifton Crawley (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by
Dr Henley C Harrison, a Medical Assessor, who issued an amended Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 27 March 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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant suffered an injury, namely, a bilateral sensorineural loss of hearing resulting from exposure…

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 Crawley v Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd 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 794
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crawley commenced proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal against Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd, seeking a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Crawley claimed he sustained bilateral sensorineural loss of hearing from exposure to loud noise during his employment. The Medical Assessor (MA) assessed Crawley's whole person impairment (WPI) at 13%, deducting 7% based on section 323 of the Act. Crawley appealed the deduction, arguing it was not justified by the evidence.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the MA correctly applied section 323 in making a pro rata deduction and whether there was sufficient evidence of exposure to an unacceptable noise level for a sufficient length of time. The Tribunal examined the audiograms and Crawley's history of noise exposure in various employments. The Appeal Panel concluded that the MA erred in making the pro rata deduction due to insufficient evidence. The Panel ordered Crawley to be re-examined to obtain a detailed history of his noise exposure. The Panel found Crawley's first employment in NSW with the tendencies, incidents, and characteristics to be capable of causing noise-induced hearing loss on the balance of probabilities was in October 2015 after he moved back from Queensland. Therefore, the Panel found Crawley had a pre-existing injury, condition, or abnormality of 8% WPI and an exact section 323 deduction could be made.

The Tribunal revoked the MAC, finding the original assessment was incorrect. The Tribunal ordered the parties to negotiate a revised MAC, taking into account the findings regarding the pre-existing condition and the appropriate WPI and deduction. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of detailed evidence of noise exposure and the need for careful application of section 323 when assessing claims for hearing loss under the Workers Compensation Act.

Orders