Francis v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Francis v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPICMP 143
APPELLANT:	Jessica Lee Francis
RESPONDENT:	State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Lam-Po-Tang
DATE OF DECISION:	6 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of four of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) namely self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace; Held – Appeal Panel found no error except in the category of concentration, persistence and pace; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 16 December 2024 Jessica Lee Francis (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Medical Assessor Himanshu Singh, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
4 December 2024.
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).

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 determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because none was requested, and we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal, for reasons which will become apparent below.

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.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of four of the categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), namely Self-Care and Personal Hygiene, Social and recreational activities, Social functioning and Concentration, Persistence and Pace.
In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made.

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.
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.
The appellant was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI in respect of a primary psychological injury on a deemed date of injury of 25 August 2023.
The Medical Assessor obtained a history of the circumstances of the injury which we do not intend to repeat here. We will refer to it where necessary in our determination.
Present treatment was noted as follows:
“Ms Francis stated that she has been on treatment. She started some psychology sessions in 2020 during COVID-19, and she paid for it, and it was not under workers' compensation claim. She only put in a claim last year, and she saw her GP after she put in her claim in August 2023. She has seen her GP monthly. Ms Francis also started to see psychologist Bronte and has done therapy including (EMDR). Her psychologist has left the practice, and she is on a waiting list to see another one. Ms Francis has also seen a psychiatrist, Dr Malik, at St. John of God monthly. She's also enrolled herself in a PTSD) online course and social anxiety through mental health online organisations and does it at her own pace.”
Present symptoms were noted as follows:
“Ms Francis reported feeling irritable and having anger outburst. She feels lonely. She struggles to keep connection with people. She does not go out and does not do social things. She may have panic attacks. If she's triggered by something, she is on the edge and worried to run into people from work. She stated that there was a job where her social media accounts were in a crook's phone, and he had access to firearms as well. She keeps thinking about it, and she's very hypervigilant about it. She stated that her 9-year-old is picking up things, that she is not very happy. Her mental health has affected her relationship with her children as well. She struggles to be out of her comfort zone. She reported having palpitations, increased heart rate, and sweaty hands whenever she's not comfortable. She stated that she has reduced her alcohol. She may still drink once a week and may drink a bottle of wine. However, not as regular, and as much as in the past. She's a non-smoker and denied use of illicit substances. She stated she had self-harm thoughts in the past but denied any previous attempts to harm herself, and she denied any current suicidal or self-harm thoughts.
Ms Francis stated that she feels okay, but she's still not happy and not cheery all the time. She is sad quite often. She will shut herself down and sit in a dark corner and cry. When her kids are happy, then she enjoys and feels happy. She is hopeful to get better. She is seeing the right people for her treatment. She would like to get remarried at some point in future, however, does not have any immediate plans. She reported having nightmares every few days where she can see the blue hat guy and that she is walking in the spinal fluid. She would re-experience herself in the moment. She also was assaulted at work where she was poked and pushed and kicked but did not have any serious injury. She would constantly think about the harassment at work as well. She feels that she has traits of schizophrenia. She stated she does not know how to describe it but can see the head of the person who died, who overdosed, and can physically fit his head in other body [sic].”
The Medical Assessor then set out details of the impact of her injury on her social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) as follows:
“Ms Francis stated that she feels tired all the time and is low in motivation. She goes to gym twice a week. She has poor concentration and can't watch a full movie. She does not watch the news as she does not like it and gets triggered. She does not want to be reminded of work. She feels tired all the time and has been low in her motivation. She stated that some days her mom will come and help her if she has a bad night's sleep, and her days depends on the sleep in the night-time and any triggers that she faces. She stated that she does not train as much as she used to do and not very regular with the gym. She will usually get up around 10 AM and go for a walk. She will get kids from the school on most days and then comes home. On some days, usually, her mom will drop the children to the school. As she's mostly sleeping or tired, she will pick them from school, or her partner will do that. She stated sometimes she will cook and clean at the house. She is lagging in her washing and laundry and tries to do a bit every day,
Findings on examination were reported as follows:
