Field-Whittaker v Thomas & Naaz Pty Ltd
[2021] NSWPICMP 79
•28 May 2021
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL CITATION: Field-Whittaker v Thomas & Naaz Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPICMP 79 APPELLANT: Belinda Field-Whittaker RESPONDENT: Thomas & Naaz Pty Ltd APPEAL PANEL: Member Deborah Moore
Dr Julian Parmegiani
Dr Michael HongDATE OF DECISION: 28 May 2021 CATCHWORDS: WORKERS COMPENSATION- Appellant sought to include what was described as ‘fresh evidence’ but was no more than further evidence and was rejected; the Panel accepted some errors by the Medical Assessor (MA) with respect to several PIRS categories; re-examination was arranged; other than in the category of social and recreational activities, the assessment by the MA was confirmed; submitted that a section 323 deduction should have been made on the basis of both a pre-existing condition and surveillance material; Held- MAC revoked.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE APPEAL PANEL IN RELATION TO A MEDICAL DISPUTE
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
1.On 23 December 2020 Belinda Field-Whittaker lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Samson Roberts, a Medical Assessor, (MA), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 26 November 2020.
2.The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act):
· deterioration of the worker’s condition that results in an increase in the degree of permanent impairment,
· 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,
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
3.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.
4.The WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006 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 the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
5.The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed 1 April 2016 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
6.The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
7.As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that the worker should undergo a further medical examination. The Panel determined that there are errors as regards the assessment of three Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) categories, namely social functioning, social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence and pace (CCP) in that the MA has misapplied the criteria relevant to these categories.
Fresh evidence
8.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.
9.The appeal was filed on 23 December 2020.
10.Included in the submissions attached to that document were a number of documents which it was stated were “not reasonably available when the [appeal] was filed.” They included:
(a) Report of psychologist Dr Stephanie Saulnier 31 August 2020;
(b) Patient health summary Dr Sheila Lorenzo 22 April 2020 to 17 September 2020;
(c) A number of medical certificates; and
(d) Further Statement of Belinda Field-Whittaker dated 23 December 2020 and annexed resignation letter.
11.In further submissions dated 22 January 2021, the appellant sought to admit the following:
(a) Further report of Dr Saulnier dated 19 January 2021; and
(b) A further statement of the appellant dated 22 January 2021.
12.Further submissions were filed by the appellant on 9 February 2021 where the appellant sought to admit a further report of Dr Martin Allan dated 3 February 2021.
13.Additional submissions filed by the respondent on 15 February 2021 raised objection to this material. The respondent added:
“a. Pursuant to Section 327(5) of the 1998 Act, the appellant is out of time file any further evidence in relation to her appeal;
b. the appellant has failed to satisfy the criteria that there are any special circumstances which justify an increase in the period for an appeal;
c. the further material provided by the appellant is not relevant, does not take the matter further and/or could have been obtained prior to the AMS assessment.”
14.In our preliminary review, the Panel noted all this additional evidence. It was rejected because most of that evidence pre-dated the assessment by the MA, and there was no explanation as to why it was not filed and submitted to the MA. Given that a re-examination was to take place, the appellant’s additional statements were also rejected.
15.We accepted the respondent’s submissions.
16.The Panel also had regard to the comments of Hoeben J in Petrovic v BC Serv No 14Pty Limited and Ors [2007] NSWSC 1156 where he said:
“‘additional relevant information’ contemplated by section 327(3)(b) means: ‘… information of a medical kind or which is directly related to the decision required to be made by the AMS. It does not include matters going to the process whereby the AMS makes his or her assessment…
It follows that the statutory declarations which related to the way in which the AMS carried out his examination and the way in which questions and answers were interpreted during the examination were not “additional relevant information” for the purposes of subs 327(3)(b)…
There is another consideration which I have taken into account. If the function of the Registrar under s327 is to be in reality that of a gatekeeper, then statutory declarations such as were sworn in this case should not be regarded as “additional relevant information” for the purposes of s327(3)(b). If they are, 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."
17.For all these reasons, the “fresh evidence” sought to be admitted by the appellant is rejected.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
18.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.
