Fisher v Able Roadwork Traffic Analysis Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 757

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Fisher v Able Roadwork Traffic Analysis Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 757
APPELLANT:	Craig Alan Fisher
RESPONDENT:	Able Roadwork Traffic Analysis Pty Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Chris Oates
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Roger Pillemer
DATE OF DECISION:	1 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from assessment pursuant to the Table of Disabilities; whether adequate reasons given for findings; Held – Medical Assessor’s reasoning difficult to comprehend; claimant re-examined; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 28 April 2025, Craig Alan Fisher, appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Donald Cawthorne, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
1 April 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 Guides). “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 4 February 2025 this matter was referred to the Medical Assessor for an assessment pursuant to the Table of Disabilities as follows:
·        permanent impairment of the neck;
·        permanent impairment of the back;
·        right arm at or above the elbow, and
·        left arm at or above the elbow.
These injuries were agreed to have occurred on 6 February 1998. The referral document referred to previous awards made by way of a s 66A agreement on 8 January 2001 in respect of 20% permanent impairment of the neck and 20% permanent impairment of the back.
The Medical Assessor accurately reproduced the terms of the referral at [1] of the MAC.
Mr Fisher was employed as…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fisher v Able Roadwork Traffic Analysis Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 757
Decision Date: 1 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fisher v Able Roadwork Traffic Analysis Pty Ltd, the claimant sought a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute centred on the validity of the MAC issued by the defendant, a company specialising in traffic analysis, and whether it accurately reflected the extent of the claimant's injuries and disabilities. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court, which was tasked with assessing the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor for the findings contained in the MAC.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the Medical Assessor provided sufficient and comprehensible reasons for the findings in the MAC. The claimant argued that the reasoning was inadequate and unclear, leading to an inaccurate assessment of the claimant's disabilities. This, in turn, impacted the benefits the claimant was entitled to receive under the Workers Compensation Act. The court needed to determine whether the claimant was entitled to a revocation of the MAC based on the Medical Assessor's failure to provide adequate reasons.

In its decision, the court found that the Medical Assessor's reasoning was indeed difficult to comprehend, leading to an inadequate assessment of the claimant's disabilities. The court determined that the claimant had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to the findings due to the unclear nature of the assessment. Consequently, the court revoked the MAC issued by the defendant. The claimant was thereby granted a re-examination of their condition and disabilities, with the aim of ensuring a more accurate and fair assessment in the future.

The court's final order was to revoke the MAC issued by Able Roadwork Traffic Analysis Pty Ltd and to arrange for a re-examination of the claimant's condition. This decision ensures that the claimant receives a fair and accurate assessment of their disabilities, which will in turn impact the benefits they are entitled to under the Workers Compensation Act.

Orders