Crawley v Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd

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 to loud noise in his employment with Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd (the respondent) deemed to have occurred on 25 October 2023.
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 20 January 2025 in which he claimed lump sum compensation in respect of the hearing loss.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 27 February 2025 and assessed 13% WPI. He made a deduction of 7% WPI pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act for extra jurisdictional occupational noise exposure. The total WPI, as a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 25 October 2023, was 6%.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural Direction PIC7.
The Appeal Panel issued a Preliminary Review Notice on 18 June 2025 calling for any audiograms, medical reports or assessments of binaural hearing loss or other documents in relation to the settlement of the appellant’s claim for compensation for hearing loss in Queensland, which was settled in about 2013.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel also determined that it was necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient information on which to make a determination.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

Further medical examination

Medical Assessor Robert Payton of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of
Mr Crawley on 29 September 2025 and reported to the Appeal Panel.

Medical Assessment Certificate

The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
The appellant’s submissions include the following:
(a)    there is no challenge the Medical Assessor’s assessment of total noise induced loss of 26.6% BHI (including deduction for presbycusis and allowance for severe tinnitus);
(b)    the appellant had periods of employment in New South Wales, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland and a period of service with the Royal Australian Air Force;
(c)    Dr Raj, in the report of 4 April 2024, considered the appellant’s employment history and exposure to noise and made no deduction pursuant to s 323;
(d)    Dr Howison provided two reports. In the first report dated 2 August 2024,
Dr Howison considered the appellant’s employment history and exposure to noise and made no deduction pursuant to s 323. In the further report dated
17 September 2024, Dr Howison made two deductions. The first was the difference between a preemployment hearing assessment and the loss assessed by Dr Howison and the second was a deduction of 10% for the appellant’s employment with the Air Force;
(e)    the Medical Assessor recorded a history of the appellant’s employment and exposure to noise which is consistent with the statement and reports. The Medical Assessor and the medico-legal experts agree that the appellant was exposed to noise capable of causing noise induced hearing loss including in his employment with the respondent. There are references to sources of noise, hours worked and hours exposed to noise in the appellant’s statement and to some extent in the MAC and reports, but no evidence of the extent (in dBA) of the exposure;
(f)    at point 10(b), page 5 of the MAC the Medical Assessor gives a rationale for the s 323 deduction. The Medical Assessor did not refer to any medical evidence and applied a linear deduction based on factual evidence. The Medical Assessor opines that noise induced occupational hearing loss progresses more rapidly in the first several years. This statement is contradictory to a pro rata deduction because of the changing progression of the loss over time. The one comparative audiogram is of limited assistance as it was immediately before the appellant’s commencement with the respondent. In any event, that audiogram is not considered by the Medical Assessor;
(g)    the pro rata deduction is made in a contradictory manner. For example, the Medical Assessor recorded a history the appellant was exposed to noise for up to nine hours per day in employment in Western Australia and concluded (absent any LAeq data) the noise was more intense than that in NSW yet applies a pro rata deduction. The conclusion the noise exposure was more intense in Western Australia than NSW is flawed as it fails to explain in any or any substantive way why a longer period of exposure would be more intense absent evidence of the type and LAeq assessment of the exposure and it fails to grapple with the LAeq changing depending on the duration (time) and Db (volume or sound pressure) of the exposure;
(h)    the Medical Assessor applied a linear pro rata deduction for injury sustained outside of NSW, when there is limited comparative medical data to show the progression of the loss at points in time during the appellant’s working life, no data of the LAeq with each employer to enable a comparative analysis of the impact of the exposure in circumstances where the Medical Assessor concedes the progression occurs more rapidly in the first several years;
(i)    the pro rata deduction is based on a premise all exposure to noise has equally contributed proportionate to the period of the exposure to the appellant’s hearing loss in the same way. This is against the Medical Assessor’s opinion of the progression of the loss changing over time and the facts recorded by the Medical Assessor about the exposure periods and intensity;
(j)    section 323(2) of the 1998 Act is designed to address circumstances such as these. This matter falls squarely within the parameters of “difficult to determine” and despite the Medical Assessor’s comment that the assumption is at odds with the available evidence, which must only be correct if there was sufficient factual or medical data available to Medical Assessor to dispel it. That data does not exist;
(k)    the MAC is based on incorrect criteria (the application of a pro rata deduction absent sufficient medical or factual basis) and/or contains a demonstrable error (the deduction is contrary to s 323(2) of the 1998 Act because it is difficult to determine) and is appealable;
(l)    a 10% deduction applied to Medical Assessor’s assessment generates the following impairment resulting from the injury: 28.4% total loss of hearing less 3.8% deduction for presbycusis, plus 2% allowance for severe tinnitus which equates to 26.6% binaural loss of hearing. Applying a 10% deduction under s323(2), the impairment calculated is 26.6-2.66%, which equals 23.94% and 12% WPI, and
(m)     the MAC dated 7 March 2025 should be revoked and the Appeal Panel provides a revised MAC with a 10% deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act, equating to 12% WPI as resulting from the injury.
The respondent’s submissions include the following:
(a)    the MAC must be read as a whole. The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant was exposed to “loud noise with the potential to damage hearing”. The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant worked in Queensland from 1997 until 2014 with similar noise exposure working for James Cook University three hours a day and at another company for one hour a day for a total of four hours a day, five days a week. Before that he was in Western Australia from 1986-1989 with similar noise exposure working nine hours a day up to seven days a week;
(b)    the total binaural hearing impairment derived from the audiogram was 28.4% however the Medical Assessor was of the opinion that a deduction of 53% was applicable due to extra jurisdictional occupational noise exposure;
(c)    a deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act is required if a proportion of the permanent impairment is due to previous injury or due to pre-existing condition or abnormality: Vitaz v Westform (NSW) Pty Ltd, [2011] NSWCA 254. Ryder v Sundance Bakehouse [2015] NSWSC 526 (Ryder) at [54] and Cole v Wenaline.6 [2010] NSWSC 78 at [29] - [30];
(d)    noise-induced hearing loss suffered in employment overseas or interstate, that is out of the jurisdiction of NSW, may give rise to a s 323 deduction if the relevant factual evidence is available (Petreski v D Akmadziz & I Admadzic [2023] NSWPICMP 276);
(e)    in his statement the appellant gives evidence of the noise to which he was exposed during his employment outside of the NSW jurisdiction. The extra jurisdictional occupational noise exposure during the period 1997 to 2014 was hazardous to hearing and in all likelihood caused occupational noise induced hearing loss that contributed to his current impairment. This period is prior to the deemed date of injury of 25 October 2023;
(f)    in Pereira v Siemans Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1133 (Pereira) Justice Garling found that it was necessary to have evidence which would enable a conclusion to be drawn that the level of noise exposure was of a nature which would have resulted in a hearing loss. This would involve satisfying the criteria set out by Deputy President Roche in Dawson and others t/as The Real Cane Syndicate v Dawson [2008] NSWWCCPD 35;
(g)    in his statement, the appellant disclosed a previous hearing loss claim lodged in 2013 for occupational noise exposure in Queensland. The appellant did not disclose the binaural hearing loss percentage however reported receiving $2,400 in compensation. The evidence in this matter establishes that the appellant suffered, as a consequence of his employment in Queensland, Western Australia and Northen Territory, irreversible and permanent damage to the hearing;
(h)    the Medical Assessor considered the question of whether there should be a deduction. Based on the evidence before him and in the exercise of his professional judgment, the Medical Assessor considered that a s 323 deduction was applicable given the duration of noise exposure outside NSW. The Medical Assessor correctly applied a pro rata deduction;
(i)    it is apparent on the face of the MAC that the Medical Assessor was able to determine the extent of hearing loss that was due to extra jurisdictional noise exposure. It was clearly not difficult or costly to determine and a deduction of 10% would have been at odds with the available evidence being, principally, the appellant’s own statement, the Medical Assessor’s own examination and audiogram;
(j)    in line with paragraph 1.6a of the Guidelines, the task of the Medical Assessor was to assess the appellant as he presented on the day of assessment and to apply his own clinical judgements in the Application of the Guidelines. The Medical Assessor was not bound to agree with the findings of either of the experts (Nikolovski v McDonalds Australia Limited [2021] NSWPICMP 192 at [20]);
(k)    the Medical Assessor provided the path of reasoning for exercising this judgment on page 5 of the MAC under ‘reasons for assessment’. The Medical Assessor’s findings on this issue did not contain a demonstrable error and his assessment was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria, as submitted by the appellant, and
(l)    the appeal should be dismissed and the MAC confirmed.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
The Appeal Panel have reviewed the MAC and the evidence in this matter including the documents produced by appellant’s solicitor, Mr Peter Rogers of MRM Lawyers, on
20 August 2025, namely:
(a)    attune Audiology audiograms dated 26 May 2015 and 26 August 2015;
(b)    Queensland Government Medical Assessment Tribunal determination dated
26 August 2015, and
(c)     Workcover Queensland determination dated 31 August 2015.

