Doroszuk v Chips Property Trade Services Pty Ltd
[2023] NSWPICMP 216
•22 May 2023
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Doroszuk v Chips Property Trade Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPICMP 216 |
| APPELLANT: | Benjamin Doroszuk |
| RESPONDENT: | Chips Property Trade Services Pty Ltd |
| Appeal Panel | |
| MEMBER: | Brett Batchelor |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Douglas Andrews |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Graham Blom |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 22 May 2023 |
CATCHWORDS: | wORKERS cOMPENSATION - Appeal by applicant worker against Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) containing an assessment of 6% whole person impairment as a result of psychological injury; appellant alleged the Medical Assessor had erred in respect of his assessment of the categories of social and recreational activity, travel, concentration, persistence and pace, and employability; Held – Panel determined that the appellant should be re-examined because of errors found in at least three of the categories in respect of which appeal brought; finding of error in respect of the four categories in respect of which appeal brought; MAC revoked and fresh MAC issued. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 20 February 2023 Benjamin Doroszuk (the appellant/Mr Doroszuk) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Samson Frederick Roberts, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 16 December 2022.
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 Panel (the 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, 4th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The appellant commenced work with Chips Property Trade Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a handyman in August/September 2018. At that time the company was supportive of his need for flexibility in order to be able to attend to his parenting obligations. Mr Doroszuk’s son had come to live with him when he was five years old, and his employer agreed in writing with him as to what was expected of him in the workplace.
When the business changed ownership in 2020 the new owner did not honour this agreement, and made threats and abused Mr Doroszuk, who also experienced problems with other employees of the respondent. There was a build-up of circumstances which made the appellant’s work situation untenable such that he was not able to cope. He became anxious and depressed, and suffered a breakdown in November 2020. Mr Doroszuk consulted a doctor and was put on a mental health plan. He was on sick leave in
December 2020, and has not worked since.The applicant continues to consult with his general practitioner at Workers Doctors, and is under the regular care of Dr David Kumagaya, psychiatrist. He also sees a psychologist every two weeks.
The appellant was independently medically assessed by Dr Abdal W Khan on 9 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Dr Khan produced reports dated 9 August 2021[1] and
12 December 2021.[2][1] Appeal Papers (AP) p 59.
[2] AP p 65.
The appellant was independently medical assessed by Dr Ben Teoh on 26 March 2021 and 19 April 2022. Dr Teoh produced reports dated 26 March 2021,[3] 20 August 2021,[4] and
6 June 2022.[5][3] AP p 161
[4] AP p 172.
[5] AP p 175.
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 (the Panel) determined that the worker should undergo a further medical examination because it was of the view that the Medical Assessor had fallen into error in respect of his assessment of the applicant in at least three categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) in Chapter 11 of the Guidelines, namely:
(a) travel;
(b) concentration persistence and pace, and
(c) adaptation (employability).
The Panel was also of the view that because the Reason for Decision in respect of the four categories the subject of appeal were not wholly appropriate to the particular Class, re-examination was required to obtain a proper history to determine the level of impairment in each case.
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
Dr Graham Blom of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on
12 May 2023 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.
Appellant
In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor has fallen into error in his assessment of the following categories of the PIRS:
(a) social and recreational activities;
(b) travel;
(c) concentration, persistence and pace, and
(d) employability.
The appellant notes that the Medical Assessor assessed him as falling within Class 2 for social and recreational activities, that is mild impairment, whereas the evidence indicates that he falls within Class 3, moderate impairment. The appellant submits that this constitutes a demonstrable error and indicates that the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria.
The appellant notes that the Medical Assessor considers his impairment was merely “mild” because he “occasionally plays touch football”, “engages with family” and is “still able to engage independently”, notwithstanding that his “participation and social and recreational activities is markedly curtailed” (emphasis in submissions). The appellant submits that, obviously, if participation in social and recreational activities is markedly curtailed, impairment in this category cannot be considered to be mild.
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor records no information as to the frequency with which he plays touch football in order to indicate what he means by occasionally, as opposed to rare engagement in such activity. It follows that the Medical Assessor has failed to provide adequate reasons for his opinion that Mr Doroszuk plays touch football occasionally, and there is no evidence on the material, or in the MAC, regarding the number of people who were involved, and the extent of the interaction between himself and others.
The appellant submits that the note made by the Medical Assessor that he has ceased participating in martial arts due to lack of motivation is a material indicator of withdrawal from previous social and recreational activities.
