Huggart v Hardware & General Supplies Ltd

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Huggart v Hardware & General Supplies Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 876
APPELLANT:	Bruce Huggart
RESPONDENT:	Hardware and General Supplies Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Jane Peacock
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Ash Takyar
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
DATE OF DECISION:	19 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; psychological injury; appellant worker appealed against the making of a one-tenth deduction under section 323 in circumstances where the Medical Assessor (MA) found prior condition had fully resolved prior to injury; there was no explanation from the MA as to how the prior condition has contributed to the overall level of permanent impairment assessed; in these circumstances and on the available evidence, there was no basis upon which to make a section 323 deduction and the Medical Appeal Panel considered that the MA was in error in making a deduction of one-tenth for reasons which were not adequately explained in terms of the correct criteria which is how the prior condition has contributed to the level of permanent impairment assessed; MA’s own path of reasoning does not support the making of a deduction rather it supports the opposite which is a finding that no deduction is justified in this case; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 3 September 2024 the worker Mr Bruce Huggart (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr John Baker, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 8 August 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 grounds 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).

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
The appellant did not request that the worker undergo a re-examination. As a result of its preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

Medical Assessment Certificate

The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.

SUBMISSIONS

It is noted that the delegate’s decision refers to the respondent employer not having filed a notice of opposition. The Appeal Panel notes there is a notice of opposition included with the papers referred to the Appeal Panel.
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
The matter was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment as follows:
“The following matters have been referred for assessment (s 319 of the 1998 Act):
· Date of injury: 7 December 2022 (deemed)
· Body parts/systems referred: Psychiatry/psychological disorders
Method of assessment: Whole person impairment”
The Medical Assessor issued a MAC certifying as follows:

Body Part or system	Date of Injury	Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines	Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA5 Guides	% WPI	WPI deductions pursuant to S323 for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality (expressed as a fraction)	Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
Psychiatric / psychological disorders	7 December 2022 - deemed	Chapter 11	Chapter 14	15%	1/10	14%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					14%

