Daniels v Baradine Bowling & Sporting Club Ltd

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Daniels v Baradine Bowling & Sporting Club Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 398
APPELLANT:	Kerrie Anne Daniels
RESPONDENT:	Baradine Bowling & Sporting Club Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Anderson
DATE OF DECISION:	21 June 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor erred with respect to her assessments under four categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, namely self-care and personal hygiene, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and employability; Held – error in the assessment of self-care and personal hygiene, social functioning, and employability; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 25 March 2024 Kerrie Anne Daniels (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Himanshu Singh, a Medical Assessor (MA), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 29 February 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):
·        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).

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.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because although one was requested, the Appeal Panel considers that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal for reasons that will be addressed in due course.

Fresh evidence

Section 328(3) of the 1998 Act provides that evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to a medical assessment appealed against may not be given on an appeal by a party unless the evidence was not available to the party before the medical assessment and could not reasonably have been obtained by the party before that medical assessment.
The appellant seeks to admit the following evidence:
(a) a further statement by the appellant dated 21 March 2024.
The appellant submits that the evidence is relevant to the grounds of appeal. The appellant submits that the evidence was not available and could not reasonably have been obtained because it was only after the issuing of the MAC that it was obtained to correct an alleged error by the MA.
Baradine Bowling & Sporting Club Limited (the respondent) objects to the admission of this statement and refers to the comments made by Hoeben J in Petrovic BC Serv No 14 Pty Limited & Ors [2007] NSWSC 1156 where if a statement going to the way in which a medical assessment was conducted was additional relevant information “it would be open to every dissatisfied party to challenge the assessment process of an AMS in the same way thereby gaining automatic access to an appeal.”
The evidence provided in that statement was available to her before the assessment and merely extends what has been previously reported on.
In addition, the respondent submits that the appellant has failed to satisfy the requirements of s 328(3) of the 1998 Act and Practice Direction No 16 and leave ought to be denied for the appeal to proceed under s 327(3)(a) of the 1998 Act.
The Appeal Panel determines that the evidence should not be received on the appeal because it is of little probative value, and the appellant could and should have made the points now raised at the time of the assessment.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

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

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submits that the MA erred in his assessments under four categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), namely Self-care and Personal hygiene, Social Functioning, Concentration, Persistence and Pace (cpp), and Employability.
In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made.