The appellant notes the observation by the Medical Assessor that he had lost contact with family and friends and that his relationship with his brother had broken down as a result of conflict. It is also noted that Dr Khan recorded that Mr Doroszuk remained withdrawn from his family. This evidence, according to the appellant, contradicts a Class 2 assessment that he engages with family.
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor has failed to indicate his reasons for differing with the opinions of Dr Khan and Dr Teoh in respect of any of the PIRS assessments. The requirement to provide proper reasons is required by [10.c.] of the MAC.
The appellant notes that both Dr Khan and Dr Teoh assessed him as being in Class 3 for social and recreational activity, and that therefore the Medical Assessor is “…the outlier in relation to this category…”
The appellant submits that Class 3 for social and recreational activities is satisfied by his marked curtailment of social activities.
In respect of travel, the appellant submits that the fact that he drove to the Mid North Coast with his son would indicate that this is a familiar destination due to the recording in the MAC under “Social Activities/ADL” that during the holidays he drove to his mother’s place on the Mid North Coast. This is not a new environment, and the fact that it was a single event cannot reasonably be regarded as indicating an ability to drive regularly to any destination, including an unfamiliar one, and that there is no deficit in Mr Doroszuk’s ability to travel.
The appellant submits that he should be placed in Class 2 for travel.
The appellant submits the Medical Assessor failed to consider the criteria for Class 3 for concentration, persistence and pace, and that he should be classed as such. The appellant notes that again, the Medical Assessor’s assessment is at odds with the classification provided by Dr Khan and Dr Teoh who both assessed Class 3. These two doctors specifically addressed the appellant’s difficulty with tasks such as reading, and activities requiring attention and concentration, and the assessments of Dr Khan and Dr Teoh have a proper evidentiary basis and address the criteria set for moderate impairment, Class 3.
The appellant notes the clinical notes from his treating practitioners, with a note dated
3 August 2022[6] recording “impaired concentration, attention and memory”.[6] AP p 390.
The appellant also notes [10]-[11] of his statement dated 23 June 2022[7] in which he provides evidence regarding the effect of anxiety on his memory and ability to concentrate.
[7] AP p 52.
The appellant submits that that he should be found to be totally impaired in respect of employability, that is, Class 5 – cannot work at all.
The appellant submits that the Reason for Decision provided by the Medical Assessor for adaptation (that is, employability) is misconceived, as parenting and homemaking are not activities consistent with employment. The former are voluntary work and can be performed at the worker’s own pace, at the time of the worker’s own choosing, and to a standard set by the worker. Employment in contrast involves submission to authority and discipline, the performance of specified tasks to a specified standard, and constant attention to the requirements of the employer. The appellant submits that the evidence does not establish any prospect of him being able to work subject to these demands for even limited hours.
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to acknowledge the record of Dr Lim that he “stays at home and has low motivation to complete household chores”.
The appellant submits that his difficulty with anxiety, concentration and memory are plainly inconsistent with any capacity to work in paid employment.
The appellant notes the comments of Dr Khan in respect of employability and his assessment of Class 5 for employability. The Medical Assessor has failed to explain why his assessment differs from that of Dr Khan.
The appellant submits that the matter should be referred to a Medical Appeal Panel for a fresh assessment of the four categories in respect of which the appeal is lodged, and that the MAC be revoked and a fresh MAC issued.
Respondent
In reply, the respondent refers to relevant case law in respect of appeals against a MAC, including:
(a) Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd,[8] in which Gleeson JA observed that a demonstrable error must be material, apparent on the face of the Certificate, and an error for which there is no information or material to support the finding made, rather than a difference of opinion;
(b) Jenkins v Ambulance Services of New South Wales,[9] referring to [11.12] of the Guidelines to the effect that examples in PIRS are examples only of the activities in each Class, and that the assessing psychiatrist should take into account a person’s cultural background and consider activities that are usual for the person’s age and cultural norms;
(c) Campbell’s J’s comments in Ferguson v State of New South Wales & Ors,[10] to the effect that the assessment of the appropriate class of impairment within each PIRS category falls within the realms of clinical judgement, and
(d) Harrison AsJ’s statement in Glenn William Parker v Select Civil Pty Limited,[11] to the effect that in relation to Classes of PIRS there has to be more that a difference of opinion on subject about which reasonable minds may differ to establish error in the statutory sense.
[8] [2018] NSWCA 324.
[9] [2015] NSWSC 633.
[10] [2017] NSWSC 887.
[11] [2018] NSWSC.