The worker appealed. There is no complaint on appeal about the overall level of permanent impairment assessed of 15% which was calculated based on the assessments under the Permanent Impairment Ratings Scale (PIRS) categories, none of which are complained about on appeal. The appeal concerns only the extent of the deduction under s 323. The Medical Assessor made a one-tenth deduction to take account of pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality. In essence, the appellant submitted the deduction was made in error and was not supported by the available evidence.
In summary, the respondent employer Hardware and General Supplies Ltd (the respondent), submitted that the Medical Assessor did not err and nor did he make an assessment on the basis of incorrect criteria and the MAC should be confirmed.
The role of the Medical Assessor is to conduct an independent assessment on the day of examination. The Medical Assessor is required to take a history, conduct a mental state examination, make a psychiatric diagnosis and have due regard to other evidence and other medical opinion that is before the Medical Assessor.
The Medical Assessor recorded the following history of injury and history of a pre-existing condition as follows:
“Brief history of the incident/onset of symptoms and of subsequent related events, including treatment:
The claimant commenced work for this employer about 30 years ago. The claimant reported his manager left his employment and was replaced with a new manager. The claimant reported that the new manager bullied, harassed and withheld essential information from him. He reported that the new manager unfairly allocated new clients and withheld customers that were of more value from him, leaving him working harder for less.
The claimant reported that the new manager would bully and harass him. She would make agreements and then not honour them when the agreement was required to be enacted.
The claimant developed increased irritability and agitation. He developed a depressed mood on most days. He had difficulty initiating and remaining asleep. He reported developing a severe depressive disorder. This was confirmed by the Hamilton Depression rating scale. The claimant continued to suffer from his depressive disorder. He had low energy, loss of self-worth and self-esteem.
The claimant was unable to return to his job as he was too depressed and agitated. His general practitioner referred him to a psychologist. His general practitioner prescribed Vortioxetine 20mg daily. Vortioxetine 20mg daily is an evidenced based antidepressant medication for the treatment of Major depressive disorder. The claimant continued to receive evidence based psychological treatment for his major depressive disorder. His serial Hamilton Depression rating scale used to monitor his improvement in major depressive disorder stopped increasing at a score 20/50. This indicates a moderate depressive disorder.
The claimant’s mental state remained more depressed, and his concentration fluctuated. He became indecisive. The claimant’s son did not attend for Christmas 2023. The claimant had lost his friendship circle and no longer attended the club. Socially isolated and alone he chose to travel to Thailand and attempt to recuperate from his primary psychological injury whilst staying at his friend’s home, where he had frequented for the last 5 years.
The claimant stated he no longer enjoyed motorcycle riding. He said he was in a motor cycle accident in Thailand in 2020. He recovered from this incident without psychological or physical impairment.
The claimant was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder – single episode. He was treated psychologically and psychiatrically for this primary psychological injury. His antidepressant medication was increased to a maximum dose of Vortioxetine 20mg daily. He had received CBT, mindfulness and relaxation therapy and other evidence-based psychological treatments. His primary psychological injury had not entered remission prior to this assessment. The claimant had not been admitted to psychiatric hospital. He had not been treated with rTMS for his depressive disorder as an outpatient.
·    Present treatment:
The claimant continued to receive psychiatric and psychological treatment. He has been treated with Vortioxetine 20mg daily. The claimant receives psychological treatment with cognitive behaviour therapy, mindfulness and relaxation therapy. These are evidence-based treatment for disorder and major depressive disorder – recurrent type. The claimant had not been admitted to psychiatric hospital. The claimant had not been treated with rTMS or any other brain stimulation treatment.
·    Present symptoms:
The claimant’s current symptoms include:
Major depressive disorder symptoms:
o   Depressed mood most of the day for most days.
o   Poor quality sleep with persistent early morning wakening.
o   Loss of interest in his career, and motorcycle riding.
o   Low energy with rapid onset of fatigue with loss of interest in his self-care and personal hygiene
o   Depressive ruminations about the bullying and harassment in the workplace.
o   Loss of self-esteem and interest in his future career.
o   Social withdrawal for his friendship circle, and attending football games
o   Poor concentration with difficulty planning, and persisting with complex tasks such as reading for long periods and completing complex forms which he does slowly.
o   Loss of appetite
·    Details of any previous or subsequent accidents, injuries or condition:
The claimant reported that he had suffered a serious motor accident in Thailand in 2020. He was riding a motorcycle and was hit from behind by a car. He fractured 5 ribs and his right collar bone. He was admitted to hospital and treated in the intensive care unit for seven days. He rehabilitated with his friend at their family home for a further two weeks prior to him being medically cleared to fly back to Sydney. After returning to Sydney, he was referred to an Orthopaedic surgeon and was admitted to private hospital to have his right collar bone surgically repaired. He recovered from his injuries without psychological impairment.
In 2022 the claimant had both knees surgically treated with bilateral knee replacement. He recovered from this surgical treatment without impairment.
The claimant reported that he attended a psychologist for treatment in 2014. He reported that this was in relation to marital difficulties. He said was not treated for depression. He reports that the primary stressor was the marital relationship. He reported that the marriage difficulties were amicably resolved with property settlement and the decision to not divorce but to live permanently separated. The claimant said many years ago he was emotionally upset after separating from a partner.
The claimant reported that whilst he had suffered from difficulties adjusting to new circumstances prior to this primary psychological injury, that this was more severe and different, in relation to the depth and duration of his depressed mood and the length of time he has remained impaired.
·    General health:
The claimant reported that he had suffered a serious motor accident in Thailand in 2020. He was riding a motorcycle and was hit from behind by a car. He fractured 5 ribs and his right collar bone. He was admitted to hospital and treated in the intensive care unit for seven days. After returning to Sydney, his Orthopaedic surgeon surgically repaired is right collar bone. He recovered from his injuries without psychological impairment.
In 2022 the claimant had both knees surgically treated with bilateral knee replacement. He recovered from this surgical treatment without impairment.
