Haslegrave v St Marys Town Centre Ltd - [2024] NSWPICMP 522

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Haslegrave v St Marys Town Centre Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 522
APPELLANT:	Nicola Haslegrave
RESPONDENT:	St Marys Town Centre Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	30 July 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; whether demonstrable error by Medical Assessor (MA) in assessing Class 2 in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) for self-care and personal hygiene, and concentration, persistence and pace; considered change and stabilisation of medication regime in the period since the assessment by the appellant’s expert; whether relevant considerations taken into account; Held – Medical Appeal Panel not satisfied that Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) affected by demonstrable error; MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 13 May 2024, Nicola Haslegrave (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Timothy Berry, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 15 April 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 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

The appellant was employed by St Marys Town Centre Ltd (the respondent) as a town centre manager. The appellant claimed to have suffered a psychological injury as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment between March and November 2022.
The appellant made a claim for compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) on 11 September 2023. The appellant relied on an assessment of 22% whole person impairment (WPI) made by consultant psychiatrist, Dr David Kumagaya on 31 August 2023.
On 29 January 2024, the respondent declined the claim, relying on an opinion expressed by Dr John Honey in a report dated 1 December 2023, that the appellant’s condition had not yet reached maximum medical improvement.
The appellant commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission)…

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 Haslegrave v St Marys Town Centre 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: [2024] NSWPICMP 522
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haslegrave v St Marys Town Centre Ltd involved a dispute between the claimant, Haslegrave, and the respondent, St Marys Town Centre Ltd, concerning a workers compensation claim. Haslegrave sought to challenge the assessment of her psychiatric injury, specifically the Class 2 rating for self-care and personal hygiene, and concentration, persistence and pace. The dispute was brought before the court, which was tasked with determining whether there was a demonstrable error in the Medical Assessor's (MA) evaluation and whether relevant considerations had been taken into account.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there was a demonstrable error by the MA in assessing the Class 2 rating for the specified aspects of Haslegrave's psychiatric impairment and if the Medical Appeal Panel was satisfied that all relevant considerations had been taken into account in the assessment. The court had to scrutinise the process and findings of the MA to determine if the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) was valid and accurate, given the change and stabilisation of Haslegrave's medication regime post-assessment.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, including the expert opinion of Haslegrave's psychiatrist, and the rationale behind the MA's assessment. It was noted that the MA had considered the claimant's medical history and the effects of the workplace incident on her mental health. The court found that the Medical Appeal Panel was satisfied that the MAC was not affected by any demonstrable error and that the MA had appropriately taken into account the relevant factors. Consequently, the court upheld the MAC as valid and confirmed the Class 2 rating assigned to Haslegrave's psychiatric impairment.

In summary, the court confirmed the Medical Assessment Certificate and dismissed the appeal, finding no demonstrable error in the MA's evaluation of the claimant's psychiatric impairment.

Orders