Hynoski v Hassy Investments Pty Ltd

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Hynoski v Hassy Investments Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 729
APPELLANT:	Edmund Hynoski
RESPONDENT:	Hassy Investments PTY LTD
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	22 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in the assessments in respect of three of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories; Held – Appeal Panel found no errors; the assessments were consistent with the evidence; MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 16 July 2025, the appellant, Edmund Hynoski, lodged an Application to Appeal Against a Decision of Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 18 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) 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 Procedural Direction PIC7.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because although one was requested, we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal for reasons that will follow.

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.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in his assessments with respect to three categories in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) namely self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence and pace (CPP).
In addition, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in failing to provide any reasons regarding the adjustment for the effects of treatment.
In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made.

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 appellant was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a primary psychological/psychiatric injury occurring on a deemed date of injury of 31 January 2023.
The Medical Assessor obtained a detailed history of the circumstances leading to the injury which we do not intend to repeat here.
Present symptoms were noted as follows:
“Mr. Hynoski reported that he is trying to work on his mental health. However, he still gets irritable and feels emotionally overwhelmed at times. He said that he used to weigh about 90kg before the incidents at work, and his weight gradually increased to 100kg. He has now reduced his weight to 96kg. He mentioned that he walks to work and takes his dog for walks, which has helped with the weight loss. His mood is usually ‘inconsistent.’ He feels distant and closed off and often feels quite exhausted. He stated that he has to rest frequently to regain his energy levels. He mentioned that the medications have helped him with anxiety. However, he still feels depressed. He continues to experience pervasive low mood, anhedonia, lack of interest in activities, fatigue, lethargy, sleep disturbances, restlessness, and difficulties with attention and concentration.
He has socially withdrawn from most of his friends, but his wife often encourages him to go out. His thoughts continue to be plagued by feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. He currently drinks about once every two weeks and noted that there was a time when he completely abstained from alcohol as he had difficulty buying it and going to a liquor store. Mr. Hynoski also reported feeling "paranoid" whenever he goes to the area where his earlier employers were. He still struggles to work, especially with difficult people, and has informed his manager about it; however, his manager has been extremely supportive. He continues to engage in Certificate IV in Patisserie through TAFE on a part-time basis, doing eight hours per week.”
Present treatment was noted as follows:
“He is currently engaged with Claude, a Psychologist and sees her once every three to four weeks. He has not seen a Psychiatrist for treatment purposes. He is currently on Effexor 75mg and has been on this dose for two years. He is on Melatonin 4mg for insomnia. He denied having any TMS, ECG, or any inpatient admissions since the incidents at work.”
As regards Mr Hynoski’s activities of daily living, the Medical Assessor said:
“Self-Care and Personal Hygiene: Mr Hynoski reported that he showers and brushes his teeth on days when he works. However, on days when he does not work, he does not shower. He struggles to maintain a routine on non-working days. He is able to do household chores like cooking and washing the dishes and clothes. He cooks dinner and has shown a keen interest in making patisserie. He has now lost about 4kg, as he walks to work and takes his dog for walks.