The claimant does not use illicit substances. He does not gamble and is not allergic to any substances. He smoked about 8 cigarettes daily. He reported that he drank about 1-2 small bottles of beer per week.
·    Work history including previous work history if relevant:
The claimant reported that he first commenced work at 18 years of age as a customer service officer for St George Bank at 18 years of age. At the same time as working he attended Ultimo Technical College, Sydney and studied to work as a draftsman and engineer. The claimant reported that he completed his certificate.
The claimant worked with BHP and Transfield. He worked as a sales man for about 8 years. The claimant then commenced work for this employer. He had worked as a field sales representative for this employer for about 30 years. He reported that he had developed an extensive network and enjoyed his work.
·    Social activities/ADL:
The claimant was born in Crown Street Hospital, Sydney (closed). His father was 73 years when he died. His father worked in sales for the textiles industry. His mother was 83 years when she died. She worked as a jeweller. He reported his eldest sister died aged 48 years from cancer. He had one elder brother aged 73 years.
The claimant was educated at Newport public school and then Pittwater high school. He completed Year 12. The claimant then completed a certificate in engineering as a parttime student attending Ultimo Technical College. He worked as an engineer and draftsman for about 10 years. He then moved to BHP and Transfield working in sales for about 8 years.
The claimant reported that he married his wife and they had 2 children to this union who were now adults. He said he remained married. He said they had been permanently separated for about 14 years. He said he had little communication with the mother of his children. His son was aged 39 years and his daughter 34. He had a granddaughter aged 8 years to his son.
The claimant reported that he is independent in his self-care and personal hygiene. The claimant cooks all his food. He is more reliant on prepared food. He lacks interest in his nutrition. He cleans his house and launders his clothes infrequently. The claimant could live independently without daily support.
The claimant had stopped attended his local football games at the ground that was an easy walk from his home. The claimant’s son and his granddaughter had not attended the claimant’s home since prior to Christmas 2023. The claimant’s Christmas gifts for his son, his granddaughter and his son’s partner’s three children remain uncollected many months later. The claimant had not socialised with any co-workers he had worked with for about 30 years.
The claimant had attended his friend’s family home in Thailand in 2024. Whilst in Thailand he did not attend resorts, tourist venues and he did not celebrate. The claimant reported that he did not rely on support to travel to important events or locations.
The claimant reported that he was a single man separated from his wife for more than 11 years at the time of assessment. The claimant reported that he had two friendships in Australia. He would have occasional telephone calls.
The claimant said he would have video calls from his friend in Thailand about twice each week. They would talk about daily activities and his friend’s progress and recent promotion. The claimant was expecting to travel to visit his friend again, as he had prior to the primary psychological injury which was once each 6 to 12 months.
The claimant’s concentration, persistence and pace were poor at this assessment. He would wonder off topic and required repeated prompting to remain on topic. The claimant reported that he could not read more than a few lines of text before he would become irritable, agitated and abandon his reading.
The claimant was unfit to work as a sale representative for this employer due to his primary psychological injury alone.
The claimant’s employment had been terminated by this employer prior to this assessment.
The claimant would be erratic in his capacity to attend more than 1 or 2 days per fortnight working less than 20 hours per fortnight in a less stressful role.”
The Medical Assessor conducted a mental state examination and recorded his findings as follows:
“The claimant presented as a dishevelled, unshaven man with uncombed and unwashed hair, wearing unwashed clothes. He appeared older than his stated age. He was assessed alone in his own unit. He was slow in his speech. His volume of speech was soft, slow and repetitive in depressive themes of bullying and harassment. He reported a depressed mood, with loss of hope for his future career. He reported he was low in his energy. He appeared psychomotor agitated throughout the assessment. He said he had lost his self-esteem and self-confidence. He reported he saw his future as bleak. He believed he would have to try hard to find any future job. He could not concentrate for more than a few minutes before his content of speech wandered off topic. He would ruminate about the bullying and harassment he had endured whilst employed with this employer. He would frequently wake early each morning from sleep. The claimant did not report suicidal plans and he had no history of self-harm. His judgment was fair. He was insightful into his condition.”
The Medical Assessor summarised the injury and diagnosis as follows:
“summary of injuries and diagnoses:
The claimant’s primary psychological injury is best defined as DSM5TR F32.1 Major depressive disorder – single episode.
The claimant had suffered from his initial episode of major depressive disorder at the time of onset of this primary psychological injury. At the time of this assessment his major depressive disorder was defined by the following:
Criterion A.
o   The claimant experienced depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day.
o   The claimant had markedly diminished interest in all his prior activities including his career and his interest in motorcycle riding and socialising with his friendship circle as well as his family.
o   The claimant had persistent difficultly sustaining sleep. He would wake from sleep early most days with depressive ruminations about the bullying and harassment, his loss of career and self-esteem.
o   The claimant experienced fatigue with loss of energy nearly every day with his sitting for many hours in the same chair not engaged in any activity.
o   The claimant had a diminished ability to concentrate and think resulting in marked indecisiveness during the assessment. He had lost interest in reading and would wander off topic.
o   The claimant had depressive ruminations with increased agitation when he experienced intrusive distressing thoughts of loss of self-worth and his bleak outlook for his future career.
Criterion B. The disturbance caused clinically significant distress, resulting in an inability to perform his role with the employer, tension in his relationships with his children and social isolation from his granddaughter and his community of friends.
Criterion C. The disturbance is not attributable to the claimant’s past medical history or substance use.
Criterion D. This major depressive episode is not attributable to schizo-affective disorder, schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, delusional disorder or other specified and unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders.
Criterion E. The claimant had never had a manic or hypomanic episode.
The claimant’s primary psychological injury was because of the persistent and ongoing bullying and harassment he had endured since the introduction of the new manager. He had essential information required for his work withheld. He was not provided with fair and equal treatment regarding the distribution and maintenance of his prior network of clients he had serviced for many years successfully.”