The respondent denies that the Medical Assessor appropriately applied the PIRS assessment criteria in accordance with the Guidelines, and it is within his power to provide a different assessment in respect of such categories to those of the independent medical examiners, Dr Khan and Dr Teoh.
The respondent submits that the assessments of the Medical Assessor in each of the categories in respect of which an appeal is brought were open to him based on the evidence before him, the history provided by the appellant on the day of assessment, and his clinical judgement.
The respondent submits that if participation in social and recreational activities is, as found by the Medical Assessor, “markedly curtailed”, that does not prevent an assessment of impairment as being mild, that is, Class 2. Further, whether the Medical Assessor’s assessment falls into Class 2 or Class 3 is a difference of opinion about which reasonable minds may differ.
In respect of travel, the respondent refers to the trip undertaken to the Mid North Coast by
Mr Doroszuk with his son as indicative of there being no deficit in respect of this category, and disputes the appellant’s submission that Mr Doroszuk did not provide a history to the Medical Assessor of being unable to drive to unfamiliar areas.The respondent notes that while the Medical Assessor is not bound to accept the assessments given by any of the other assessors relied upon by the parties, his assessment accords with that of Dr Teoh who found no deficit and that Mr Doroszuk has been able to travel on his own.
In respect of concentration, persistence and pace, the respondent disputes that the Medical Assessor has based his assessment on irrelevant factors that provide no basis for an assessment of Class 2. The respondent refers to [11.12] of the Guidelines.
In respect of employability, the respondent submits that the Medical Assessor correctly records that the appellant is the primary homemaker and sole parent of his nine year old son. It was open to the Medical Assessor to have regard to the applicant’s level of functioning with respect to his parenting and homemaking obligations when considering his capacity to work.
The respondent notes that Dr Teoh places the appellant in Class 3 for employability, a finding that was also open to the Medical Assessor based on his clinical judgement and the medical evidence before him. The Medical Assessor has provided reasons for his assessment and has not fallen into error.
The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed and the MAC dated
22 December 2022 confirmed.The respondent submits that if a ground of appeal is made out, it does not consider a re-examination to be required.
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. An Appeal Panel is limited to determining error as alleged by the appellant, but must assess in accordance with the Guidelines. Once error is made out, the Panel may “review” the MAC. (See Siddik v Workcover Authority of NSW[12] and NSW Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales[13]).
[12] [2008] NSWCA 116.
[13] [2013] NSWCA 1792.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan[14] 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.
[14] [2006] NSWCA 284.
The Panel is of the view that, in respect of social and recreational activities, the fact that
Mr Doroszuk occasionally plays touch football, and that his participation in social and recreational activities is as noted by the Medical Assessor, “markedly curtailed”, is not consistent with mild impairment, Class 2:“Mild impairment: Occasionally goes to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg dancing, cheering favourite team)”,
but more consistent with Class 3:
“Moderate impairment: Rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by family or close friend. Will not go out without a support person. Not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn.”
Both Dr Teoh[15] and Dr Khan[16] place the applicant in Class 3 for this category, and the Panel considers that the Reason for Decision given by Dr Khan in particular is consistent with the evidence in the proceedings and recorded in the MAC. His Reason for Decision is:
“Mr Doroszuk previously enjoyed socialising with family and friends. He watches his son play with his friends most days of the week but this activity is to ensure his son has contact with children as opposed to being for personal recreation. Mr Doroszuk remains withdrawn from social and recreational activities due to his depressed mood, social withdrawal, reduced motivation and reduced energy. He is socially isolated.”[17]
[15] AP p 181.
[16] AP p 70.
[17] AP p 70.
Dr Teoh says that Mr Doroszuk reported significant loss of interest in his usual activities and social isolation; he has not been able to get the accident out of his mind. He has been lacking in motivation and has become socially withdrawn.
The Panel acknowledges that a Medical Assessor is not bound to accept the opinions of other specialists in making his or her assessment. Nevertheless, the Panel is of the view that in this case there was an obligation on the Medical Assessor to explain why his assessment differs from those of Dr Teoh and Dr Khan.
The view of the Panel is confirmed by the finding on re-examination of the appellant by
Dr Blom set out in his report dated 20 February 2023 referred to hereunder.The Panel is of the view that the Reason for Decision of the Medical Assessor given in respect of travel is not consistent with Class 1 for travel, no deficit. When the evidence as a whole recorded in the MAC is considered, and having regard to the appellant’s submissions in respect of this category set out in [27] above, the correct classification for travel is Class 2:
“Mild impairment: Can travel without support person, but only in a familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour.”