Social and Recreational Activities: He previously enjoyed playing board games and tabletop games, which he used to organise. However, he has stopped engaging in these games. He also used to socialise regularly with his friends but does not do so anymore. He mentioned that his friends were supportive and provided him with general moral support, but he hasn't seen them in the last one and a half years. He used to meet his brother, who lived in Duneside [sic] frequently, but now sees him infrequently. His mother visits during school holidays whenever she can. At times, he goes out with his wife to restaurants and takes their dog to different places. He spends time with his wife's family more often, as they live in the same suburb. He also goes out with his wife's friends to restaurants and birthday celebrations. He has been able to attend small events, including a friend's wife's birthday.
Travel: He leaves his house for work, walking his dog, doing grocery shopping, and attending appointments. He takes the train to work, which takes about one and a half hours. He drives to TAFE in Meadowbank, which is about a 30-minute drive. He denied having any near misses or accidents; however, he does get annoyed by other drivers but denied experiencing any road rage incidents. He went to Europe in September 2024 with his wife.
Social Functioning: He reported that his wife has been very patient and understanding; however, they often get frustrated with each other, mostly due to his fluctuating mood. He has lost some friendships as a result of his mental health issues.
Concentration, Persistence and Pace: Mr Hynoski reported difficulties in reading full paragraphs and being quite forgetful. However, he can focus on a movie and remember the plot, storyline, and characters when he watches one. He plays video games, especially Nintendo games, which are point and click. He mentioned that he manages to pass levels and feels ‘okay’ in his skills. He spends varying hours playing, anywhere from ‘one to eight hours at one go.’ He said that when he had stopped working, he used to play ‘up to 10 hours in a day.’ He manages his own finances, while his wife manages hers. He was able to focus and pay attention during the assessment and was not distracted.
Employability: He is currently undertaking a Certificate IV in Patisserie, which is a two-and a-half-year course that he attends one day a week. He stated that the course has been ‘going well and he has been enjoying it.’ He is also doing a Bachelor of Food and Nutrition course on-line which is self-paced. He was able to sit for practical exams in the TAFE course and passed all of them. He also works about 27 hours with his current employer. He reported that his current work environment is quite positive, and his employers are ‘happy with his work.’ I believe he would be able to work full-time in a different environment than his pre-injury jobs.”
The Medical Assessor summarised the injury as:
“His presentation is consistent with the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. The diagnosis is based on the DSM 5 criteria…Mr Hynoski has since engaged with a psychologist and has been receiving regular psychological interventions. He reported improvement in his anxiety due to the treatment he has received; however, he continues to experience depressive symptoms.
I believe he has received evidence-based treatment in the form of both psychological and biological therapy. He continues to take Venlafaxine, an antidepressant, regularly and reported some improvement in his mental health. I believe it is highly unlikely that there will be more than a 3% change in his whole person impairment in the next two years, with or without any treatment.”
The Medical Assessor assessed 5% WPI to which she added 1% for the effects of treatment, a total of 6% WPI.
She then turned to consider the evidence before her and said:
“I have noted IME by Dr Abdul Virk, dated 28 February 2025, I have that Dr Virk opine that his presentation was consistent with Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress. I agree with the opinion regarding the diagnosis. I have also noted that he calculated the WPI as 15% and added one for the treatment effect. Kindly note that my calculation differs in the areas of social and recreational activities, travel, concentration, persistence, pace and adaptation.
I have noted IME by Dr David Kumagaya, dated 2 April 2024, Dr Kumagaya, calculated the WPI as 18%. Kindly note that my calculation differs in social and recreation activities, travel, concentration, persistence, pace and employability.
Letter by Carl Nielsen, Psychologist, dated 27 February 2024 concluding that his presentation was consistent with Adjustment Disorder with depressed and anxious mood.
Letter by Dr Eric Lim dated 29 May 2023 and Dr Lim concluded that he struggles with anxious and depressive cognition which impairs his psychological condition for work.
Certificate of capacity, certificate of fitness various dates.
Vocational options report dated 12 October 2023, which identified sales assistant and store manager as likely options.
Labour market assessment dated 27 September 2023 identified positions available as a pastry chef…”