Deduction under s 323

The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor erred or otherwise applied incorrect criteria by applying a linear pro rata deduction in his assessment, in circumstances where there is limited comparative medical data to show the progression of the loss at points in time during the appellant’s working life.
Section 323 of the 1998 Act provides:
“(1) In assessing the degree of permanent impairment resulting from an injury, there is to be a deduction for any proportion of the impairment that is due to any previous injury (whether or not it is an injury for which compensation has been paid or is payable under Division 4 of Part 3 of the 1987 Act) or that is due to any pre-existing condition or abnormality’.
(2) If the extent of a deduction under this section (or a part of it) will be difficult or costly to determine (because, for example, of the absence of medical evidence), it is to be assumed (for the purpose of avoiding disputation) that the deduction (or the relevant part of it) is 10% of the impairment, unless this assumption is at odds with the available evidence”.
Section 68B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) provides:
“When determining the compensation payable by an employer in a case in which section 17 applies (loss or further loss of hearing), section 323 of the 1998 Act applies to that compensation subject to the following—
(a) there is to be no deduction under section 323 of the 1998 Act for any proportion of the impairment that is due to the worker’s employment in previous relevant employment (as defined in paragraph (b)) except any such proportion for which compensation under this Division (as in force at any time) or section 16 of the former Act has been paid or is payable,
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), previous relevant employment is employment to the nature of which the disease was due by a previous employer who is liable under section 17 to contribute in respect of the compensation being determined (or who would be so liable if the requirement to contribute were not limited to employers who employed the worker during a particular period).”
Section 68B(4) provides that s 323 applies to s 17 of the 1987 Act save that there is to be “no deduction” to impairment that is due to a worker’s employment in “previous relevant employment”. “Previous relevant employment” is defined in s 68B(4)(b) to mean employers who are liable to contribute under s 17.
The Medical Assessor under “History relating to the injury” on page 2 of the MAC noted:
“During his time with the respondent and with other previous employers, he was exposed to loud noise with the potential to damage hearing. He has had hearing difficulty for over 15 years (he received a settlement in 2013 for industrial deafness in Queensland). Treatment has consisted of the wearing of hearing aids.”
The Medical Assessor under “History including previous work history if relevant” on page 2 of the MAC noted:
“He worked for the respondent from 2021 until 2023 as a cleaner (he has been a cleaner all of his working life since leaving the Air Force in 1980). The respondent is a recruitment agency and sent him to work with DSM which makes animal feed. He was exposed to loud noise from vacuum backpacks and other vacuum cleaners and also floor polishers in addition to machinery noise in the chemical preparation part of the factory where animal feed was being produced. The noise was such that in its presence he would have to raise his voice or shout for someone with normal hearing to understand at a distance of about 1 m which indicates that in well less than 8 hours the noise had the potential to damage hearing which I believe it did. He worked 5 hours a day, 5 days a week. He wore hearing protection in the form of earplugs.
Prior to that he worked for Elite Cleaning in 2020 exposed to similar noise as with the respondent from cleaning apparatus (but not to the machinery noise). He worked 4 to 5 hours, 5 days a week.
Prior to that he worked for a company called Glad from 2014-2019 with similar noise
exposure as with Elite and worked 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. All of the above work was in NSW.
Before that he worked in Queensland from 1997 until 2014 with similar noise exposure working for James Cook University 3 hours a day and at another company for 1 hour a day for a total of 4 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Before that he was in Western Australia from 1986 -1989 with similar noise exposure, working 9 hours a day up to 7 days a week.
Prior to that he worked in Sydney from 1980 until 1986 working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with similar noise exposure.
Before that he was a motor mechanic in the Air Force from 1974 until 1980. He said that this did expose him to some noise associated with this occupation but that his exposure from weapons training was minimal because he only went to the rifle range on 3 occasions and would have fired less than 100 rounds with hearing protection.”

