Hill v Fraser - [2025] NSWPICMP 496

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Hill v Fraser [2025] NSWPICMP 496
APPELLANT:	Charlie Anne Leah Hill
RESPONDENT:	Mark Noel Fraser
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier
DATE OF DECISION:	10 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether Medical Assessor (MA) sufficiently explained his ratings of the appellant’s impairment in several of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories; whether MA erred with his ratings of the appellant’s impairment in several of the PIRS categories; Appeal Panel found that MA adequately explained his ratings and correctly rated appellant’s impairment in all challenged PIRS categories other than concentration, persistence and pace but when that rating was corrected there was no change in the outcome; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 15 April 2025 Charlie Anne Leah Hill, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Wayne Mason, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 21 March 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

The appellant was employed as a farm hand by Mark Noel Fraser, the respondent. On 8 April 2018, while working for the respondent, she jump started a tractor. The tractor ran over her causing her to suffer significant physical injuries and also a psychological injury that was diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder.
The appellant claimed compensation from the respondent for permanent impairment arising from her psychological injury. She relied on a report of consultant clinical psychiatrist Dr Bernard Chivaurah dated 4 April 2024. He assessed the degree of the appellant’s permanent impairment from her injury is 22% whole person impairment (WPI). That assessment was based on his rating of the appellant’s impairment in the several categories of conduct and function comprising the Psychiatric Impairment Rating…

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 Fraser

Details

AGLC: Hill v Fraser [2025] NSWPICMP 496
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 496
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hill v Fraser, the appellant contested the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by a Medical Assessor (MA) regarding his psychiatric impairment. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The appellant argued that the MA failed to sufficiently explain his ratings of the appellant's impairment in several categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) and that the MA had erred in some of the ratings provided. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the MA had adequately explained his ratings and whether the ratings themselves were correct.

The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether the MA's explanations and assessments of the appellant's impairment were sufficient and accurate according to the relevant statutory framework. The tribunal had to consider the explanations provided by the MA, the evidence before him, and the statutory criteria for rating psychiatric impairment. The tribunal also needed to determine whether any errors in the ratings had a material impact on the outcome of the assessment.

The tribunal found that while the MA had not fully explained his ratings in the categories of concentration, persistence, and pace, these deficiencies did not invalidate the overall assessment. When these ratings were corrected, the tribunal found that the outcome of the assessment remained unchanged. The tribunal concluded that the MA's ratings in all other challenged categories were correct and adequately explained. Therefore, the tribunal confirmed the MAC as issued by the MA.

The tribunal's final order was to confirm the MAC issued by the MA, with the correction of the ratings in the categories of concentration, persistence, and pace. This decision highlighted the importance of thorough explanations and accurate ratings in medical assessments under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

Orders