Hill v Citrus Group Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 38

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Hill v Citrus Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 38
APPELLANT:	Samuel Hill
RESPONDENT:	Citrus Group Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	17 January 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Medical appeal; challenge to assessment under the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories of social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence and pace; whether Medical Assessor (MA) applied the correct criteria as set out in the Guidelines; whether the MA correctly characterised activities undertaken by the appellant per Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW); Botha v Secretary, NSW Department of Customer Service, and Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd considered; Held – MA did not err in assessment of social and recreational activities; MA did not err in Ballas sense; MA erred in assessment of concentration, persistence and pace; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 8 October 2024 Samuel Hill (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Sathish Dayalan, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 10 September 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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr Hill was employed by the respondent (Citrus Group Pty Ltd) as a customer services operator in 2021. His employer was contracted to Woolworths and his role was in a call centre type environment. He worked there for three to four months before suffering a psychological injury that was deemed to have occurred on 29 November 2021, due to bullying and belittling from his manager.
Mr Hill brought a claim to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for lump sum compensation only. The dispute was limited to the extent of permanent impairment suffered by Mr Hill, with his claim being based on an assessment of Dr Chow of 23% whole person impairment. The respondent’s…

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.

Continue reading Hill v Citrus Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hill v Citrus Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 38
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 38
Decision Date: 17 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hill v Citrus Group Pty Ltd, the appellant, Mr Hill, contested the assessment of his psychiatric impairment by the Medical Assessor (MA) in relation to his workers compensation claim. The dispute centred on the MA's evaluation under the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories of social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence, and pace. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues were whether the MA applied the correct criteria as outlined in the Guidelines for the Assessment of Psychiatric Impairment and whether the MA correctly characterised the activities undertaken by Mr Hill in line with the cases of Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW), Botha v Secretary, NSW Department of Customer Service, and Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd. The court had to determine if the MA's assessment was legally sound and aligned with the established criteria and precedents.

The court found that the MA did not err in the assessment of social and recreational activities, as the MA's findings were consistent with the Guidelines. However, the court determined that the MA did not err in the Ballas sense, which refers to the MA's characterisation of the appellant's activities. The MA's assessment of concentration, persistence, and pace was found to be incorrect. Consequently, the Medical Assessment Certificate was revoked. The court concluded that the MA's errors in the assessment of concentration, persistence, and pace were significant enough to warrant the revocation of the certificate, but the assessment of social and recreational activities was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the assessment of social and recreational activities was affirmed, while the assessment of concentration, persistence, and pace was revoked. The Medical Assessment Certificate was thus revoked in its entirety. The appellant was granted a remedy in respect of the incorrect assessment, leading to the need for a new assessment by a different MA.

Orders