Further medical examination
19.Dr Julian Parmegiani of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 5 May 2021 and reported to the Appeal Panel on the same date.
SUBMISSIONS
20.Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
21.In summary, the appellant relied on the four grounds of appeal identified in paragraph two above. The focus of the initial submissions was that “the applicant’s condition may not yet be stable enough to assess permanent impairment or has deteriorated since the assessment by Dr Roberts.” The appellant added: “essentially the only issue in dispute between the parties [is] whether the applicant’s impairment is sufficiently stable in order to be assessed.”
22.The appellant then challenged the assessments made with respect to the following PIRS categories: social and recreational activities, social functioning, CPP and employability.
23.In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
24.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.
25.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.
26.The appellant was referred to the MA for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a primary psychiatric injury with a deemed date of injury of 3 July 2020.
27.The MA took a detailed history of the injury which in summary resulted from interpersonal difficulties with her employer in her role as practice manager.
28.Present treatment was noted as follows:
“Ms Field-Whittaker stated that a general practitioner prescribed medication for anxiety and to assist with sleep but she has declined to take it. She does not want to risk sleeping too heavily in the context of her parenting commitments.
Ms Field-Whittaker stated that she has been seeing a psychologist every two to four weeks. She has no plans to commence medication.”
29.Present symptoms were described as follows:
“Ms Field-Whittaker spoke of feeling ‘crap’ since being away from the workplace because she had worked there so long and it formed “such an inbuilt part of (her) day”. Furthermore, Dr Thomas [her employer] was previously a friend of her father. Her mother previously worked in his practice and her children previously saw him as their doctor. The circumstances have therefore resulted in a sense of loss.
At the time of the assessment, Ms Field-Whittaker reported a variable mood state. She spoke of having to drive to Quakers Hill near Dr Thomas’ previous home. She recalled that she suddenly felt her whole body become hot and her chest tightened. She experienced similar symptoms when required to drive her daughter to Galston near one of the practices in which she previously worked. On one occasion she saw Dr Thomas’ car and became unsteady on her feet. Sometimes without warning ‘a wave hits (her) chest or (her) head)’. Sometimes she becomes teary and experiences an awful crushing feeling associated with nausea and a sense that her chest is being squeezed. She avoids talking about her experiences.
Although Ms Field-Whittaker stated that her mood was ‘not bad’ at the time of the assessment, she acknowledged a tendency to irritability which manifests particularly with her children. She has difficulty falling asleep because of her tendency to ruminate. Otherwise she may fall asleep and then dream about work. Her appetite is normal. She described low energy and low motivation. She has gained weight. She has lost her libido. She acknowledged that she has become forgetful and she is no longer as organised as she was previously.
Ms Field-Whittaker explained that she was required to meet a representative from SafeWork. During the conversation she recalled that she was made to feel ‘stupid’ for staying at the workplace and enduring the difficulties described by her. Indeed she stated that in retrospect she cannot understand how she endured the environment for so long.”
30.The MA added:
“She has retained friends from high school where she performed very well…She spoke of a close supportive relationship with her parents and a good relationship with her sister who is three years her junior. She referred to her mother as her best friend. Her husband is very supportive. She acknowledged that the difficulties she has encountered over recent time have impacted on him and it has been hard for him to see her in her psychiatrically compromised condition.”
31.As regards social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s), the MA said:
“At the time of the assessment, Ms Field-Whittaker was not working. Her husband works full time as a sales manager in the plumbing industry. Ms Field-Whittaker manages the household. Her husband helps. Ms Field-Whittaker is the primary parent. Her 2-year-old ceased attending day care at the end of 2019 following which Ms Field-Whittaker decided to keep her home as a result of financial constraints and COVID-19.
Ms Field-Whittaker stated that she has no social life. She will go with the family to watch her son play baseball. Outings have been limited due to COVID-19. Her psychologist recommended a family holiday and Ms Field-Whittaker stated that they had recently returned from a holiday.