“Mental state examination was done on 03/12/2024 through video conference. In terms of mental state, Ms Francis was dressed casually and appeared clean. She maintained good eye to eye contact and rapport. She had a spontaneous speech with normal rate, tone, and volume. She described her mood as anxious and ill, and I found her to be reactive in affect. She described her sleep as disturbed, and her appetite has been fine and has lost some weight. She described her energy and motivation as low. She described low self-esteem and low levels of confidence. She described symptoms such as flashbacks, nightmares, and avoidance towards anything that will remind her of the experience of working in the police force and the various traumatic situations that she had to face. She denied having any active or passive suicidal thoughts, intents, or plans, and there were no thoughts of harming others. She did not describe any grandiosity, racing thoughts, or increased energy levels. There was no evidence of formal thought disorder, no delusional pattern of thinking, and no perceptual abnormalities. She described their attention and concentration as poor. She had a reasonable insight, and her judgment was intact.”
The Medical Assessor then summarised the injuries and diagnoses as follows:
“In my opinion, Ms Francis has sustained work related psychological injury due to multiple factors during her employment with NSW police force. She alleges that she perceived workplace bullying and harassment along with disciplinary action at work where she perceives herself being the victim, her experience of lack of support from her employer, the difficulty with her colleagues and her managers. She also experienced alleged sexual harassment at work from her colleagues. Ms Francis was also exposed to traumatic incidents at work where she attended situations of where people had died or were seriously injured. She continues to have some of the symptoms of trauma. However, she does not meet the full criteria to make a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Ms Francis also has received treatment for the symptoms of anxiety and depression and has reported some improvement. However, she continues to experience the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and trauma symptoms. She does not present with pervasive sadness and pervasive lack of pleasure or joy in life. She reported periods when she is in better mood. She can do things, and she's able to enjoy activities especially around her children. In my opinion, Ms Francis has sustained a work related psychological/psychiatric injury because of multiple factors which were all work related and currently meets the DSM-5 criteria to make a psychiatric diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder. She has experienced depressed mood for most of the days, for more days than not, for at least 2 years along with insomnia, low energy or fatigue, low self-esteem, poor concentration, and feelings of hopelessness. Her symptoms are not explained by other mental illness. They're not attributable to physiological effects of a substance. There's never been a manic or hypomanic episode, and her symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, and other important areas of functioning.”
The Medical Assessor added:
“Ms Francis has ongoing symptoms. She has received treatment in the form of medication, psychological intervention. However, her symptoms have continued. In my opinion, Ms Francis will continue to present with symptoms despite treatment. It is highly unlikely that she will attend remission of her symptoms in the next 12 months with or without treatment. In my opinion, her condition has become stable, and she has reached maximum medical improvement. In my opinion her condition is unlikely to change substantially by more than 3 % in the next 12 months with or without treatment. Hence, I have made an assessment of her whole person impairment. I have not made any deductions for pre existing impairment, as there is no pre-existing condition. I made an apportionment of 1% for the effects of treatment received so far. The final WPI is 8 %.”
He then set out a summary of the material he had before him.
Relevant to the issues in dispute, he said:
“I have noted the independent medical examination report by Dr Ashwinder Anand dated 11/03/2024. Dr Anand made an opinion in his report that Ms Francis meets the criteria of post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Her condition appears to have plateaued and is running a chronic course, and there is unlikely to be a major change over the next 12 months. The final whole person impairment is 19%. There is no adjustment for pre-existing condition and no adjustment for the treatment effects.
I have noted the independent medical examination report by Dr Brendan Smith, consultant psychiatrist, dated 19/12/2023. The report stated the diagnosis is adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. I do consider that employment is substantial contributing factor to Ms Francis 's psychological injury.
I have noted the supplementary report by Dr Brendan Smith dated
27/01/2024.
I have noted the report by Dr Brendan Smith dated 05/06/2024. The report stated: ‘I maintain my original opinion that Ms Francis presents with most appropriate diagnosis being adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood complicated by symptoms of post-traumatic stress. I note the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder as well as the diagnosis of major depressive disorder having been given by other psychiatrists who have assessed Ms Francis, including a treating psychiatrist and independent medical examining psychiatrist, Dr Anand. I certainly accept that a key differential diagnosis for Ms Francis would be post-traumatic stress disorder and that she would appear to meet the criteria for this condition. I do, however, believe that Ms Francis 's condition is better explained by the condition of adjustment disorder owing to the significant impact on her psychological health. In my opinion, from identifiable stressors that in and of themselves are not criterion A trauma events. As a result, I believe that a condition of adjustment disorder better accounts for her symptoms and presentation.
I cannot at this stage find Ms Francis as being maximally medically improved.”