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 appellant was referred to the MA for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a primary psychological injury on a deemed date of injury of 3 September 2018.
The MA obtained the following history:
“Ms Daniels was employed by Baradine Bowling and Sporting Club Limited for the first time on 18th August 1990 and she worked behind the bar. She is not working since September 2018.
Ms Daniels stopped working for Baradine Bowling and Sporting Club in February 1999 when all of the staff were laid off, owing to the poor financial position of the Club at the time.
In early 2000, she then started working at Baradine Hotel again. She cleaned rooms and worked behind the bar. It was discovered that she had BOOP (Bronchial Obliterans Organising Pneumonia). She made a full recovery and returned to work in July 2001 as bar manager, which included organising everything within the bar. She only worked 15 hours per week as her children were young at the time.
In 2005, the lady who did the office administration resigned and Ms Daniels accepted the role of office administrator.
In 2010, the Club asked Ms Daniels to take on the role as the Licensee of the Bowling Club and she accepted this position. She was employed as the manager and was responsible for reporting to the Committee. Her duties included stock control, deliveries; bookkeeping; human resources; payroll and the general running of the Club. She also undertook other duties as they arose including assisting with deliveries and in the bar and kitchen. Her work hours were then 36 to 38 hours per week and was employed on a casual basis.
Ms Daniels sustained a psychological injury at work that particularly emerged following a verbal altercation on Monday 3 September 2018 when she attended a management committee meeting…
In the lead up to the meeting, Ms Daniels felt being unreasonably pushed to her limits by the Club's committee with respect to unrealistic expectations on work duties and tasks. Ms Daniels felt overworked and underappreciated by the Committee…
On walking into the boardroom, Ms Daniels suggested to the Directors that they needed to speak to an Accountant if they had queries about the financial reports. Ms Daniels was repeatedly and aggressively questioned about the accounts…
Ms Daniels believes the committee members misunderstood the financial reports and she had been treated unreasonably.
Ms Daniels told me that her mental state deteriorated significantly in the days following this conflict…”
The MA then set out details of her present treatment.
When referring to “Past history” the MA said:
“Ms Daniels first experienced anxiety in 2013-2014, she was waking up in middle of night, had to get up to get out to get some fresh air, went to her doctor and was prescribed medication. She started to take Desvenlafaxine 50 mg, which did help her, if she forgot her medication then she would have a dreadful next day. She benefitted so much from treatment that she was feeling good, and was happy to work. She was doing what she wanted, did extra work, and brought work home as well when required without any issues. She said ‘everything was fine until the committee meeting night’. Ms Daniels denied any other pre-existing past psychiatric history. She denied any previous melancholia, mania, hypomania, psychosis, obsessions or compulsions. She denied any previous psychiatric hospital admissions, deliberate self-harm or suicide attempts.”
The MA then set out details of Ms Daniels’ “personal history”.
Present symptoms were noted as follows:
“Ms Daniels has 3 adult children, aged 37 son, 32 daughter and 29 son, and 2 grandchildren. MS Daniels told me that every day is different, some days she can get up and do more and other days she may stay in her pyjamas the whole day.
Ms Daniels has bad days and good days. Her daily routine depends on the day and the mood she wakes up in, if it’s a good day then she is better. On a bad day she is mostly crying, doesn’t want to be here, and has thoughts of wanting to be with her parents who have passed away. She had suicidal thoughts before Christmas, but it has gone away now. She may just sit in front of TV and lie on couch, during holiday she didn’t want to go fishing but her husband kept pushing her. Her mood is same, just gets around and doesn’t know how she feels. She is not happy, no motivation to do anything and her husband has to push her. She does work in the garden together with him, does some general chores around the house, like cooking, cleaning and laundry. She enjoys gardening, facetiming her grand kids and the time with puppies. She does not go for walks, and mostly spends time at home.
Ms Daniels reported that she drinks alcohol so that she can sleep, she is up and down on the lounge, and frequently sleep breaks up. She may get nightmares of what happened at work. Her appetite is fine and eats three meals a day, started to have light breakfast, as she gained a lot of weight. Earlier she was very active used to play, volleyball, and other games but not now. She was asked to do rehab courses by About Xero accounting which she was able to complete.”
The MA then turned to consider the impact of Ms Daniels’ injury on her social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) and said:
“Ms Daniels used to have hobbies like catching up with friends, knitting, sewing, cooking preservatives, but not doing them now. She has lesser visits to her children, they came few times to her home, but she gets very anxious as house is not tidy enough for them. She gets very anxious when she is around lot of people.”
Findings on mental state examination were reported as follows:
“Ms Daniels was well-kempt and dressed appropriately but appeared in distress and upset. She was cooperative, and rapport was well-established. The mood described was low, sad and had a restricted and dull affect. She described low motivation and low energy, and no pleasurable thoughts. There was no formal thought disorder and no symptoms of psychosis. She denied thoughts of self-harm or suicide. She thinks about her future and gets worried about how things have changed. She would like to work and get to it and get better. She was oriented and had clear sensorium. She struggles to focus, and reports reduced levels of concentration. She had good insight into her problems and was seeking help.”
The MA diagnosed “Major Depressive Disorder.”
The MA assessed 8% WPI to which he added 2% for the effects of treatment. He added:
“I have given her an additional 2 % for the effects of treatment. It was noted in other IMEs that she was improving and I believe, if her treatment is stopped then there is a high probability that she will deteriorate further in her degree of impairment.”
He then turned to consider the other medical opinions and material before her and said:
“In his IME report dated 12 December 2018, Dr Shannon Paisley, Consultant Psychiatrist diagnosed her with Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress. I agree with the diagnosis and the fact that she was stable in her mental health at time of injury so there is no pre-existing impairment.
In his IME report dated 26 August 2019, Dr Ashwinder Anand, Consultant Psychiatrist made a diagnosis of major depression with prominent anxiety. I agree with the diagnosis.
In his IME report dated 25 September 2020, Dr Jeff Bertucen, Consultant Psychiatrist made a diagnosis of chronic adjustment disorder with features of depressed mood (predominantly) but also anxiety. I differ with the diagnosis and in my opinion the diagnosis is Major Depressive Disorder.
In his IME report dated 08 December 2022, Dr Abdal W. Khan, Consultant Psychiatrist made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with anxious distress and that she has reached permanent impairment with WPI of 20 %. I agree with the diagnosis and in my opinion the final WPI is 8 %. I have scored her in class 1 in selfcare and personal hygiene, class 2 in travel, class 1 in social functioning, class 2 in concentration, persistence and pace and class 3 in employability.
In his IME report dated 16 June 2023, Dr Ashwinder Anand, Consultant Psychiatrist made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and that she has reached permanent impairment with WPI of 14 %. I agree with the diagnosis and in my opinion the final WPI is 8 %. I have scored her in class 1 in selfcare and personal hygiene, class 2 in travel, class 1 in social functioning and class 2 in concentration, persistence and pace.
In his IME report dated 02 August 2023, Dr Ashwinder Anand, Consultant Psychiatrist made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and that she has reached permanent impairment with WPI of 7 %. I agree with the diagnosis and in my opinion the final WPI is 8 %. I have scored her in class 1 in selfcare and personal hygiene, class 2 in travel, and class 1 in social functioning.”
The MA added: “I do note that she has pre-existing history of anxiety but she was stable in her mental state at the time of injury so there is no pre-existing impairment.”