Ms Field-Whittaker typically wakes for her 2-year-old. She finds it hard to get up and will often lie in bed until 7:30am. She then gets up to make school lunches. Her older children make their own breakfast. Sometimes they make their own lunches. Her husband leaves for work early. Ms Field-Whittaker takes her children to the school bus or drives them from her home… to their school… Thereafter she may take her 2-year-old to the park or visit her mother ten minutes away. She may return home for lunch. She does the grocery shopping with her 2-year-old at Woolworths behind her house. She helps her mother change bed sheets and do laundry because her mother sustained a shoulder injury.
Generally, Ms Field-Whittaker cooks but her husband sometimes does so. She eats regularly but she does not engage in consistent exercise. She eats dinner with the family. In the afternoons, she supervises her son’s participation in homework. Her son is distractible. She may have to pick up her children from sports.
Once the children are in bed, Ms Field-Whittaker cleans, tidies and does laundry. She may then watch television. She showers in the evening and she continues to care about her personal presentation.
Ms Field-Whittaker stated that she does not have any friends in the local area. She sees her best friend who lives in Arcadia every few weeks.
When asked as to personal activities, Ms Field-Whittaker acknowledged that she does not have any downtime. She has difficulty concentrating and her mind drifts even when she is reading books to her 2-year-old. When driving, she seeks to avoid routes that remind her of her former work but she can generally drive wherever she needs to.”
32.The MA then proceeded to provide a “summary of relevant documents” as follows:
“The documentation is in general consistent in terms of the description of events to which Ms Field-Whittaker was exposed in the workplace and to which she attributes her psychiatric decline. Her statement highlights the extent to which she was required to be available after hours and the impact that this had on her. Her statement also describes the spreading of ‘malicious lies’ and allegations of impropriety.
The psychiatric report of Dr Martin Allan dated 1 July 2020 was reviewed. The history obtained by him is consistent with that provided by Ms Field-Whittaker at the time of my assessment of her. He diagnosed Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood. He expressed the opinion that she would not experience an ‘improvement in her mental state until matters have been completed and she is no longer employed or being harassed by her employer’. Notwithstanding her ongoing participation in treatment and the continuing harassment, Dr Allan undertook an assessment of whole person impairment calculating 19%. He based an assessment of mild impairment in the area of self-care and personal hygiene on Ms Field-Whittaker’s statement that she was ‘less perfectionistic’ than she had been previously and that she was not her normal self. He did not however document more than ‘a slight level of neglect in this area’. With respect to social and recreational activities, he noted ‘marked reduction in her attendance’ and that she was ‘prompted to attend by others’. On being asked further about this, Ms Field-Whittaker stated that she did not have time. Prior to COVID she was more engaged than she has been since COVID. Dr Allan found Ms Field-Whittaker to be moderately impaired with respect to concentration, persistence and pace and totally impaired with respect to employability.
Correspondence of Dr Stephanie Saulnier, clinical psychologist, in correspondence of 1 April 2020 identified Ms Field-Whittaker as being affected by cognitive ruminations, anxiety and withdrawal behaviours.
Consultation notes of Dr Sheila Lorenzo dated 17 December 2019 identified ‘acute anxiety/stress reaction’, a depressed mood and anxiety. In an entry of 3 January 2020 she documented the experience of a panic attack and subsequent documentation describes escalating anxiety. On 12 February 2020 sertraline was recommended.
The psychiatric report of Dr Peter Whetton dated 29 June 2020 was reviewed. He documented ‘a history of a highly dysfunction workplace and very complicated involvement with the owners of the business’. He diagnosed ‘a severe Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression’ and expressed the opinion that Ms Field-Whittaker had not reached maximum medical improvement at that time.”
33.Findings on examination were reported as follows:
“Ms Field-Whittaker was assessed by Zoom. The quality of the connection was good. She was neatly groomed. No deficits with respect to self-care were apparent. She exhibited a restricted range of emotional expression and became teary when describing the circumstances at the workplace and the adversity that she was compelled to endure. She described a depressed mood. Although reporting its variability, it was apparent that although it may improve she has not experienced periods when she has no feelings of depression. She described becoming anxious in particular when exposed to reminders of her former employers. She participated fully and effectively in a lengthy interview addressing the questions that were posed to her and elaborating on her answers when required to do so. No features of a psychotic nature were apparent.”