The Medical Assessor under “Reasons for Assessment” on page 5 of the MAC wrote:
“As stated above the history and examination are consistent with a diagnosis of occupational noise exposure and the profile of the audiogram is consistent with this diagnosis. I have therefore accepted all of the hearing loss as being noise induced occupational deafness (industrial deafness). So there is 28.4% BHI of such hearing loss. At the age of the worker a deduction of 3.8% BHI for presbycusis is mandatory so I have made it. He suffers from severe tinnitus so I have made an allowance of 2.0 for this. The forgoing give a resultant total BHI of 26.6% which equals 13% whole person impairment.
However there have been 26 years of occupational noise exposure outside the NSW jurisdiction out of a total of 49 years of noise exposure so a 1/10 deduction under Section 323 (2) would fly in the face of the medical evidence especially as some of the extra jurisdiction noise exposure (that in Western Australia) was higher at - up to 9 hours a day and therefore more intense than that in NSW and also because noise induced occupational hearing loss progresses most rapidly in the first several years. I therefore believe that a pro rata deduction is appropriate and have made one 26 years of a total of 49 years is 53.0% of the total so of the whole person impairment of 13%, a deduction of 53% 6.89% which equals 7% when rounded to the nearest whole number. Deducting this 7% from the current 13% whole person impairment gives 6% whole person impairment requiring compensation.”
In commenting on the other medical opinions on page 5 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“Dr Howison in his supplementary report made a deduction for pre-existing hearing loss based on a preemployment audiogram which he acknowledged did not contain bone conduction. Hence I believe this audiogram was not suitable to make such a deduction because it is not sufficient or suitable to determine BHI and whole person impairment. I have therefore not used it in my assessment.”
The appellant in his statement dated 20 January 2025 wrote:
“4.     I commenced employment as a Cleaner in 1973 with the Department of Defence. I generally worked 8 hours per shift, 5 shifts a week. I was not exposed to loud noise in the course of this employment.
5.      I served in the Royal Australian Air Force between 1974 &. 1980 as a General Hand. In the course of this service, I was exposed to noise from aircraft. I generally worked 8 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week whist serving in the RAAF. I was exposed to loud noise for varying periods of time of between 1 and 3 hours per shift although hearing protection was supplied, and it was compulsory to wear….
7.      I then had a number of jobs in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory as a Cleaner. During this time I was only exposed to noise from vacuum cleaners.
8.      Between 1982 and 1985 I was employed by Austral & General Cleaning Company in Sydney as a Cleaner. I generally worked 8 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week during this time and I was exposed to limited noise from vacuum cleaners.
9.      Between 1985 and 1987 I was employed by James Barnes Cleaning in Wagga as a Supervisor in Cleaning working in a cleaning factory. I generally worked 8 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week during this time and I was exposed to minimal loud noise.
10.    Between 1986 and 1989 I was employed by Newman & Angle Mining in Western Australia as a Cleaner. I generally worked 9 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week during this time. I was exposed to noise from a backpack vacuum cleaner and hearing protection was provided.
11.    Between approximately 1989-1990 I was employed by Bracknell Cleaning in the
Northern Territory as a Cleaner. I generally worked 8 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week. I was not exposed to loud noise during this time.
12.    Between 1990-1993, although I cannot recall the exact dates, I was employed by
Nightcliff High School in the Northern Territory as a Cleaner. I generally worked 3 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week. I was exposed to noise during this time from backpack vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners and floor polishers for around 1/2 an hour to an hour per shift on average.
13.    Again between 1990-1993, although I cannot recall the exact dates, I was employed by Casuarina High or Secondary School in the Northern Territory as a Cleaner. I generally worked 3 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week. I was exposed to noise during this time from backpack vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners and floor polishers for around ½ an hour to an hour per shift on average.
14.    Between 1993 and 2002 I was self-employed as a sole trader working as a Cleaner. I generally worked 4-5 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week during this time and I was exposed to noise from backpack vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners and floor polishers for around ½ an hour to an hour per shift on average. I was exposed to loud noise for varying periods of time of between no exposure and 5 hours per shift. I always wore hearing protection when I was using or working with noisy equipment.
15.    Between 2003 and 2013 I was employed by James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland as a Cleaner exposed to noise from a backpack vacuum cleaner and floor polishers. I worked 3 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for 2 hours per shift.
16.    Concurrently with James Cook University, I was employed by Howard Service Group Pty Ltd between 1 July 2010 and 26 November 2010 as a Cleaner. Howard Service Group performed contract cleaning work for James Cook University as not all cleaning work was completed by internal staff. I was exposed to noise from floor polishers and a back pack vacuum cleaner. I worked 5 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for about 4 hours per shift.
17.    Again, concurrently with James Cook University, I was employed by Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd between 23 December 2011 and 15 May 2012 for a total of about 36 hours work as a Cleaner. In this employment, I cleaned a Woolworths supermarket and was exposed to noise from a floor polisher. I worked 3 hours per shift and was exposed to noise for about 1.5 hours per shift.
18.    Between 16 May 2013 and 6 March 2014 I was employed by Biniris (Aust.) Pty Ltd between as a Cleaner exposed to noise from a floor polisher with a backpack vacuum during the day and a backpack vacuum cleaner during the night. I worked 5 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week (3-day shift & 2-night shifts) and was exposed to noise for 2-4 hours per shift.