The Medical Assessor considered the worker consistent in his presentation:
“The claimant provided a consistent history including the relationship between his employment and the onset of this primary psychological injury. The claimant did not demonstrate any inconsistency in relation to the primary psychological injury and other conditions he had suffered prior to this assessment.”
The Medical Assessor explained that in his assessment he had taken account of the following:
“The facts on which I have based my assessment of whole person impairment are:
o   The documents forward with the referral prior to the date of assessment.
o   The psychiatric impairment rating scale and current Personal Injury Commission (PIC) guidelines.
o   The assessment of mental state of the applicant at the time of this assessment.
The claimant was independent in his self-care and personal hygiene prior to the onset of the primary psychological injury. The claimant was fit for employment in his role allocated by the employer, prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury. The claimant did not consume illicit substances and did not suffer from alcohol use disorder.
The claimant sustained the primary psychological injury whilst employed by this employer, during his assigned role, that he had successfully completed for about 30 years. The effects of the primary psychological injury have been persistent from the date of onset of the injury to the date of this assessment.
The effects of treatment have not placed the claimant’s major depressive disorder into remission at the time of this assessment. The claimant’s primary psychological injury had endured from the date of first onset to the time of this assessment.
The consequence of this primary psychological injury has caused significant clinical impairments in social, recreational and occupational functioning. This is evidenced by the claimant’s incapacity to work for this employer, well as reduced cognitive functioning, social functioning and reduced employability.
The claimant’s primary psychological injury was now a permanent psychiatric impairment as the condition has persisted since its onset in about 2022 until the date of this assessment in 2024. The whole person impairment is unlikely to change by more than 3% in the next twelve months regardless of the claimant receiving medical treatment or not. There was no adjustment for treatment effects for this reason.”
The Medical Assessor made an assessment under each of the PIRS categories which delivered an overall whole person impairment of 15% and then made a deduction of one-tenth under s 323, with the following reasoning:
“In my opinion the claimant had a moderate whole person impairment as assessed using the psychiatric impairment rating scale. From careful consideration of the forwarded documents as well as the findings at assessment, I note that no adjustment in the claimant’s whole person impairment for treatment effect is reasonable.
In my opinion the claimant had a moderate impairment. I note in the documents various suggestions having been forwarded regarding the claimant’s pre-existing condition.
The claimant did have a pre-existing psychological condition. The reasons that support this assessment are, the claimant seeking psychological treatment after separation from his wife and mother of his children in about 2014. The claimant was treated with psychological treatment. The condition remitted in full prior to this assessment meaning there was a pre-existing psychiatric or psychological condition that was best defined using DSM5TR criteria as adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The diagnosis of adjustment disorder in relation to prior episodes of depressed mood or symptoms of anxiety prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury was not made as there was no evidence in the medical records or at the assessment that the claimant suffered from any loss of functioning or had a permanent impairment in relation to these minor symptomatic episodes during his early life.
The claimant did consume alcohol. The claimant did not suffer from an alcohol use disorder.
The claimant’s employability prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury was valued by his employer as evidenced by the claimant working for the employer for about 30 years in his role.
The assessment of whole person impairment is as follows:
PIRS assessment of whole person impairment 15%WPI, with no addition of treatment effect produce 15% whole person impairment (WPI). Minus 1/10 for pre-existing condition produces 14% WPI. The claimant’s final WPI was 14%.
The applicant had no subsequent psychological condition. There was no deduction for this reason.”
The Medical Assessor had regard to the other evidence that was before him and made brief comments. In relation to the s 323 deduction, he specifically commented on the IME report of Dr Khan, the IME qualified to provide an opinion on behalf of the appellant and who had made no deduction under s 323 as follows:
“I do not concur with this assessment of whole person impairment as documented. The claimant did have a pre-existing psychological condition about 9 years ago when he attended a psychologist for treatment because of marital separation. I note that no deduction or apportionment had been made for the claimant’s pre-existing psychological condition.”
The Medical Assessor then set out the following in respect of the deductible proportion:
“a. In my opinion the worker suffers from the following relevant previous injuries, pre-existing conditions or abnormalities:
(i)The claimant reported he had an episode of poor adjustment after separation from his wife. He was treated with psychological treatment. The claimant’s adjustment difficulties after marital separation remitted in full. He was able to continue his career as a sales representative. He did not lose his employability in relation to this pre-existing psychological condition. The adjustment disorder resolved and the psychological condition remitted fully prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury.