34.In summarising the injuries and diagnoses, the MA said:
“Ms Field-Whittaker described symptomatology consistent with the advent of a Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress consequent upon the circumstances to which she was subjected in the workplace. Her account reflected a persistently depressed mood in addition to a range of symptoms consistent with the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. In addition, she described the advent of anxiety in particular when confronted with direct reminders of her experiences in the workplace. The symptomatology which she described as persisting at the time of the assessment indicated that the condition continued to meet the diagnostic criteria at the time of the assessment.
Thus far, Ms Field-Whittaker has received limited treatment, namely psychological therapy only. She has declined pharmacological treatment.”
35.When asked: “Have all body parts/systems stabilized/reached maximum medical improvement?” the MA replied “Yes.”
36.The MA assessed 5% WPI.
37.Dealing firstly with the ground of appeal based on the 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), we have dealt with this earlier and rejected the additional evidence for reasons already stated.
38.The appellant secondly raises the issue of “deterioration of the worker’s condition that results in an increase in the degree of permanent impairment”.
39.There is no evidence of any “deterioration” other than the further medical material which the appellant wrongly sought to admit as “fresh evidence” which we have rejected.
40.The appellant’s initial submission that the appellant had not reached maximum medical improvement is misconceived. The appellant lodged her appeal in reliance on the assessment by Dr Allan. Although Dr Whetton took a different view, the parties nonetheless consented to a referral to the MA.
41.The Guidelines specifically state at Chapter 1.15 that maximum medical improvement “is considered to occur when the worker’s condition is well stabilised and is unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without treatment (our emphasis).”
42.If the MA had formed the view that the appellant had not reached maximum medical improvement he no doubt would have said so, and consistent with the Guidelines, either deferred the assessment or made “comment on the value of additional or different treatment and/or rehabilitation…” He is not required to provide reasons for his conclusion on this issue.
43.The MA assessed a Class 1 for social functioning stating:
“Ms Field-Whittaker spoke positively of her marital relationship and the support provided to her by her husband. Notwithstanding her irritable temperament, she retains good relationships with her children. She spoke of the supportive nature of her friendships but she has withdrawn from engagement with mothers at the school. She did not report the loss of friendships or relationships as an effect of her psychiatric decline.”
44.He assessed a Class 2 for social and recreational activities, stating:
“Ms Field-Whittaker has limited opportunity to pursue recreational activities. She sees her close friend periodically. She goes out for lunch sometimes. She has been on a recent holiday with her family and she goes with her family to watch her son play sport. Overall however, Ms Field-Whittaker gave the impression of diminished motivation to pursue social and recreational activities and although she spoke of non-psychiatric factors, it is probable that her psychiatric condition is impacting adversely on her participation in such activities. Ms Field-Whittaker acknowledged that she does not speak to her friends about the work circumstances but they have been supportive. She has become withdrawn from the mothers of the school with whom she used to engage. Notwithstanding her irritability, her relationships with her children remain positive.”
45.CPP was assessed as Class 2, the MA stating:
“Ms Field-Whittaker reported a decline in her functioning in this regard. She described herself as losing focus and being less organised and efficient. She participated effectively in a lengthy interview and no deficits of a cognitive nature were apparent. Overall, it is appropriate to conclude that she is mildly impaired in this area.”
46.The MA assessed a Class 3 for employability stating:
“Ms Field-Whittaker’s psychiatric symptomatology is of a nature that it is expected that she could not engage in work at the level at which she was previously employed. Her emotional fragility is likely to undermine her capacity to manage staff. Although she was employed as a part-time employee, her account reflected participation in full-time work. Ms Field-Whittaker is currently engaged in full-time homemaking and parenting responsibilities, although she is supported by her husband. She also provides support and assistance to her mother. It is expected that as an effect of her psychiatric condition, she would be unable to undertake more than 20 hours of work per week and she would not be able to engage in a role of the level of sophistication of that in which she was previously employed.”