19.    Between 24 June 2016 and 30 June 201 I was employed by S. C Barzack & Z.J Barzack t/as Ziggy & Shaz Cleaning Service between for a total of about 16-20 hours as a Cleaner. I performed on-call house cleaning work which primarily involved cleaning windows. I was not exposed to any significant noise in this roll.
20.    Between 21 October 2015 and 30 June 2016, I was employed by A Whistle & Co Pty Ltd t/as Electrodry as a Cleaner exposed to noise form a commercial vacuum, polisher and extractor machine. I worked for 8 hours per shift, 5-6 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for 5-6 hours per shift.
21.    Between 9 January 2017 and 30 June 2017, I was employed by Advanced Facility Services Pty Ltd as a Cleaner. I cleaned two reject stores twice per week and was exposed to noise from a floor buffer with a built-in vacuum cleaner. I worked 2 hours per shift and was exposed to noise for 1 hour per shift.
22.    Between 1 July 2016 and 31 August 2019, I was employed by Glad Group Pty Ltd t/as Glad Commercial Cleaning as a Cleaner exposed to noise from a backpack vacuum cleaner for up to 1 hour per shift, leaf blower for up to 40 minutes per shift and a floor scrubber for about 2 hours per shift. I worked 5 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for about 5 hours per shift in total.
23.    Concurrently with Glad Group Pty Ltd, I was employed by Prompt Personnel Services Pty Ltd between 17 January 2019 and 28 July 2019 as a Cleaner exposed to noise from a backpack vacuum cleaner for about 30 minutes per shift and a ride-on scrubber for about 30 minutes per week. I worked 2-4 hours per shift, 2-3 shifts per week and I was exposed to loud noise for varying periods of time of between 4and 5 hours per shift.
24.    Between 11 December 2019 and 1 February 2020, I was employed by Cleveland
Services Pty Ltd as a Cleaner. I cleaned the South City Shopping Centre near Wagga and was exposed to noise from a ride-on floor scrubber and a gas operated buffer. I worked 4 hours per shift, 3-day shifts, 20night shifts and was exposed to noise for 50% of each day shift.
25.    Between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021, I was employed by The Trustee for Russell Family Trust t/as Wagga's Elite Cleaning exposed to noise from a backpack vacuum cleaner. I worked 4-6 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for 2 hours per shift.
26.    Between 1 October 2021 and 14 January 2022, I was employed by Assetlink (2) Pty Ltd as a Cleaner. In this employment, I cleaned the carpark at Wagga Wagga Market Place and was exposed to noise from a ride-one street sweeper which had built in scrubbers and vacuums. I worked 4 hours per shift, 5 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for 3 hours per shift.
27.    Between 24 June 2022 and October 2023, I was employed as a Cleaner by Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd t/as Huntsman Recruiting. My duties included emptying rubbish bins, mopping, wiping down, cleaning showers, cleaning lunchrooms and vacuuming. I was exposed to noise from a backpack vacuum cleaner for 10-15 minutes per shift, 4-6shifts per week.
28.    Between 2 June 2022 and 22 September 2022, I was concurrently employed with Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd and City Cleaning Services (Aus) Pty Ltd as a Cleaner. In the employment with City Cleaning Services (Aus) Pty Ltd, I cleaned Bunnings stores and was exposed to noise from a ride-on floor scrubber and ride-on vacuum cleaner. I worked 4 hours per shift, 2 shifts per week and was exposed to noise for about 3 hours per shift.
29.    I have been unemployed since October 2023.”
The applicant stated that his hearing loss and tinnitus has been a significant problem going back to around the 1995 and has gradually become worse since that time.
Dr Thandavan Raj, consultant ENT surgeon, in a report dated 4 April 2024 assessed 27.7% BHI (Total loss) and 23.9% BHI for occupational loss. He made no deduction pursuant to
s 323 of the 1998 Act.
Dr Kenneth Howison, consultant ENT surgeon, in a report dated 2 August 2024 assessed noise induced hearing loss of 26.3% which represented 13% WPI. Dr Howison made no deduction pursuant to s 323. He noted in the employment history that the appellant had served with the Air Force from 1974-1980 as a motor mechanic and was therefore exposed to significant noise during this service. Dr Howison also noted that the appellant worked in Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, but provided no details in relation to the period of work or whether there was exposure to noise in those jobs.
In a supplementary report dated 17 September 2024, Dr Howison made calculations based on the pre-employment audiogram carried out on 16 June 2022 and assessed hearing impairment as follows:
“• The current hearing loss is 26.3%
• % of Whole Person Impairment is 13.0%
• The hearing impairment on the pre-employment audiogram is 23.7%, which is 90.1% of the current hearing impairment of 26.3%.
• The remaining percentage of 9.9% is the percentage of Whole Person Impairment
to be compensated.
• 9.9% of the Whole Person Impairment of 13.0% equals 1.0%.”
Dr Howison also made a deduction of 10% under s 323 on the basis that the appellant’s employment in the Air Force was a “government employer”.
A pre-employment audiogram was conducted by Rehab Co on 16 June 2022. The Medical Assessor, Ms Bailey, noted that the appellant forgot his hearing aids for the assessment and this resulted in poor results in hearing assessment.
In Pereira, the worker had worked for 17 years in Pakistan before working for 32 years in New South Wales. The Approved Medical Specialist calculated the percentage of
Mr Pereira’s working life referrable to the period in Pakistan and deducted that percentage of his impairment of binaural hearing loss. The approach was confirmed by a medical appeal panel.
On judicial review in the Supreme Court, Garling J said in that the assessment under s 323 “is one which must be made based on fact, not assumptions or hypotheses”. His Honour set out the operation of s 17, referring to Lobley and the operation of s 323 and considered assumptions made by the appeal panel including that, because the worker was exposed to a workplace in which noise was generated, he must during the period of that exposure have suffered a pre-existing injury. His Honour said at [100]:
“The difficulty with such a conclusion is that there was simply no factual material which was sufficient to enable such a conclusion to be drawn. Whilst there was factual material available which described some of the work which took place in Pakistan, nowhere was there any evidence which would enable a conclusion to be drawn that the level of noise to which the plaintiff was exposed in Pakistan, was of a nature which would have, by a gradual process, resulted in a loss of hearing. Nowhere was there any material which allowed the Appeal Panel or the AMS, to conclude that the plaintiff had been exposed to an unacceptable noise level for a sufficient length of time, and of the kind of noise level which, on the probabilities, would have resulted in an injury.”
Referring to the one-tenth deduction provided for in s 323(2), his Honour went on [at 104-107]:
“The application of this rule of thumb deduction does not constitute fulfillment, in a hearing loss case, of this required element. As a matter of logic, the present extent of the plaintiff’s hearing loss may have been caused entirely by the plaintiff’s employment in NSW over the 32 year period. There is nothing about his present degree of whole person impairment which would, of itself and without more, enable a contrary conclusion. There was no material for example, which enabled a finding that the level of impairment from loss of hearing for the plaintiff, could not all have arisen during the 32 year period of employment in NSW.
However, the Appeal Panel and the AMS have simply assumed that by application of the straight line method of attribution of deafness, there must have been a pre-existing injury, and the degree of impairment from which the plaintiff suffers must have been contributed to by all of the pre-existing noise exposure.
This is nothing more than assumption or speculation. The conclusion is not sufficient to satisfy the obligation under s 323 of the 1998 Act to be satisfied that a pre-existing injury has contributed to the present impairment.”
In Pereria, the Supreme Court referred the matter back to the Registrar to be remitted to a different medical appeal panel, which proceeded to make a deduction of 10% for previous employment having been satisfied the evidence indicated the nature of the work in Pakistan was capable of causing a hearing loss injury.
The Appeal Panel acknowledges that the Medical Assessor made a pro rata deduction on the basis that the appellant worked 26 years of a total of 49 years outside NSW, which was 53% of the total period worked where he was exposed to noise.
The Appeal Panel noted that there were a number of inconsistencies between the Medical Assessor’s history and appellant’s statement. For example, the Medical Assessor noted that the applicant worked in Sydney from 1980 until 1986 working eight hours a day, five days a week with similar noise exposure while the appellant in his statement said that after leaving the RAAF in 1980 he then had a number of jobs in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory as a Cleaner when he was only exposed to noise from vacuum cleaners. From his statement, it was clear that the appellant was not employed in NSW until 1982 when he worked for Austral & General Cleaning Company in Sydney as a Cleaner until 1985. He stated that he generally worked eight hours per shift, five shifts per week during this time and was exposed to limited noise from vacuum cleaners.
There was little detail provided in the MAC as to the nature and duration of noise exposure in the various employments outside NSW. The Appeal Panel considers that such information is necessary in order to make a s 323 deduction. More detail concerning the nature and duration of noise exposure in the various employments outside NSW was set out in the appellant’s statement, but the Medical Assessor did not comment on or refer to this in the MAC.
The Appeal Panel considers that in applying a pro rata deduction, the Medical Assessor made a demonstrable error. Although there was some limited evidence to the effect that the appellant was exposed to a level of noise in his work in Queensland such as to result in a loss of hearing, there was insufficient evidence to allow the Medical Assessor to conclude that the appellant had been exposed to an unacceptable noise level for a sufficient length of time, and of the kind of noise level which, on the probabilities, would have resulted in an injury in his employment with the RAAF and the Department of Defence, and in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Following the approach taken in Pereira, the Appeal Panel is satisfied that the deduction made by the Medical Assessor under s 323 of the 1998 Act was speculative or based on assumption. This ground of appeal is made out.
The Appeal Panel considered the medical records and documents which were produced, namely:
(a)    Attune Audiology audiograms dated 26 May 2015 and 26 August 2015;
(b)    Queensland Government Medical Assessment Tribunal determination dated
26 August 2015, and
(c)    Workcover Queensland determination dated 31 August 2015.
In the Attune Audiology audiogram dated 26 May 2015 current assessment of hearing loss was calculated as 19.4% with a 4% entitlement and 2% degree of permanent impairment (DPI). Ms Barbora Bohdal, audiologist, noted that in the left ear there was a mild to severe hearing loss above 1,500kHz and in the right ear a severe sensorineural hearing loss above 2 kHz. She assessed 16.2 % binaural PLH.
In the Attune Audiology audiogram dated 25 August 2015 current assessment of hearing loss was calculated as 19.4% with a 4% entitlement and 2% DPI. Ms Sarah Light, senior audiologist, noted that there was bilateral mild to profound hearing loss above 1500Hz. She assessed 19.4 % binaural PLH. She noted that there was exposure other than as a worker in Queensland, with the total duration in noisy environment in Queensland being 11 years and total duration in noisy employment being 40 years.
The Queensland Government Medical Assessment Tribunal determination dated
26 August 2015, assessed the appellant’s permanent impairment as follows:
Total occupational binaural hearing impairment (BHI) %          20%
Less: first 5% of total BHI (noise induced hearing only)            20 – 5 = 15%
Less: presbycusis deduction   15 - 0.6 = 14.4%
Addition for severe tinnitus  Nil
Less: previously compensated BHI  Nil
Work related noise exposure in QLD   (12/40) X 14.4 = 4.3%
Compensable BHI %   4.3%
The compensable BHI percent according to the  2%
Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Impairment converts to WPI from Table 9.1
The Tribunal provided the following reasons:
“The pattern of hearing loss is consistent with being noise induced in origin and the members of the Tribunal are of the opinion that his occupation as a commercial cleaner would have been a significant contributing factor to the development of such a hearing loss.
Mr Crawley has worked for 12 years of 40 years as a commercial cleaner in Queensland, and that proportion would be applied to determine the noise induced hearing loss for Queensland region.”