b. The previous injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality directly contributes to the following matters that were taken into account when assessing the whole person impairment that results from the injury, being the matters taken into account in 10a, and in the following ways:
(i)The claimant’s pre-existing psychological condition had remitted in full prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury. The claimant had reported episodes of prior psychological symptoms without impairment. The claimant’s pre-existing psychological condition is not fully assessable from the documents forwarded with this referral and the assessment conducted.
c. The extent of the deduction is difficult or costly to determine so in applying the provisions of s.323(2). I assess the deductible proportion as one tenth of the whole person impairment as assessed. The one tenth (1/10) deduction is not at odds with the evidence.”
The respondent submitted that whist the appellant’s pre-existing psychological condition had remitted and was therefore asymptomatic , the Medical Assessor has quite clearly provided his reasons for applying a one-tenth deduction “having noted the applicant’s past psychiatric history, that the material available and assessment did not allow the pre-existing condition to be fully assessable and that on this basis a one-tenth decision was appropriate with no medical evidence to contest this conclusion”. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor “has provided sufficient and justifiable reasons to support his conclusions having undertaken a thorough examination and review of the available material” and the respondent therefore seeks that the deduction of one-tenth be confirmed by the Appeal panel.
The Medical Assessor is required to reach an independent opinion based on the exercise of his own clinical expertise and judgment. The Appeal Panel noted that the Medical Assessor explained that his opinion that there should be a deductible proportion differed from the opinion of Dr Khan the IME qualified on behalf of the worker who made no s 323 deduction.
However it is well settled that a deduction can only be made under s 323 to take account of a pre-existing condition if the pre-existing condition has contributed to overall level of permanent impairment assessed.
Whilst the issue of whether a pre-existing condition is asymptomatic at the time of injury is a factor to be taken into account, it is not determinative but rather the Medical Assessor must use his own clinical expertise and judgment having due regard to the history taken and the other clinical and opinion evidence before him.
However, it must be remembered that it is not the contribution to injury that is taken into account in making a s 323 deduction but it is the contribution to the level of permanent impairment assessed that is the relevant test. That is, vulnerabilities in personality to change are not relevant. What is relevant is the contribution of the pre-existing condition, abnormality or injury to the overall level of permanent impairment assessed as a result of injury.
A deduction can only be made under s 323 if the pre-existing condition has contributed to the overall level of permanent impairment assessed. The permanent impairment assessment is based upon rating of the PIRS categories. The evidence, and indeed the Medical Assessor’s own reasoning is that that the worker had a pre-existing psychological condition that had fully resolved prior to injury and prior to the impairment assessment as a result of injury. There is no available evidence that can support a deduction in this case and the Medical Assessor’s reasoning does not support a deduction under s 323. The evidence and indeed the Medical Assessor’s own reasoning is that any prior psychological condition had fully resolved prior to injury and was not resulting in impairment. Specifically the Medical Assessor noted:
“The claimant reported he had an episode of poor adjustment after separation from his wife. He was treated with psychological treatment. The claimant’s adjustment difficulties after marital separation remitted in full. He was able to continue his career as a sales representative. He did not lose his employability in relation to this pre-existing psychological condition. The adjustment disorder resolved and the psychological condition remitted fully prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury.”
There is no explanation from the Medical Assessor as to how the prior condition has contributed to the overall level of permanent impairment assessed. In these circumstances and on the available evidence, there was no basis upon which to make a s 323 deduction and the Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor was in error in making a deduction of one-tenth for reasons which were not adequately explained in terms of the correct criteria which is how the prior condition has contributed to the level of permanent impairment assessed. In fact the Medical Assessor’s own path of reasoning does not support the making of a deduction rather it supports the opposite which is a finding that no deduction is justified in this case.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 8 August 2024 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION

APPEAL PANEL

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W22523/24
Applicant:	Bruce Huggart
Respondent:	Hardware and General Supplies Ltd

This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998.

The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor John Baker and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the table below:

Table - whole person impairment (WPI)

Body Part or system	Date of Injury	Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines	Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA5 Guides	% WPI	WPI deductions pursuant to S323 for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality (expressed as a fraction)	Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
Psychiatric / psychological disorders	7 December 2022 - deemed	Chapter 11	Chapter 14	15%	NIL	15%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					15%

The above assessment is made in accordance with the SIRA NSW Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002.

[2024] NSWPICMP 876

19 December 2024