47.Dealing firstly with the category of employability, the appellant submits as follows:
“Dr Roberts has assessed the applicant as being Class 3 in respect of employability. It is unclear the basis for this assessment.
The applicant has not worked since December 2019, has been certified unfit by her treating doctors, and found to be totally incapacitated by psychiatrists Dr Allan and
Dr Whetton. She is paid weekly benefits compensation on the basis of total incapacity.There is no explanation in the PIRS table or in the body of the report as to how the applicant’s homemaking and parenting responsibilities, or the assistance she gives to her mother, demonstrate a capacity to work. It seems to be assumed by Dr Roberts however, that this means the applicant could work. To that extent there is a failure to give adequate reasons…
Dr Roberts goes on to say that the applicant would be unable to undertake more than 20 hours of work per week and that she would not be able to engage in a role of the level of sophistication of that in which she was previously employed. He does not say how or why this is the case, in light of the fact that all other medical evidence seems to contradict this finding.
Dr Roberts also does not express any opinion in the report or in the PIRS summary as to what work the Applicant can do. His finding is limited to what she cannot do. If Dr Roberts is of the view that the Applicant could work in some other role for limited hours, this should be expressly stated with reasons…
On the basis of the evidence available “employability” should be assessed at Class 5.”
48.At our preliminary review, the Panel was not persuaded that the MA had erred in his assessment with regard to this category.
49.In our view, the MA identified the nature and extent of the appellant’s activities of “homemaking and parenting” in the context of the level of organisation, concentration (for example, supervising homework), management and functioning required to undertake this full-time activity when assessing her capacity for employment.
50.The MA is required to make an assessment on the day of the examination.
51.Moreover, it is perhaps timely at this point to set out the task of an Appeal panel as stated in Ferguson v Stateof New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887 where Campbell J said:
“[23] By reference to NSW Police Force v Daniel Wark [2012] NSWWCCMA 36, the Appeal Panel directed itself that in questions of classification under the PIRS: ‘... the pre-eminence of the clinical observations cannot be underrated. The judgment as to the significance or otherwise of the matters raised in the consultation is very much a matter for assessment by the clinician with the responsibility of conducting his/her enquiries with the applicant face to face’(our emphasis).
[24] The Appeal Panel accepted that intervention was only justified: if the categorisation was glaringly improbable; if it could be demonstrated that the AMS was unaware of significant factual matters; if a clear misunderstanding could be demonstrated; or if an unsupportable reasoning process could be made out. I understood that all of these matters were regarded by the Appeal Panel as interpretations of the statutory grounds of applying incorrect criteria or demonstrable error. One takes from this that the Appeal Panel understood that more than a mere difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ is required to establish error in the statutory sense.
[25] The Appeal Panel also, with respect, correctly recorded that in accordance with Chapter 11.12 of the Guides ‘the assessment is to be made upon the behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder, and that each category within the PIRS evaluates a particular area of functional impairment’…
[37] The descriptors, or examples, describing each class of impairment in the various categories are ‘examples only’…”
52.Although we did not agree that the MA erred in his assessment of employability, the Panel nevertheless decided to include it as part of the re-examination process because of the numerous issues raised by the appellant and for what we considered ‘completeness’ of the appeal.
53.As regards the other categories challenged by the appellant, the submissions generally focussed on the conclusions reached by Dr Allan which it was submitted ought to have been adopted by the MA.
54.Although we did not agree with all those submissions, we did agree that the MA had erred in that he misapplied the criteria relevant to these categories.
55.For example, as regards social functioning, the MA appeared to focus on what he described as a positive relationship with the appellant’s family, and the length of some friendships in concluding that a Class 1 was appropriate.
56.The descriptor for a Class 1 reads: “No deficit or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population…”
57.The appellant clearly described some strain in her family relationships and also said that she saw only one friend occasionally.
58.The panel concluded that a re-examination was appropriate.
59.Dr Julian Parmegiani of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 5 May 2021.
60.He said as follows:
“1. Findings on clinical examination
Ms Belinda Field-Whittaker is a 40-year-old woman currently living… with her husband Michael age 45, twin son and daughter age 11, and youngest daughter aged 3. Ms Field-Whittaker is not working. Her husband works fulltime as an account manager.