The Workcover Queensland determination dated 31 August 2015 advised that the appellant had been assessed as having a degree of permanent impairment (DPI) of 2%. The diminution of hearing was assessed at 4.20%. The appellant was advised that he was entitled to lump sum compensation in the sum of $6,298.40.
The appellant was paid compensation in respect of loss of hearing in Queensland where he worked for about 11 years. The Appeal Panel is satisfied because of that payment of compensation for occupational hearing loss that the level of noise to which the appellant was exposed to in Queensland was of a nature which could have, by a gradual process, resulted in loss of hearing.
It is less clear as to whether there is material to enable a finding as to whether the appellant had been exposed to an unacceptable noise level for a sufficient length of time, and of the kind of noise level which, on the probabilities, would have resulted in an injury, in the other employments outside NSW.
The appellant described in his statement being exposed to loud noise in various employments but did not describe the level of noise in sufficient detail (i.e. such as having to raise his voice or shout to communicate with someone with normal hearing to understand at a distance of 1m away) to conclude that he had been exposed to an unacceptable noise level for a sufficient length of time, and of the kind of noise level which, on the probabilities, would have resulted in an injury.
The appellant, in an email dated 20 August 2025, submits that he received compensation for either 4.2% or 4.3% binaural loss of hearing in 2015 and the deduction to be made should either be 10% of the total loss under s 323 of the 1998 Act or 4.2% or 4.3% for the 2015 claim. The appellant submits that the deduction should be one or the other, not both, because if deductions were made for both, the effect would be a double deduction from the compensable loss assessed by the Medical Assessor.
The respondent submits that any deduction for the previously received lump sum compensation should be in accordance with paragraph 9.15 the Guidelines and that a further deduction is applicable due to extra territorial occupational noise exposure in Western Australia and Northern Territory.
The respondent submits that the evidence including the appellant’s own evidence confirms that the extra territorial occupational noise exposure in Western Australia and Northern Territory was hazardous to hearing and in all likelihood caused occupational noise induced hearing loss that contributed to his current impairment. The respondent submits that this is confirmed by the Attune Audiology report dated 25 August 2015.
The respondent submits that a s 323 deduction is appropriate where there is evidence of causation of loss from prior extra jurisdictional occupational noise exposure. The respondent submits that it is not difficult or costly to determine the extent of the deduction and a deduction of 10% would be at odds with the available evidence.
The Appeal Panel, having found error, concludes that it was necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient evidence on which to make a determination in respect of a deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.
As noted above Medical Assessor Payten of the Appeal Panel examined the appellant on
26 September 2025. Medical Assessor Payten provided the following report:
“1. The worker's medical history, where it differs from previous records
The worker’s medical history was obtained by going through the statement provided by Mr Crawley and signed by him on 20 January 2025 and making corrections as necessary.
Worker’s history statement number 4.
He commenced employment as a cleaner in 1973 with the Department of Defence. He was there for 14 months and was not exposed to loud noise in the course of this employment.
Statement item number 5.
He was employed by the RAAF from 1974 to 1980. This began at Edinburgh in South Australia as a recruit in training for three months. This involved general and drill training and also how to use a SLR rifle. He was on the range twice and shot 60 shots in all over the three months he was on the training scheme. He always wore both earplugs and then on top of that earmuffs. From the history obtained his exposure to noise on the rifle range was not sufficient to cause hearing loss.
He was then posted to the RAAF School of Technical Training for another two months where there was no noise. He was then posted to Williamtown as a general hand for a couple of months. His general hand duties were in cleaning in offices and rooms attached to a hangar. This was 60 metres from the aircraft parking area and so he was exposed to the noise of aircraft coming and going. He was never on the tarmac and was mostly involved in the cleaning of the offices and toilets behind closed doors, but he also had to sweep out the hangar occasionally but not when there was any noisy work going on. This would take about one hour and so he was exposed to the noise of aircraft in the parking area 60 metres away for up to one hour per day. During this one hour, it was necessary to raise the voice to be heard at 1 metre by a person with good hearing who was temporarily not wearing hearing protection. He always wore hearing protection as it was mandatory in the RAAF and if caught not wearing hearing protection there would be trouble.
The airstrip was about 1 km away where airplanes were landing and taking off and it was therefore too far away to be responsible for loud noise.
From Williamtown he was sent to Darwin where he was located from 1974 to 1977.
He was in Darwin for Cyclone Tracy on Christmas Day 1974. He was employed in Darwin as a labourer helping a panel beater which involved replacing damaged panels rather than beating the dents outwards. This involved using hand tools to take off panels and refit other panels. It was not necessary to raise the voice to be heard at a distance of 1 metre in this occupation. He also had to manually sand the vehicle before it was sprayed and this was all done by hand with no noisy tools. During his time in Darwin therefore he was not exposed to any loud noise.
From 1977 to 1980, he was sent back to Williamtown and did exactly the same job as previously described as a general hand. Although described as a general hand, he really was a cleaner. It was necessary to raise the voice to be heard for one hour per day at a distance of 1 metre due to the noise of aircraft 60 metres away.
In summary, his employment by the Royal Australian Air Force from 1974 to 1980 did not expose him to loud noise for any greater than one hour per day. In my opinion, therefore the Royal Australian Air Force was not a noisy employer.
Item 6 on the statement. He cannot recall any hearing test done on leaving the RAAF in 1980 when he left the RAAF or the results of any hearing tests done at any time.
Mr Crawley pointed out that item 7 on his statement was out of sequence. The next statement following 6 should be item number 8 as follows.
From 1980 until 1986, he was employed in New South Wales by Austral and General Cleaning in Sydney. He was the supervisor of 78 employees and was not exposed to loud noise as he was busy supervising that the employees had done a good job. As well as that he also did some cleaning himself which involved using a noisy backpack vacuum cleaner for no more than one and a half hours per day. It was necessary to raise the voice to be heard at a distance of 1 metre indicating that the noise levels were in the region of 90 dBA and capable of causing noise-induced hearing loss after more than two hours. The duration of one and a half hours per day was not sufficient in my opinion to make Austral and General Cleaning a noisy employer.
Item 9 of his statement.
From mid-1986 to the end of 1986, he was employed by James Barnes Cleaning in Wagga as a supervisor in cleaning work in a meat processing factory. He was also a cleaner in the meat processing plant in addition to being a supervisor of cleaning. They used high-pressure hot water hoses and he was not anywhere near a noisy compressor which was outside the area. It was not necessary to raise the voice to be heard at 1 metre.
In summary, his noise exposure in New South Wales from 1980 to the end of 1986 was not noisy.
Mr Crawley then pointed out that item 7 on his original statement should now be inserted to follow item 9.
At the end of 1986 he went to Western Australia where he remained to the end of 1989. He was employed by Poon Brothers mostly in cleaning offices and buildings at Mount Newman. He was exposed there to the noise of a vacuum cleaner for about one hour per day. He was then employed by Poon Brothers at the Argyle Diamond Mine location and was exposed to the noise of a vacuum cleaner for about one hour per day. His employment by Poon Brothers in my opinion was not noisy, even though shifts were up to 9 hours.
Item 11.
From 1989 to 1990, he went to the Northern Territory for two years and was employed by Bracknell Cleaning. He was exposed to a noisy vacuum cleaner for one hour per day. In my opinion this was not of sufficient duration to cause any noise trauma.
Item 12.