This classification is in accordance with that of Dr Blom on his re-examination of
Mr Doroszuk.The Panel is of the view that Class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace is appropriate, but not for the Reason for Decision given by the Medical Assessor in the MAC. The maintenance of a home and fulfilment of his obligations with respect to his son’s care are not, in the view of the Panel, consistent with the descriptor for Class 2 of this category, mild impairment, namely:
“Mild impairment: Can undertake a basic retraining course, or a standard course at a slower pace. Can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for periods of up to 30 minutes, then feels fatigued or develops headache.”
The Panel accepts the assessment of Dr Blom on his re-examination of Mr Doroszuk.
The Panel finds that the descriptor given by the Medical Assessor in respect of adaptation (employability) is not relevant to Class 3 for employability which is:
“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).”
Parenting and homemaking obligations are not indicative of the appellant’s employability, and the Panel accepts the appellant’s submissions in respect of employability set out in [33] and [35] above. The substantial symptomatology of anxiety and depression such as to cause total impairment for employability are referred to by Dr Blom in his re-examination report. The Panel finds that Mr Doroszuk should be placed in Class 5, “Totally impaired: Cannot work at all”, for employability.
The report of the examination by Medical Assessor Member of the Appeal Panel of Dr Blom dated 12 May 2023 is as follows:
“REPORT OF THE EXAMINATION BY MEDICAL ASSESSOR
MEMBER OF THE APPEAL PANEL
Matter Number: | M1-W3915/22 |
Appellant: | Benjamin Doroszuk |
Respondent: | Chips Property Trust |
Date of Determination: | 20 February, 2023 |
Examination Conducted By: | Dr. Graham Blom |
Date of Examination: | 12 May 2023 |
The workers medical history, where it differs from previous records
Mr Doroszuk confirmed the history taken by Dr Roberts. To summarise, he had been employed by Chips Property Trade Services for some time as a handyman. About six months prior to his leaving work a new manager, Paul began at Chips Services. Paul treated Mr Doroszuk in a degrading, bullying and demeaning manner over a period of about six months. As a result, Mr. Doroszuk began to experience increasing symptoms of anxiety and depression culminating in his leaving work in late 2020.
Subsequently he has consulted a psychiatrist, Dr Kumagaya who has treated him with antidepressant medication, as well as ongoing psychological support and guidance. He consults
Dr Kumagaya approximately every six weeks. Mr. Doroszuk at the time of his medical assessment, had been prescribed fluoxetine, 40 mg/day. Subsequently, he thought at the beginning of 2023, the dose of this medication was increased to 60 mg/day.
He has also consulted a number of psychologists over the last 2 ½ years, and has been seeing his current psychologist “Dee” for some time. He consults her approximately every 2 to 3 weeks.
Additional history since the original Medical Assessment Certificate was performed
Mr. Doroszuk has only noticed slight improvement since the increase in his medication. He said that he experiences less suicidal ideation, although over the course of the interview, it was apparent that this improvement was slight at best with possibly some fluctuation in its overall levels. He also noted that his mood perhaps is a little more fluctuating, so that he has occasional periods when he feels less depressed but overall improvement has been limited. Otherwise there has been little change since he was reviewed by Dr. Roberts
Current Symptoms
Mr. Doroszuk continues to experience persistent and somewhat relentless anxiety. This is associated with feelings of tension, noticeable tremor and what he describes as a constant stream of rumination, which, from his description, have a constantly negative flavour. He continues to experience intermittent diarrhoea, which his psychiatrist has told him is likely related to his anxiety. He feels worried and embarrassed by the unpredictability of his diarrhoea.
His mood is depressed most of the time, however as noted above there is now some fluctuation with brief periods of improvement, possibly associated with the increased dose of fluoxetine. Nevertheless, he continues to experience repetitive feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, and this is sometimes associated with suicidal ideation. He, however said on a couple of occasions that he would never act on his suicidal thoughts because of his sense of responsibility to his son. Mr. Doroszuk also experiences intermittent episodes of irritability and anger. Recently he punched a wall, sustaining broken bones in his hand.
He has very little motivation, reduced drive and reduced energy, usually associated with substantial feelings of fatigue. He described a sense of feeling “drained”. He also described difficulties with his memory and said that he struggles with focus and persistence. He experiences very little pleasure in his life, except perhaps when he takes his son to football and can share some of his son’s pleasure in the activity. Otherwise, he is withdrawn and generally avoidant because of his anxiety, feelings of failure and deep sense of shame about his current situation.