The appellant’s submissions

Self-care and personal hygiene

The appellant submits:
(a)    The report states that the appellant's mother assists with household tasks, coming over 3–4 times a week to help with cleaning, cooking, and caring for the children. It also mentions that the appellant picks up the appellant's child from school.
(b)    However, the appellant clarified during the assessment that:
(i)the appellant's mother takes the children to school;
(ii)the appellant's eldest child walks home independently, and
(iii)the appellant only occasionally picks up the appellant's youngest child from daycare.
(c)    Additionally, the appellant's neighbour manages all gardening responsibilities. While the appellant showers mostly on the appellant's own, the appellant requires reminders to do so, as well as reminders to wear clean clothes. It is worth noting that the appellant frequently wears the same clothes repeatedly, which is not reflected in the report.
(d)    The reasoning provided in the report does not account for these limitations in accordance with the scale. Based on the appellant's circumstances, the appellant believes the appellant's rating should be a 3.

Social and recreational activities

Contrary to what is stated in the report:
(a)    the appellant does not host any social activities at the appellant's home, apart from the appellant's mother’s visits;
(b)    the appellant occasionally visits the appellant's mother’s house, but these are not social gatherings, and
(c)    while the appellant mentioned attempting to go to the gym twice a week, the appellant also noted that there are times when the appellant does not attend at all.
(d)    Considering these factors, the appellant’s rating on the scale should be a 3.

Social functioning

The assigned rating of 1 does not accurately reflect the appellant's situation. According to the scale, the appellant believes a more appropriate rating would be 3.
The report mentions that the appellant used to be social, referencing the appellant's attendance at work related social events in 2019 and 2020. However, Section 4, Paragraph 4 outlines significant struggles in the appellant's social life:
(a)    the appellant has lost friendships due to the appellant's mental health challenges;
(b)    the appellant finds it difficult to form new connections and experience profound loneliness;
(c)    the appellant mostly stays at home and avoid situations where the appellant might meet new people;
(d)    the appellant lack motivation to maintain or build relationships, and
(e)    the appellant's relationship with Marshall remains strained.

Concentration, persistence and pace (CPP)

The report omits important details about the appellant's concentration difficulties:
(a)    the appellant can only read for about 10 minutes at a time, and even then, the material is limited to a children’s book, not a novel;
(b)   it took the appellant four weeks to assemble a bed due to frustration, irritability, and difficulty following the instructions;
(c)    the appellant cannot watch a movie or TV show without losing focus;
(d)    while the appellant self-enrolled in an online post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety course, the appellant has not engaged with it for weeks due to a lack of motivation and concentration.
Based on these observations, the appellant believes the appellant's rating should be a 3.

The respondent’s submissions

As stated earlier, the respondent submits that no errors were made. We will refer more fully to those submissions in due course.

