Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution - [2025] NSWPICMP 805

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution [2025] NSWPICMP 805
APPELLANT:	Susan Dorothy Hazelton
RESPONDENT:	Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	17 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); psychological injury; consideration of the psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS) of social function and concentration, persistence and pace; application of section 323; worker looks after grandson; plays games for up to four hours per day; no error identified in assessment under the PIRS; deduction of one-tenth made for pre-existing history of depression; no error in application of section 323; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 28 July 2025 Susan Hazelton, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 30 June 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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms Hazelton was employed by the respondent in an administrative capacity. She was responsible for a number of different aged care facilities, providing support to registered nurses. She experienced significant difficulties with one of the facilities, causing deadlines to be missed and causing significant stress. She ceased work in April 2022, but did not mention her mental health or difficulties at that time.
There was a delay of lodgement of her workers compensation claim, which the applicant explained was due to her significant mental health issues. Once the claim was lodged, it was disputed by the insurer on the basis that Ms Hazelton had not sustained an injury, and that she had failed to make a claim and notify of the injury she suffered in accordance with the workers compensation legislation.
The dispute proceeded to the Commission and the liability questions…

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 Hazelton v Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution 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 805
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazelton sought review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by the Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute arose from Hazelton's claim for compensation relating to a psychological injury sustained during employment. Hazelton challenged the assessment of their psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS) concerning social function and concentration, persistence, and pace. The primary issue for the court was whether the MAC accurately reflected Hazelton's capacity to perform work-related activities and if the application of section 323 of the Act was appropriate. Specifically, Hazelton argued that the assessment did not adequately account for their ability to care for their grandson and engage in gaming activities for up to four hours daily.

The court examined the evidence provided regarding Hazelton's social function and concentration, persistence, and pace. It found no error in the assessment process under the PIRS, as the rating was consistent with the presented evidence. The court noted that Hazelton played games for up to four hours per day and cared for their grandson, activities that were not overly burdensome and did not indicate a significant impairment in these areas. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the deduction made for the pre-existing history of depression and found that it was reasonable under the circumstances. The application of section 323 was also reviewed, and the court determined that there was no error in its application, affirming the MAC's validity.

The court concluded that the assessment was accurate and that the application of section 323 was correctly executed. There was no basis for setting aside the MAC. The evidence did not support Hazelton's claims of significant impairment, and the MAC appropriately reflected their condition and capacity. The court confirmed the MAC, dismissing Hazelton's application for review.

Orders