The appellant’s submissions

As regards the category of Self-care and Personal hygiene, the appellant submits as follows:
(a)    it is wrong to state that Ms Daniels has "no deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population."
(b)    She is unable to perform activities of daily living and needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. The appellant is drinking alcohol to be able to sleep. The appellant does not undertake “Self-Care and Personal Hygiene" in the same capacity as before the indexed injury. This is evident within the general history taken in the MAC and the referred evidence.
(c)    In her statement dated 18 December 2023, she states:
"I often skip meals and then will binge eat junk food. I don't take care of myself like I used to. I am not motivated to do so. I have to be prompted by my husband to eat properly. I put on approximately 15 kilograms following the incident because I don't take care of my health.”
(d)    Dr Khan assigned a Class 2 impairment and said:
"Ms Daniels brushes her teeth twice daily and showers daily. She struggles to complete domestic tasks such as cooking and cleaning and she relies more on her husband for assistance with these tasks due to her reduced motivation and reduced energy. Ms Daniels' neglect to her self-care is evidenced by her weight gain of more than 15kg since the subject injury."
(e)    The MA erred in asserting the appellant can 'promptly' undertake self-care activities without the critical history of those activities occurring at the at the behest and support of the carer/husband.
(f)    When all of the evidence is considered, the appellant's most appropriate impairment for "Self-Care and Personal Hygiene" is Class 3 or 4.
We agree with the thrust of the appellant’s submissions for reasons that follow.
The MA assessed a Class 1 and said:
“Ms Daniels showers every day, washes her face, cleans teeth, regularly changes into clean clothes, cooks with her husband, cleans the house together, and she takes care of herself promptly. She bought little pups and looks after them.”
The concept of “self-care and personal hygiene” is not defined in the Guidelines. They refer to examples or “descriptors” relevant to the assigning of a specific class.
The descriptor for a Class 1 reads: “No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population.”
For a Class 2 it reads: “Mild impairment: able to live independently, looks after self adequately although may look unkempt occasionally, sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food.”
The MA’s assessment is clearly at odds with Ms Daniels statement dated 18 December 2023 referred to in the submissions.
In addition, on the MA’s own history, he noted that:
“Ms Daniels has bad days and good days She is not happy, no motivation to do anything and her husband has to push her. She drinks alcohol so that she can sleep, she is up and down on the lounge, and frequently sleep breaks up.”
Clearly her husband prompts her to do many things including eating properly. She describes a variable function where on good days she would appear to have little or no deficit but then bad days of being impaired in self-care, e.g. not dressing or undertaking tasks around the home.
This situation could hardly be described as “no deficit or a minor deficit” on any interpretation of the descriptors, but neither does this fit a Class 3 or 4 as argued by the appellant
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel determines that that a Class 2 rating is consistent with the evidence.
Turning next to the category of social functioning, the appellant submits as follows:
(a)    at page 6 of the MAC, in regard to the appellant's "Social Activities/ADL" the MA has stated:
"Ms Daniels used to have hobbies like catching up with friends, knitting, sewing, cooking preservatives, but not doing them now. She has lesser visits to her children, they came a few times to her home, but she gets very anxious as house is not tidy enough for them. She gets very anxious when she is around a lot of people."
(b)    Dr Khan assigned a Class 2 impairment and said: "Ms Daniels' husband and children remain supportive. She remains withdrawn from most of her friends and she has lost many close friendships."
(c)    The MA has failed to consider relevant information including tensions and arguments with her husband and the loss of the friendships and community she continues to experience. The MA has taken into account irrelevant considerations, including the appellants use of social media, whereby she does not maintain friendships and this is a solitary activity.