Ms Field-Whittaker reported persistent psychiatric symptoms. She experienced self-limiting periods of depression which lasted from hours to days. She slept poorly, and she felt tired during the day. Ms Field-Whittaker re-experienced work incidents through nightmares and intrusive daytime memories. She dreamt about her former employer every 2-3 nights. She often woke up thinking about work incidents. Ms Field-Whittaker was emotionally labile, irritable and more depressed in the morning. She suffered panic attacks when reminded of work incidents. She feared going to local shops, where she had previously set up a medical practice, in case she ran into former colleagues.
Ms Field-Whittaker lacked motivation and concentration. She forgot conversations, and she misplaced personal belongings. Ms Field-Whittaker attended appointments with her treating psychologist, Dr Stephanie Saulnier, every few weeks. Ms Field-Whittaker’s general practitioner, Dr Sheila Lorenzo, prescribed an antidepressant, possibly Sertraline. Ms Field-Whittaker could not tolerate side effects, and she stopped it. Dr Lorenzo prescribed Endep two tablets at night to help with her sleep Ms Field-Whittaker was not referred to a psychiatrist for treatment. She explained that Dr Naaz, her former employer, was a psychiatrist. Ms Field-Whittaker lost faith in psychiatrists as a result of Dr Naaz’ behaviour.
Ms Field-Whittaker self-medicated with alcohol. She consumed 4-5 standard drinks of alcohol every night, and up to seven standard drinks per day on weekends. She did not experience alcohol-related blackouts or withdrawal symptoms. Her doctor advised her to stop drinking alcohol, but Ms Field-Whittaker continued drinking because alcohol stopped her ruminating about workplace incidents.
Social and Recreational Activities – Class 3
Ms Field-Whittaker avoided contact with friends. She last saw friends during the Christmas period. She did not visit recreational venues with friends. She went to the Glenorie RSL club once per fortnight with her husband, when neither felt like cooking dinner. Ms Field-Whittaker took her children to sporting activities on weekends. She enjoyed watching them play sport, but she did not socialise with other parents. On balance, her impairment of social and recreational activities was consistent with class 3.Social Functioning – Class 2
Ms Field-Whittaker’s marital relationship was strained at times. She lost her temper with her son, who suffered ADHD. Ms Field-Whittaker no longer had contact with her friends. There were no episodes of domestic violence, or marital separations. Ms Field-Whittaker had regular contact with her parents.Concentration, Persistence and Pace – Class 2
Ms Field-Whittaker reported an impairment of concentration. She was however able to manage her finances, and order groceries online. She looked after her two-year-old daughter in 2020, on a fulltime basis. The task of looking after a two-year-old child requires a degree of persistence, concentration, and a capacity to perform complex tasks. Ms Field-Whittaker spent up to two hours on the internet, scrolling through her Facebook feed. She posted material from time to time. Ms Field-Whittaker drove a motor vehicle. She did not have motor vehicle accidents over the past 12 months. She only received a traffic fine for speeding, less than 10km above the speed limit.Employability – Class 3
Ms Field-Whittaker told me she could not return to work because she no longer trusted prospective employers. She lacked confidence and self-esteem. Ms Field-Whittaker was however able to perform productive activities that could attract remuneration in a different setting. She looked after her daughter fulltime in 2020. She took her children to sporting activities on weekends. She purchased groceries online and she prepared meals. Ms Field-Whittaker would however struggle to work more than 20 hours per week for an employer, due to her reduced energy and poor motivation.”
61.These assessments combined with those of the MA give an overall WPI of 7%.
62.For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 26 November 2020 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATEInjuries received after 1 January 2002
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 Dr S 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) |
| 1.Psychological | 3 July 2020 | Chapter 11 page 60, table 11.8 | 7% | 0% | 7% | |
| 2. | ||||||
| 3. | ||||||
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 7% | |||||
Ms Deborah Moore
Member
Dr Julian Parmegiani
Medical Assessor
Dr Michael Hong
Medical Assessor
0
3
0