Davies v Aurizon Operations Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 839

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Davies v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 839
APPELLANT:	Daniel Davies
RESPONDENT:	Aurizon Operations Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Gregory McGroder
DATE OF DECISION:	30 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from 14% assessment regarding both upper extremities and scarring; whether one-tenth deduction pursuant to section 323 for both shoulders adequately explained; Held – imaging of right shoulder within 4-months of the injury disclosed sufficiently advanced pathology that Appeal Panel experts satisfied it must have contributed especially where claimant directed to perform labouring task outside his job description; Cole v Wenaline applied; notwithstanding that claimant had been asymptomatic, observations as to requirement to give detailed reasons in such circumstances; Campbelltown City Council v Vegan considered and applied; one-tenth deduction for the right shoulder confirmed; reasoning not sufficient to explain similar deduction for consequential left shoulder condition; imaging not taken for 2 years; deduction revoked; MAC revoked (but result the same).

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 9 July 2025 the appellant, Daniel Davies, lodged an Application to Appeal Against a Decision of Medical Assessor lodge. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Robert Kuru, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 30 June 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 Guides) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5). “WPI” is reference to whole person impairment. “Baseline WPI” is a reference to the total WPI assessed before deduction for the effect of pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 20 May 2025 this matter was referred for a WPI assessment of injuries caused to the right upper extremity (shoulder), left upper extremity - consequential condition and scarring TEMSKI that occurred on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Davies v Aurizon Operations Ltd

Details

AGLC: Davies v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 839
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 839
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Davies v Aurizon Operations Ltd, the claimant sought a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) provided under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute centred around the assessment of the claimant's permanent impairment, particularly regarding both upper extremities and scarring. The claimant challenged a 14% assessment, arguing that the one-tenth deduction for impairment in both shoulders was inadequately justified.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the reasons provided for the one-tenth deduction in respect of both shoulders were sufficient under the statutory framework. The court had to determine whether the evidence supported the deductions, particularly considering the advanced pathology observed in the claimant's right shoulder and the lack of contemporaneous imaging for the left shoulder. The court also needed to assess the adequacy of the reasons given for the deductions in light of the claimant's asymptomatic state and the statutory requirement for detailed justification.

The court held that the reasons provided for the one-tenth deduction in the right shoulder were insufficient. The imaging of the right shoulder, taken within four months of the injury, showed sufficiently advanced pathology, which led the Appeal Panel's experts to conclude that it must have contributed significantly to the claimant's impairment. The court applied the principles from Cole v Wenaline, emphasising the need for detailed reasons, particularly in cases where claimants are asymptomatic. The court also referred to Campbelltown City Council v Vegan to underscore the necessity for detailed and contemporaneous justification. Consequently, the one-tenth deduction for the right shoulder was confirmed, while the similar deduction for the left shoulder was revoked due to the lack of sufficient evidence and reasons. Despite these findings, the overall result of the MAC remained unchanged. Ultimately, the court revoked the MAC but maintained the same outcome.

Orders