Discussion
Self-Care and personal hygiene

The Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 and said:
“Ms Francis stated that self-care is mostly okay. She showers mostly on her own. However, at times, she may forget to shower, and then her partner reminds her. She eats well. She stated having a sweet tooth. Twice a week, she would go to the gym. She has put on 5 kg. Gym is her outlet, and she reported she tries to do weight training. She is at home mostly with the 2- year-old and tries to look after him. However, it was hard when he was younger, and she felt detached. As he has grown, it has been easier to connect. She tries to spend time with him, around 30 minutes daily as suggested by her therapist.”
The concept of “self-care and personal hygiene” is not defined in the Guidelines. The reference is to examples or “descriptors” relevant to the assigning of a specific class.
The examples in Table 11.1 are examples only and are not exclusive.
The descriptor for a Class 2 rating reads: “Mild impairment: able to live independently; looks after self adequately, although may look unkempt occasionally; sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food.”

For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: Can’t live independently without regular support. Needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. Does not prepare own meals, frequently misses meals. Family member or community nurse visits (or should visit)
2–3 times per week to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition.”
There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Ms Francis frequently misses meals, or that she needs any particular support “to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition.”
As the respondent correctly points out:
“In the description of the appellant’s social activities/ADL’s, there is no reference to the appellant only occasionally (emphasis added) picking up her youngest child from school, her eldest child walking home from school, nor is there any reference to the neighbour managing all gardening responsibilities.
There is no evidence documented before the MA which supports the appellant’s submission that she wears the same clothes repeatedly and no reference to this in the history he reported.
The history reported by the MA that the worker showers mostly on her own but may require reminders to do so is consistent with the history reported by Dr Anand, qualified by the appellant who also assessed the appellant’s self- care as class 2”
Although not bound by other medical opinions, the Medical Assessor noted them and explained his own views vis- a- vis those opinions.
it must also be remembered that Chapter 1.6 of the Guidelines provides that assessing permanent impairment “involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of assessment taking into account the claimant’s relevant medical history and all available relevant medical information…” (our emphasis).
We note that the Medical Assessor observed that Ms Francis was “dressed casually and appeared clean.”
He added: “her appetite has been fine and has lost some weight,” and “She reported periods when she is in better mood. She can do things…” and “she has reduced her alcohol.”
We do agree that the Medical Assessor’s report is not always easy to follow since he mentions aspects of this category in several parts of his report.
Nevertheless, in our view, the Medical Assessor’s assessment in this category was consistent with all the evidence, and we see no error by him in this category.

Social and recreational activities

The Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 rating and said:
“Ms Francis attends gym twice in a week, which is her outlet. She has stopped going to the church. She does not like big groups. She takes her son to athletics and to football season. She would drop him off and sit in the car. The young one does not do any activity. She would attend to social activities in her house or at her mom's place. She does not like big gatherings. She would avoid big gatherings with lots of people. She would go and see her mom and would invite her brother and dad for dinner. At mom's place or her place, she may go to a coffee shop with one to one with one of her girlfriends and goes to the same coffee shop. And around once a month, she would go for a meal. She mostly does her shopping online.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 rating reads:
“Mild impairment: Occasionally goes to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg dancing, cheering favourite team).”
For a Class 3 rating it reads:
“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.”
The respondent submits:
“The appellant submits that the history reported by the MA is inaccurate but has not referred to any evidence to support this submission.
The appellant submits that the history reported by the MA is inaccurate as she does not host any social activities in her home apart from her mother’s visits, she may occasionally visit her mother’s house and she attempts to go to the gym twice a week but there are times when she does not attend at all.
The respondent notes that Dr Anand assessed the appellant as class 3 and at the time reported that she rarely went to the gym. Dr Anand assessed the appellant in March 2024.
The appellant has not disputed that she takes her sons to athletics and to the football season, and may go to a coffee shop with one of her girlfriends and around once a month go for a meal.”
We agree with the respondent that the Medical Assessor saw the appellant almost nine months after she was seen by Dr Anand. As we said earlier, the Medical Assessor is required to assess a claimant “as they present on the day of assessment.”
There is also very little evidence in support of the appellant’s submission that the history reported by the Medical Assessor is inaccurate.
Having said that, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the appellant “will not go out without a support person” or that she is “not actively involved” when she does go out.
As the Medical Assessor noted, “she may go to a coffee shop with one to one with one of her girlfriends and goes to the same coffee shop. And around once a month, she would go for a meal.”
This suggests that Ms Francis engages in social activities regularly, albeit to a lesser degree than in the past, but nonetheless with regularity.
Again, in our view the Medical Assessor’s assessment in this category was open to him on all the evidence, and we see no error by him in this category.

