Godfrey v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) - [2024] NSWPICMP 370

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Godfrey v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) [2024] NSWPICMP 370
APPELLANT:	James Godfrey
RESPONDENT:	Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership)
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Isaksen
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	6 June 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; psychological injury; worker claims demonstrable errors in assessment of Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale Categories on concentration, persistence and pace and employability, and a one-tenth deduction for a pre-existing illness; reference to Ferguson v State of NSW, Jenkins v Ambulance Service of NSW and Fire & Rescue NSW v Clinen; Held – demonstrable error in assessment of concentration, persistence and pace, but not employability; no demonstrable error in application of section 323; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 9 April 2024 the appellant, James Godfrey, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Suman, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 12 March 2024.
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 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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

James Godfrey, the appellant worker, sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent employer, Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) with a deemed date of injury of 12 June 2018.
Mr Godfrey provided a statement dated 19 August 2023. He states that he commenced employment as a retail assistant with the respondent in 2010 and was promoted to the position of store manager in about 2012. He states that he “had no issues at work” until September 2017 when a new employee began to create problems for other employees. Mr Godfrey states that he requested assistance from his supervisor, but no action was taken by management and the new employee began to stalk and threaten Mr Godfrey. He states that he began to…

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 Godfrey v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) 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: [2024] NSWPICMP 370
Decision Date: 6 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Godfrey v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership), the applicant, Mr Godfrey, sought review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The MAC assessed Mr Godfrey's psychological injury, and the applicant argued there were errors in the assessment of certain categories on the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, specifically regarding concentration, persistence and pace, and employability. Additionally, Mr Godfrey objected to a one-tenth deduction applied for a pre-existing illness.

The court needed to determine if there were demonstrable errors in the assessment of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale categories and in the application of section 323 of the Act. The applicant relied on previous cases such as Ferguson v State of NSW, Jenkins v Ambulance Service of NSW and Fire & Rescue NSW v Clinen to support his claims. The court considered the correctness of the assessment and the application of the statutory provisions in the context of the evidence and expert opinions presented.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found that there was a demonstrable error in the assessment of concentration, persistence, and pace but determined there was no such error in the assessment of employability. The court also concluded that there was no demonstrable error in the application of section 323. As a result, the MAC was revoked. The decision was made based on a careful examination of the evidence and the application of relevant legal principles to the facts of the case.

Orders