Gill v Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 518

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Gill v Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 518
APPELLANT:	Wayne Charles Gill
RESPONDENT:	Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Brian Williams
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Thandavan Raj
DATE OF DECISION:	17 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal against Medical Assessor’s (MA) assessment of hearing loss without taking into account hearing losses at frequencies below 3000 Hz in the assessment of the appellant’s occupationally acquired hearing loss; demonstrable error alleged; Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak, Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission and Anor, Manusu v Speed Flow Products Pty Ltd, Vitaz v Westform(NSW) Pty Ltd, and Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd & Ors considered and applied; McNaughton v Engineering & Business Services (NSW) Pty Ltd distinguished; no error found on the basis that the MA adequately explained his actual path of reasoning in coming to his conclusion regarding not including the appellant’s hearing losses at frequencies below 3,000 Hz in his assessment; Appeal Panel agrees with his assessment; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 3 April 2025, Wayne Charles Gill (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor (the Appeal). The relevant medical dispute was assessed by Medical Assessor Henley Harrison (the Medical Assessor), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 7 March 2025.
The appellant relies on the following ground of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The President’s delegate is satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has therefore been convened and it has conducted a review of the original medical assessment, limited to the ground of appeal on which the Appeal is made.
Clause 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 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 cl 128(1) of the Rules.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed,
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant is 70 years-of-age, and was employed by Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd (the respondent) between 11 February 2011 and 12 November 2021. He was initially employed as a truck driver, and later employed as a shift supervisor.
In his statement dated 29 October 2024 (found at page 1 of the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD)), he describes his employment with the respondent 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 Gill v Multiquip Poultry 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 518
Decision Date: 17 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gill v Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd, the appellant, Gill, sought to appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission of Victoria regarding the assessment of his occupationally acquired hearing loss. Gill argued that the Medical Assessor had made an error in not considering hearing losses at frequencies below 3,000 Hz in his assessment. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the Medical Assessor's decision contained any demonstrable error.

The primary legal issue was whether the Medical Assessor had erred in his assessment of Gill’s hearing loss by excluding consideration of hearing losses at frequencies below 3,000 Hz. The court examined relevant cases, including Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak, Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission and Anor, Manusu v Speed Flow Products Pty Ltd, Vitaz v Westform (NSW) Pty Ltd, and Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd & Ors, to determine the applicable legal standards. The court also considered the decision in McNaughton v Engineering & Business Services (NSW) Pty Ltd to understand the nuances of such assessments.

After thorough review, the Court of Appeal found no demonstrable error in the Medical Assessor's assessment. The court held that the Medical Assessor had adequately explained his reasoning, which was consistent with the legal framework established in previous cases. The Appeal Panel concurred with the Medical Assessor’s assessment, thereby confirming the Medical Assessment Certificate. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.

The final orders confirmed the Medical Assessment Certificate, maintaining the original findings of the Workers Compensation Commission of Victoria.

Orders