Social functioning

The Medical Assessor assessed a Class 1 rating and said:
“Ms Francis lives with her partner. Her relationship has been good. She stated going through a rocky stage when he was trying to understand what was happening to her, and it has been tough. Her partner is also not working and is on workers' compensation claim and was a police officer. She stated that they don't have arguments now and have stopped arguing. They together look after the children and get through everything. She denied any period of separation or domestic violence.”
The descriptor for a Class 1 reads:
“No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: regularly participates in social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate. May belong to clubs or associations and is actively involved with these.”
For a Class 2 it reads:
“Mild impairment: existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.”
The Medical Assessor obtained information relevant in this category which again is consistent with her presentation “on the day of assessment.”
The Medical Assessor acknowledged that she had been “through a rocky stage” but this was in the past.
She currently has a good relationship with her new partner. She broke up with her husband in 2019, then had an affair which turned sour over the video incident but now has a new and solid relationship, and hopes to marry her new partner: “She would like to get remarried at some point in future, however, does not have any immediate plans.”
There is no evidence to suggest that she experiences tension and arguments with her partner.
She “regularly participates in social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate.” For example, she and her partner together look after all the children. As she told the Medical Assessor, “when her kids are happy, then she enjoys and feels happy.”
Many of the appellant’s submissions are without foundation. For example, there is no evidence that “her relationship with Marshall remains strained.” In this regard, the appellant offered a critique of the Medical Assessor’s assessment and attempted to enter new information.
Again, in our view the Medical Assessor’s assessment in this category was consistent with all the evidence, and we see no error by him in this category.

Concentration, persistence and pace

The Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 rating and said:
“Her concentration depends on what scenario is running in her head. She's able to focus on times for about 30 minutes, and then she starts to get distracted. She hates reading. She has never been a reader. She will read to her son. However, she reads just like a normal book and does not follow any plot. She has not needed to do things which have involved following any instructions.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 reads:
“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.”
For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: Unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (eg operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting.”
In this category we agree with the thrust of the appellant’s submissions for reasons that follow.
The Medical Assessor’s reasons were sparse.
He mentioned that Ms Francis could focus “on times” but he does not explain what this means.
Reading to her son can hardly be described as a challenging or intellectually demanding task. Many parents read to children: that does not require great effort. As the appellant submits, “the material is limited to a children’s book, not a novel.”
Just because she has not needed to “do things which have involved following any instructions” does not mean that she can undertake such a task.
As the Medical Assessor noted earlier in his report: “She has poor concentration and can't watch a full movie. She does not watch the news as she does not like it and gets triggered.”
These limitations fit more accurately with a Class 3 rating.
We should add that we agree with the respondent regarding the absence of any “documented evidence supporting additional matters the appellant wishes to raise relating to her concentration, such as the claim that “It took the appellant four weeks to assemble a bed due to frustration, irritability, and difficulty following the instructions.”
Nevertheless, her concentration is undoubtedly moderately impaired, having regard to the whole of the evidence.
For these reasons, we agree that the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment in this category
This means the final ratings are 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 5, with a median score of 2. Therefore, the appellant has an 8% WPI before adding 1% WPI for the effect of treatment, as the Medical Assessor did.
The 1% WPI adjustment for the effect of treatment has not been the subject of appeal and we will not disturb this aspect of his assessment.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
4 December 2024 should be revoked and a new MAC 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:	W27160/24
Applicant:	Jessica Lee Francis
Respondent:	State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

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 Himanshu Singh, 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)
Psychological	25 August 2023 - deemed	Chapter 11	Chapter 14	8%	1% treatment effects	9%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					9%

[2025] NSWPICMP 143

6 March 2025