Legal Research
Cases
Deegan v Central Coast Council

Deegan v Central Coast Council

Case [2025] NSWPICMP 639 26 August 2025

Assessment of Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS)

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Deegan v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWPICMP 639
APPELLANT:	Anna Deegan
RESPONDENT:	Central Coast Council
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	26 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment of primary psychiatric injury; appeal against assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) classes in respect of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning and concentration, persistence and pace; Appeal Panel found error in the assessment of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning and concentration, and persistence and pace; worker re-examined; review and re-examination did not lead to a different result and should not be interfered with (Robinson v Riley); Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 1 April 2025 Anna Deegan (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, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 11 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 a psychological injury in the course of her employment with Central Coast Council (the respondent) deemed to have occurred on 10 September 2024.
The appellant commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) claiming 26% whole person impairment (WPI) pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of a psychiatric and psychological disorder injury deemed to have occurred on 10 September 2024.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 13 February 2025. The Medical Assessor assessed 7% WPI as a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 10 September 2024.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original…

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 Deegan v Central Coast Council

Details

AGLC: Deegan v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWPICMP 639
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 639
Decision Date: 26 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Deegan versus Central Coast Council, the appellant, Mr Deegan, sought to challenge an assessment of his primary psychiatric injury under the Workers Compensation scheme. The case was heard by the NCAT, which was tasked with determining whether the assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) classes in respect of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, and pace was accurate. Mr Deegan argued that the assessment was incorrect, and the Council submitted that the NCAT should not interfere with the Panel's findings.

The NCAT had to consider whether there was an error in the assessment of the PIRS classes, and if so, whether the re-examination of the worker should lead to a different result. The court examined the evidence presented and the findings of the Appeal Panel, which had found an error in the assessment of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning, and concentration, and persistence and pace. The NCAT also considered the principle in Robinson v Riley, which held that a review and re-examination should not lead to a different result if the initial assessment was reasonable and properly conducted.

After reviewing the evidence and the Appeal Panel's findings, the NCAT concluded that the re-examination of Mr Deegan did not lead to a different result, and therefore, the Panel's findings should not be interfered with. The court found that the Medical Assessment Certificate was confirmed and that the assessment of the PIRS classes was accurate. The appeal was dismissed, and the NCAT upheld the original assessment.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale classes was confirmed. The NCAT found that the re-examination of Mr Deegan did not lead to a different result, and therefore, the Panel's findings should not be interfered with. The Medical Assessment Certificate was confirmed, and the assessment of the PIRS classes was accurate.

Orders