From 1990 to 1993 he was in the Northern Territory employed at Nightcliff High School in the mornings where he was exposed to the noise of a vacuum cleaner for one hour. In the afternoon he was at the Casuarina High School where he was exposed to the noise of a vacuum cleaner for another hour per day making a total of two hours of noisy vacuum cleaner exposure for the whole day. This combined total was probably enough to have caused noise-induced hearing loss.
I note therefore that this period of employment from 1990 to 1993 was his first noisy employment since he first began work in 1973.
In item 14 on his statement, he says that between 1993 and 2002, he was self-employed as a sole trader working as a cleaner in Darwin. He was exposed to the noise of backpack vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners and floor polishers for up to one hour per shift on average. He always wore hearing protection while using or working with noisy equipment.
He then moved to Queensland.
In item 15 of his statement, he says that between 2003 and 2013, he was employed by James Cook University in Townsville and was exposed to noise for two hours per shift.
Item 16
Concurrently with James Cook University, he was employed by Howard Service Group Pty Ltd for five months from July 2010 to November 2010 as a cleaner and exposed to floor polishers and backpack vacuum cleaners for 1 hour per day.
Item 17
Concurrently with James Cook University, he was employed by Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd between 23 December 2011 to 15 May 2012 and was exposed to noise for 1.5 hours per shift. During this periods of concurrent employment with James Cook University, he was employed for a total of three and a half hours per day in noisy surroundings.
Item 18 of his statement says that from 16 May 2013 to 6 March 2014, he was employed by Biniris Australia Pty Ltd in Queensland. This was mainly using a floor polisher which was a noisy bit of equipment for four hours a day.
Item 19 of his statement. He moved back to NSW
Between 24 June 2015 to the end of July 2016, he was employed by S C Barzack and S J Barzack in Wagga. This was not a noisy job as it involved cleaning windows.
Item 20 Concurrent with this between 21 October 2015 and 30 June 2016, he was employed by A Whistle & Company Pty Ltd. He was exposed to loud noise for five to six hours per shift as his main job at this time was shampooing carpets and using floor scrubbers and therefore this was a loud employment. This was probably the noisiest job that he ever had.
Item 21 of his statement. Between 9 January 2017 and 30 June 2017, he was employed by Advance Facilities Services and was exposed to loud noise for one hour per day.
Item 22 Between the 1 July 2016 and 31 August 2019, he was employed by Glad Group Pty Ltd. He was exposed to the noise of a backpack vacuum cleaner and leaf blower and was exposed to loud noise for about five hours per week.
Item 23 Concurrently with Glad Group, he was employed by Prompt Personnel Services Pty Ltd between 17 January 2019 and 28 July 2019 as a cleaner exposed to loud noise from backpack vacuum cleaners and ride-on scrubbers for four hours per shift.
Item 24 of his statement. Between 11 December 2019 and 1 February 2020, he was employed by Cleveland Services Pty Ltd as a cleaner. He was exposed to loud noise for two hours per day due to exposure to a ride-on floor scrubber and a gas operated buffer.
Item 25 He began working for Russell F Trust but received a diagnosis of cancer and did not work more than a week.
Item 26 Between 1 October 2021 and 14 January 2022, he was employed by Assetlink Pty Ltd as a cleaner. He was exposed to loud noise for three hours per day.
Item 27 Between 24 June 2022 and October 2023 he was employed as a cleaner by Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd. He was exposed to the noise of a backpack vacuum cleaner for only half an hour per shift.
Item 28 Concurrent with item 27, he had an employment with Wagga Recruitment where he rode a floor scrubber and a ride-on vacuum cleaner and was exposed to loud noise for about three hours per shift.
He has been unemployed since October 2023.
He has severe tinnitus which has been present since 1995. It interferes with him getting off to sleep and stops him getting back to sleep if he wakes in the night. During the day it interferes with his concentration and it is extremely annoying. From the history obtained, he has severe tinnitus.
From the history obtained, there was a great variation in the amount of noise he had at different periods of his employment with frequent periods of being exposed to noise for not more than one hour per day up to being exposed to loud noise for five to six hours when employed by A Whistle & Company Pty Ltd from 2015 to 2016.
His first period of working in New South Wales was from 1980 to 1986 and from the history obtained he was not exposed to any loud noise for longer than one and a half hours per day and was not therefore exposed to noise likely to cause occupational hearing loss.
His first noisy employment was probably in the Northern Territory where he worked for two high schools in the one day and was exposed to noise of a total of two hours per day. In 1990 -1993. Later on from May 2013 to March 2014, he was employed by Biniris in Queensland and exposed to loud noise for four hours per day.
Biniris was his last noisy employer before he returned to New South Wales to what he says was his noisiest job ever and that was while employed by A Whistle for five to six hours per day.
2.    Additional history since the original medical assessment certificate was performed.
See 4 below
3.    Findings on clinical examination.
Today his tympanic membranes look normal and tuning fork testing was normal. An audiogram was not repeated as the Medical Appeal Panel instructed that the audiogram carried out on 27 February 2025 by the MA and laid out on Table 4 of the Medical Assessment Certificate should be relied on.
4.      Results of any additional investigations to original medical assessment certificate.
Since the original Medical Assessment Certificate, the Medical Assessment Tribunal decision in Queensland has been obtained. He was found on an audiogram performed on 26 May 2015 to have 20% binaural hearing impairment. The first 5% of this total binaural hearing impairment was deducted to give an amount of 15%. 0.6% was deducted for presbyacusis to give a figure of 14.4%. There was no addition for severe tinnitus.
His work-related noise exposure in Queensland was calculated on a linear basis of 12 years in Queensland from a total of 40 years of noise exposure as a cleaner. Therefore 12/40 multiplied by 14.4 equals 4.3%. Thus his compensable binaural hearing percent loss was 4.3 and his compensable WPI is 2% for noise exposure in Queensland.”
The Appeal Panel adopts the report and findings of Medical Assessor Payten. The Appeal Panel finds that the appellant was not exposed to loud noise capable of causing hearing loss in his first period of employment in NSW from 1980 to the end of 1986. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the appellant was exposed to hazardous noise during his second period of employment in NSW from 2016 to 2023.The Appeal Panel finds that prior to this second period of NSW employment the appellant suffered noise induced hearing loss outside of NSW such as when employed by Biniris in 2013-2014, in loud noise for two to four two to four hours per day in Queensland.
The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the appellant had a pre-existing noise induced hearing loss condition for which a deduction can be made under s 323 at the start of the period of employment in NSW in which he was exposed to hazardous noise, that is, in 2015.
The Appeal Panel does not consider that a linear deduction based on the number of years of noise exposure is appropriate because of the large variation in noise exposure in different jobs as seen in the detailed history obtained by Medical Assessor Payten.
The Appeal Panel is satisfied that a deduction pursuant to s 323 should be made in respect of the noisy employment and noise exposure in Northern Territory between 1990 and 2002 and in respect of noisy employment in Queensland between 2002 and 2014. These occurred prior to employment in NSW with the tendencies, incidents and characteristics to be capable of causing occupational noise induced hearing loss.
The Appeal Panel notes it is medically accepted that the hearing loss due to occupational noise exposure progresses more rapidly in the first several years of exposure than in later years. The Appeal Panel accept that the impact of a period of 12 years of noise exposure when the appellant worked in Darwin was relevant to the loss the appellant now suffers.
The Appeal panel find Mr 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 is October 2015 after he moved back to NSW from Queensland. The Attune audiogram of 25/8/2015 shows a binaural hearing loss of 16.2% and after presbycusis (age related hearing loss) correction of 0.6% results in 15.6% binaural hearing impairment (BHI) which translates to 8% WPI using Table 9.1 of the NSW Guidelines. Accordingly, the appellant has a pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality of 8% WPI and an exact s323 deduction can be made. The Medical Assessor found 13 % WPI. Therefore, the Appeal Panel finds the WPI due to the injury in NSW is 5% WPI.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 27 March 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION

APPEAL PANEL

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W664/25
Applicant:	Robert John Clifton Crawley
Respondent:	Wagga Recruitment Pty Ltd

This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998.

The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Henley Harrison and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:

Table - calculation of whole person impairment (WPI) for industrial deafness as set out in the Table immediately below in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and 1988 NAL Tables:-

Notional date of injury	Frequency Hz	Left dB HL Air Bone	Right dB HL Air Bone	Total % BHI	Occupational % BHI
18 October 2022 (deemed)	500	10 5 0.0	15 10 0.0	0	0
1000	15 10 0.0	20 20 0.8	0.5	0.5
1500	25 25 1.4	25 20 1.4	1.4	1.4
2000	50 50 7.3	70 70 11.6	7.8	7.8
3000	85 ≥70 9.5	80 65 9.1	9.2	9.2
4000	90 ≥60 9.8	85 ≥60 9.5	9.5	9.5
28.0	32.4	28.4
TOTAL % BHI: 28.4
Less Pre-existing non-related loss: 0
Less Presbyacusis correction: 3.8
Add % of severe tinnitus: 2.0
Adjusted total % BHI: 26.6
Resultant total BHI of 26.6% = 13% whole person impairment (Table 9.1) A deduction of 8% WPI pursuant to s323 of the 1998 Act for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality results in a WPI of 5% due to the injury in NSW with deemed date of injury of 18/10/2022.

The above assessment is made in accordance with the SIRA NSW Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002.

[2025] NSWPICMP 794

16 October 2025