Discussion

Dealing firstly with the category of self-care and personal hygiene, the Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 rating and said:
“Mr Hynoski reported that he showers and brushes his teeth on days when he goes for work. However, on days, he does not work. He does not shower. He struggles to be in a routine on days when he does not work. He is able to do household chores like cooking, washing the dishes and clothes. He cooks dinner and has been showing much interest in making Patisserie. He has now lost about 4kg as he now walks to his work and takes his dog for walks.”
The appellant submits that a Class 3 rating is appropriate, adding:
“The appellant reported that he only showers and brushes teeth on days he goes for work. This does not constitute occasional neglect, but rather consistent neglect, which can only fall within Class 3.”
We agree with the appellant that the Medical Assessor’s reference to dog walking is not relevant in this category.
The descriptor for a Class 2 rating reads: “Mild impairment: able to live independently; looks after self adequately, although may look unkempt occasionally; sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food.”
For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: Can’t live independently without regular support. Needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. Does not prepare own meals, frequently misses meals. Family member or community nurse visits (or should visit)
2–3 times per week to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition.”
There is nothing in the history obtained by the Medical Assessor that fits with a Class 3 rating.
There is also no evidence that that Mr Hynoski can’t live independently, or needs prompting to shower, or regularly misses meals, or requires assistance “to ensure minimum level of hygiene.”
The Medical Assessor also noted that the appellant goes to work four days per week and regularly bathes and grooms himself on those occasions.
The history given to the Medical Assessor at the time of her assessment is consistent with the descriptor for a Class 2 rating.
The Medical Assessor addressed all the relevant issues in this category. She took a detailed description of the appellant’s restrictions in this category, and her assessment was consistent with the evidence.
Turning next to the category of social and recreational activities, the Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 rating and said:
“He earlier enjoyed playing board games, tabletop games and he used to organise these games. He has however stopped engaging in these games. He also used to socialise regularly with his friends but does not socialise with his friends anymore. He said that his friends were supportive and provided him with general moral support but he has not seen them in the last one and a half year. He used to frequently see his brother who lived in Duneside [sic] but now meets him infrequently. His mother visits him during school holidays whenever she can. He at times goes out with his wife to restaurants and take their dog to different parts [sic]. He sees his wife's family more frequently as they live in the same suburb. He also goes out with his wife's friends to restaurants and to birthdays. He has been able to attend small event and has attended a friend's wife's birthday as well.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 rating reads:
“Mild impairment: occasionally goes out to such events e.g. without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (e.g. dancing, cheering favourite team).”
For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by family or close friend. Will not go out without a support person. Not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn.”
The appellant submits that a Class 3 rating is appropriate adding:
“The appellant has ceased engaging in activities such as board games and tabletop games which were undoubtedly a source of social interaction. He has not seen his close friends in over 18 months. Any other interaction is limited in frequency and passive, demonstrating significant withdrawal.”
There is no evidence that Mr Hynoski “will not go out without a support person” or that he is “not actively involved” or remains “quiet and withdrawn.”
We certainly accept that there is some impairment in this category, as evidenced by him no longer participating in board games and tabletop games, but in our view the level of impairment is consistent with the Medical Assessor’s assessment and the totality of the evidence
Turning next to the category of CPP, the Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 rating and said:
“Mr Hynoski reported that he has difficulty in reading full paragraphs and is quite forgetful. He however is able to focus on the movie and is able to remember the plot storyline and characters when he watches a movie. He plays video games especially Nintendo games which are point and click. He said that he has been managing to pass the level and he is okay in his expertise. He spends varying hours and would spend anywhere from one to eight hours at one go. He said that when he had stopped working, he used to play up to 10 hours in a day. He has been able to manage his own finances and his wife manages her own. He was able to focus, pay attention during the assessment and was not distracted.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 reads: “Mild impairment: Can undertake a basic retraining course, or a standard course at a slower pace. Can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for periods of up to 30 minutes, then feels fatigued or develops headache.”
For a Class 3 it reads: “Moderate impairment: Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (e.g. operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting.”
The appellant submits:
“The mere fact that the appellant was able to concentrate during the assessment, does not in and of itself provide a bases for this category to fall into class 2, particularly where the appellant’s conditions varies significantly day to day. This category is substantially more consistent with class 3.”
We agree with the appellant to the extent that his ability to concentrate during the assessment “does not in and of itself provide a bases for this category to fall into class 2.”
Having said that, Mr Hynoski is able to undertake a number of activities that we consider are consistent with a Class 2 rating.
He is studying at TAFE.
He is also doing a university course part-time.
He is able to play computer games for up to eight hours at a time.
He manages his own finances.
Again, there is no evidence that he is “Unable to read more than newspaper articles” or that he finds it “difficult to follow complex instructions.”
The various academic studies he is doing would not support a Class 3 rating.
In addition, the various medical certificates referred to by the Medical Assessor note that
Mr Hynoski has been certified fit for full time work, and the vocational options report identified “sales assistant and store manager as likely options.”
Both these options, particularly the latter would require a significant degree of concentration, persistence and pace.
We accept that the examples in Table 11.1 are examples only and are not exclusive, but in this instance the Medical Assessor’s description of the duration for which Mr Hynoski can concentrate and persist accords with the Class 2 descriptor almost exactly.

It must also be remembered that Clause 1.6 of the Guidelines provides:
“Assessing permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of assessment taking account the claimant’s relevant medical history and all available relevant medical information…”
In short, we agree that the Medical Assessor’s assessment in this category was consistent with all of the evidence.

The treatment effects issue

The appellant submits:
“The MA has not provided any explanation for how she arrived at the adjustment for effects of treatment yielding 1%. The appellant submits that the MA failed to apply clauses 1.31-1.33 of the Guidelines and failed to set out a proper path of reasoning. The appellant is left guessing as to the rational for the adjustment.”
We agree with the appellant that the Medical Assessor did not provide any specific reasons for her assessment.
However, we note that in the body of the MAC she noted that the appellant currently took Effexor 75mg and had been on that dose for two years, and that the appellant said that the medication had helped him with anxiety. The Medical Assessor also said that the appellant continued to take Venlafaxine, an antidepressant, regularly, and reported some improvement in his mental health.
Although not bound by the opinions of other doctors, we note that both Dr Kumagaya and
Dr Virk gave an additional 1% such that an additional 1% WPI for the effects of treatment is not inconsistent with the balance of the available evidence before the Medical Assessor.
As the respondent correctly points out, a Medical Assessor is not required to provide extensive or detailed explanations of the criteria applied in reaching their professional judgement.
In this context, we are satisfied that the Medical Assessor’s assessment was adequate in all the circumstances of this particular case.
The task of the Medical Assessor is to weigh up all the medical evidence and draw their own conclusion based on their own clinical assessment in accordance with the Guidelines.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
18 June 2025 should be confirmed.

[2025] NSWPICMP 729

22 September 2025