The MA assessed a Class 1 rating and said:
“Ms Daniels has a good relationship with her family. She is not in [sic] terms with [her] oldest son and his family as he did something stupid. She would facetime every night, speak to her children every night. She is active on social media like Facebook and Instagram.”
In her statement dated 18 December 2023, Ms Daniels said:
“I will sometimes go on a caravan trip with my husband to Lake Keepit or will visit my adult children at their homes at the insistence of others.”
The use of Facebook for communication with friends or family is not uncommon these days, and does not of itself indicate a significant impairment in this category.
However, in the present case where Ms Daniels is limited in her ability to travel, it is indicative of her reliance on social media for her social functioning.
The descriptor for a Class 1 rating reads: “No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. No difficulty in forming and sustaining relationships (eg a partner, close friendships last years).”
Once again, given the evidence referred to above, and on the MA’s own history, Ms Daniels has clearly shown some difficulties in her social functioning. For example, only seeing her children when it is insisted upon. As the MA noted: “She has lesser visits to her children, they came a few times to her home, but she gets very anxious…”
The Appeal Panel determines that she cannot be regarded as having either no deficit or a minor deficit in this category.
The descriptor for a Class 2 reads: “Mild impairment: Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children.”
In our view, a Class 2 rating in this category is consistent with the evidence to which we have referred.
Turning next to the category of cpp the MA assessed a Class 2 rating and said:
“Ms Daniels used to read a lot, can’t concentrate well now, downloads a book on ipad, but then keeps reading same page again and again, concentration doesn’t last long, often forgets things, able to read recipes and instruction manuals, reads articles on Facebook, courses she did was not too bad, loved doing payroll took 5 hours to do course and one of them took 3.5 hours only. She completed her RSA certificate, RCG (Responsible Conduct of Gambling) and a food handling certificate course.”
The appellant submits as follows:
(a)    at page 5 of the MAC, in regard to the appellant's "Present Symptoms" the MA stated: "She may just sit in front of TV and lie on the couch, during holidays she didn't want to go fishing but her husband kept pushing her. She was asked to do rehab courses by about Xero Accounting which she was able to complete."
(b)    On page 7 of the MAC, in regard to the "Summary", the MA has stated: "Diminished ability to think or concentrate."
(c)    At paragraph 5 of the appellant's statement dated 18 December 2023, she stated:
"I completed an accounting and bookkeeping course in 2023, however, I found this difficult. The workers compensation insurer told me this was required as part of my rehabilitation. I did it, however, struggled. My weekly payments for the psychological claim stopped in September 2023."
(d)    Dr Khan assigned a Class 3 impairment for "Concentration, Persistence and Pace" and said: “Ms Daniels struggles to maintain her attention and concentration. She has difficulty on focusing on cognitively challenging tasks such as reading. Ms Daniels' memory is impairment. She is easily distracted in concentration."
(e)    The MA placed great emphasis on the fact that the appellant undertook two short certificates (responsible service of alcohol and responsible conduct of gambling). This was despite this being content of which she was familiar with from prior to her injury. The appellant states she found the simple tasks difficult and fatiguing.
(f)    The Medical Assessor failed to obtain further relevant evidence regarding this event which resulted in a gross overstatement of the appellant's functional ability to focus, concentrate and keep pace on tasks.
(g)    It is clear from the evidence that the appellant's ability to concentrate, persist and have pace in undertaking tasks is beyond that of a mild impairment.
The MA clearly accepted that Ms Daniels did indeed have some impairment in this category. As he said, as pointed out by the appellant, she had “Diminished ability to think or concentrate."
However, as he noted, Ms Daniels said that she “loved doing payroll…” and apparently had little difficulty in completing the course in a timely manner.
Even if it was a refresher course, we consider this to be moderately demanding requiring competent interaction with accounting software.
As the respondent pointed out:
“Dr Anand rates the appellant to be ‘mildly impaired’ under Class 2 of the PIRS in respect of concentration, persistence and pace. This was on the basis that: The worker completed her RSA and RCG in 2022. She also did a XERO accounting software course and bookkeeping goals, along with a payroll course in 2023. These courses were allocated to take five hours however she completed them in 3 hours.”