Mr. Doroszuk said that he consumes about a case of beer/week. This equates to about 30 standard drinks/week. He says that overall, his alcohol intake has reduced since he has been unwell because of his financial situation and generally a lack of interest. He smokes about 5 – 10 cigarettes/day – this has not changed significantly since his injury. He does not use illicit drugs, nor does he abuse prescribed medication.
Findings on clinical examination
Mental State Examination.
Mr. Doroszuk was seen via the Teams application, which he managed without difficulty. The quality of the vision and sound was good. Mr. Doroszuk was alone throughout the interview.
He was somewhat unkempt, with uncombed hair, several days of beard growth and was wearing an old T-shirt.
He was clearly anxious throughout the interview. At times he became quite tearful and distressed, especially when relating his history and symptoms. He was easily distracted.
He presented as an honest witness and there was no evidence of prevarication or dissembling.
His affect was tearful and sad, and his mood depressed. He was not actively suicidal but did relate the experience of suicidal ideation which fluctuated.
There was no evidence of psychosis, and in particular, there was no evidence of delusions, hallucinations or formal thought disorder.
His cognitive function, concentration and focus were consistent with his overall presentation.
Diagnosis.
Mr. Doroszuk meets the DSM V criteria for:
Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress.
Results of any additional investigations since the original Medical Assessment Certificate
Matters under Appeal.
Four scales of the PIRS categories were the subject of appeal. These were:
1. Social and Recreational Activities.
2. Travel
3. Concentration, Persistence and Pace.
4. Employability.
I have reassessed each of these scales as follows:
Social and Recreational Activities.
Mr. Doroszuk has very limited social or recreational activity. He regularly attends his son’s football, in part because of a sense of parental duty, although he is able to enjoy this sometimes. Nevertheless, he remains withdrawn and has only limited contact with other parents. He visits a friend once or twice/week. This is unquestionably social activity although there is also an element of seeking support and reassurance from this friend, an older man, whom Mr. Doroszuk has always seen as something of a mentor and guide. Otherwise, Mr. Doroszuk does not engage in any other social or recreational activity. I believe this constitutes a moderate impairment and rates class 3.
Travel.
Mr. Doroszuk experiences anxiety and shame when he leaves the house and prefers to avoid driving when possible. Nevertheless, he is able to drive in the local area. He has driven outside of the local area on one or two occasions but found this very anxiety provoking and was concerned about his anxiety and irritability leading to road rage, so he tends to actively avoid this without support. I believe this constitutes a mild impairment and a class 2 rating is appropriate.
Concentration, Persistence and Pace.
Mr. Doroszuk said that he spends a considerable amount of time watching TV, usually watching sitcoms in a somewhat robotic fashion. Nevertheless, he is able to follow the general plot of these television shows, often over several hours. He said that he also sometimes reads the Bible and is able to read for at least 30 minutes and maintain concentration through this process. I believe that this constitutes a mild impairment and that a class 2 rating is appropriate.
Employability.
Mr. Doroszuk continues to experience substantial symptomatology of anxiety and depression. He is withdrawn and avoidant and experiences significant anxiety and shame when dealing with others. He has some impairment of his concentration and struggles with persistence. He has markedly reduced motivation, energy and drive. His depression is unstable in that he experiences considerable negative cognition such as feelings of hopelessness worthlessness and suicidal ideation. It is likely that his feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness and his suicidal ideation would all deteriorate were he subjected to the stress of employment. I do not believe he is able to work at all at the present time, nor will he be able to in the foreseeable future. This constitutes total impairment in employability and rates class 5.
The categories of Self-care and Personal Hygiene, and Social Functioning were not in dispute. They each attracted a class rating of 2.
Therefore Mr. Doroszuk has the following class ratings, presented in ascending order: 2,2,2,2,3,5. The median score is 2, and the aggregate score is 16. This equates to a Whole Person Impairment of 9%.
Signed: Dr. Graham Blom”
The Panel accepts that report.
Using the Conversion Table 11.7 in the Guidelines, the appellant’s WPI is calculated as follows:
Score
Median Class
2
2
2
2
3
5
=2
Aggregate Score Impairment
Total
%
+2
+2
+2
+2
+3
+5
16
9
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
16 December 2022 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: | W3915/22 |
Applicant: | Benjamin Doroszuk |
Respondent: | Chips Property Trade Services 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 Samson Frederick Roberts 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 WorkCover Guides | 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) |
| Psychiatric disorder | 20 November 2020 | Chapter 11, Pages 54-60 | 9 | 0 | 9 | |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 9 | |||||
0
5
0