For these reasons, we see no error in the MA’s assessment in this category.
Turning finally to the category of employability, the MA assessed a Class 3 and said:
“Ms Daniels has thought of going back to work, would love going back to work, likes doing book keeping, would like to work from home. Her husband started a business (saw maker business) and she has been doing his invoicing and statements. She feels better and useful when she does work. She can perform less than 20 hours per week in a different position.”
The appellant submits as follows:
(a)    The MA failed to take a history of the appellant's employment history.
(b)    Dr Khan assigned a Class 5 impairment and said: "Ms Daniels cannot work at all due to the pervasiveness of her mental health and cognitive difficulties."
(c)    The appellant's treating psychologist has continued to treat her on a regular basis, including fortnightly to monthly sessions over a period of 5.5 years due to her pervasive mental health symptoms.
(d)    When all of the available evidence is considered, the appellant's most appropriate impairment for "Employability” is a Class 5, namely “Totally impaired. Cannot work at all.”
Most of the appellant’s submissions in this category are based upon her statement dated 21 March 2024 which we have rejected for the reasons stated above.
Having said that, we agree that the appellant’s capacity for employment is significantly impaired for the following reasons.
She has not worked since September 2018, over five years ago.
In her statement dated 17 February 2023 she said:
“I was educated to 4th form and left school when I was 16 years old.
I undertook work as a cook, cleaner, garage attendant, bar attendant and bookkeeper over the year following leaving school.
I have my Responsible Service of Alcohol Certificate, Responsible Conduct of Gambling Certificate, Basic Food Handling, Xero Accounting and Bookkeeping Certificate and Xero Payroll Certificate. I also have a Basic Computer Course Certificate.
At the Baradine Hotel again. I cleaned rooms and worked behind the bar.
In 2010, the Club asked me to take on the role as the Licensee of the Bowling Club. I accepted this position. I was employed as the manager and was responsible for reporting to the Committee. My duties included stock control, deliveries; bookkeeping; human resources; payroll and the general running of the Club. I also undertook other duties as they arose including assisting with deliveries and in the bar and kitchen.
I have been unable to return to the workforce following my psychological injury.”
Ms Daniels’ background is in relatively unskilled work.
We do accept, as stated earlier, that she has undertaken a number of courses which have significantly improved her work skills.
Having said that, she presently helps her husband in his business which is quite unlike a general business environment and could be categorised as a “sheltered” work environment.
Understandably, as the MA noted, “she feels better and useful when she does work.”
Given her lengthy work history, that is to be expected.
The descriptor for a Class 3 rating in this category reads:
“Moderate impairment: Cannot work at all in same position. Can perform less than 20 hours per week in a different position, which requires less skill or is qualitatively different (eg less stressful).”
For a Class 4 it reads:
“Severe impairment: cannot work more than one or two days at a time: less than 20 hours per fortnight. Pace is reduced, attendance is erratic. “
In her current work with her husband, apparently “doing his invoicing and statements,” this is unlikely to take up more than a few hours per week, and in an environment where her bad days of ‘no motivation to do anything and her husband has to push her’ can be accommodated.
For these reasons, we are of the view that a Class 4 rating in this category is appropriate.
The MA assessed an aggregate of 12, median 2, for 6% WPI plus 2% for treatment effects, a total of 8% WPI.
The Appeal Panel has assessed an aggregate of 15, median 2, 8% WPI plus 2% for treatment as it was unchallenged, a total of 10% WPI.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 29 February 2024 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:	W9499/23
Applicant:	Kerrie Anne Daniels
Respondent:	Baradine Bowling & Sporting Club Limited

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 Dr Himanshu Singh and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:

Table - whole person impairment (WPI)

Body Part or system	Date of Injury	Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines	Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides	% WPI	Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition	Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
1. Psycholo gical Injury	03/09/2018 (deemed)	Chapter 11 Guidelines 11.1-11.3 11.4-11.6	Guidelines 11.11,11.12 Table: 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11. 5, 11.5, 11.6	10%	Nil	10%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					10%

[2024] NSWPICMP 398

21 June 2024