Janala Pty Limited v Jackson
[2021] NSWPICMP 60
•26 April 2021
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Janala Pty Limited v Jackson [2021] NSWPICMP 60 |
| APPELLANT: | Janala Pty Limited |
| RESPONDENT: | Anthony Jackson |
| APPEAL PANEL: | Member Brett Batchelor Dr Richard Crane Dr Ross Mellick |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 26 April 2021 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION- Appeal by employer on the basis of the alleged failure of the Medical Assessor (then AMS) to make a deduction pursuant to section 323 of the 1998 Act for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality; finding that one of two previous injuries suffered by the respondent worker contributed to the current level of 17% whole person impairment assessed by the Medical Assessor as a result of injury to the lumbar spine (undisputed by the appellant and respondent worker); finding that the Medical Assessor was in error in not making a section 323 deduction; appellant’s submission that, based on the assessment of the IME engaged by it, that the deduction should be 6% rejected; finding that having regard to the evidence there should be a deduction of 1/10th from the 17% WPI assessed by the Medical Assessor, reducing the final level of injury caused WPI to 15% WPI; Held- MAC of Medical Assessor revoked and new MAC issued. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE APPEAL PANEL IN RELATION TO A MEDICAL DISPUTE
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 9 October 2020 Janala Pty Limited lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Greg McGroder, a Medical Assessor (formerly referred as an Approved Medical Specialist – ‘AMS’), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 11 September 2020.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria,
· 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 noted however that the delegate was in error in his decision dated 28 January 2021 when he named Anthony Jackson as the appellant and Janala Pty Limited as the respondent to the appeal. Janala Pty Limited is the appellant and has lodged submissions dated 9 October 2020 in support of its appeal. Anthony Jackson is the respondent to the appeal and has lodged submissions dated 30 October 2020 opposing the appeal. 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.
The WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006 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 the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed 1 April 2016 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Anthony Jackson (Mr Jackson/the respondent) commenced work with the appellant in 1997, initially as a truck driver and later in a supervisory role. In that role he was required to engage in repetitive heavy lifting and forklift driving. In 1998 Mr Jackson injured his back when lifting a carton. He was briefly off work and then on light duties for about three months. There was no surgery. In about July 2012 he was moving metal racking in the warehouse and experienced pain in his lower back. This was reported to his employer and Mr Jackson took no time off work. He attended physiotherapy and underwent an MRI scan of the lumbar spine on 4 September 2012 which showed degenerative changes at multiple levels. Mr Jackson saw Dr Balsam Darwish, neurosurgeon, on 24 September, 30 October and 10 December 2012 who advised conservative treatment. At the initial consultation on 24 September 2012 the doctor recorded a history that the 1998 injury left the respondent with numbness over the lateral aspect of the right foot. Clinically he found no symptoms or signs of lumbar radiculopathy. At the review on 10 December 2012 Dr Darwish noted that the respondent continued to do well, remained asymptomatic and was coping very well with full-time pre-injury duties. He was discharged from Dr Darwish’s care.
On 13 July 2017 the respondent was moving a gate on a truck when a strap snapped and he took the full weight of it, jarring his back. He kept working, but was eventually obliged to cease work in September 2017 because of increasing low back pain. On 11 September 2017 he was at home standing at the bathroom sink when he experienced a sudden and sharp pain shooting down his left leg. He went to his local doctor, attended physiotherapy and saw Dr Darwish on 10 October 2017. An MRI scan of the lumbar spine on 12 October 2017 showed left L4/L5 disc protrusion with sequestered fragment along the left LS pedicle compressing the left LS nerve root in the lateral recess. There were also advanced degenerative changes at the L5/S1 level. Dr Darwish recommended surgery in the form of an L4/5 laminectomy and discectomy which was carried out on 20 October 2017.
After some initial relief of pain it became more severe. Mr Jackson returned to see
Dr Darwish and a further MRI scan of the lumbar spine was carried out on 24 January 2018. This showed adequate decompression of the left L5 nerve root in the lateral recess, scarring around the L5 nerve root and left L5/S1 disc protrusion compressing the left S1 nerve root in the lateral recess. Dr Darwish organized a left perineural cortisone injection which improved the respondent’s left leg pain. However when he presented again to Dr Darwish on 5 June 2018 with recurrent lower back pain and sciatica, a left L5/S1 discectomy and decompression of the left S1 nerve root was recommended. Dr Darwish carried out this surgery on 1 March 2019.The respondent obtained some relief of his leg pain from that surgery, but his back pain remained severe with persisting leg pain. He underwent physiotherapy treatment, exercise physiology and pain management at the hands of Dr Laurent Wallace. Mr Jackson has declined the offer of further surgery, a lumbar interbody fusion, recommended both by
Dr Darwish and Dr O Damodaran, neurosurgeon, from whom he obtained a second opinion.The respondent was independently medically assessed by Dr J G Bodel at the request of his solicitor. In his Impairment Assessment report dated 19 September 2019[1] Dr Bodel assessed the respondent as having sustained 17% whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of injury to his lumbar spine on 13 July 2017 with no indication of any pre-existing abnormality or condition, and no basis for a deduction for pre-existing impairment.
[1] Appeal Papers p 103.
Mr Jackson was independently medically assessed by Dr Richard Powell at the request of the appellant’s insurer on12 December 2018[2] and 13 November 2019[3]. In his report dated 2 January 2019 following the first examination Dr Powell assessed Mr Jackson as having sustained 15% WPI as a result of the injury of 13 July 2017 with no deduction therefrom. In his report dated 31 December 2019 following the examination of 13 November 2019
Dr Powell assessed 17% WPI as a result of that injury. Noting the history of lower back symptoms and multiple work related injuries with the same employer going back to 1998,Dr Powell did not make any deductions for pre-existing pathology.[2] Appeal Papers pp 174.
[3] Appeal Papers p 105.
In a supplementary report to the appellant’s insurer dated 19 March 2020[4] in response to a request, Dr Powell attributed two thirds of the assessed whole person impairment of 17% (11% WPI), to the workplace injury of 13 July 2017, with the remaining 6% attributed to three events occurring in May of 1998, July 2012 and August 2012. Two percent was attributed to each event, based on the “rationale …discussed in my original report.”[5] Dr Powell said that “It reflects the relative contributions of the various workplace incidents to the lumbar spine pathology and subsequent need for treatment.”
[4] Appeal Papers p 114.
[5] Appeal Papers p 115.
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.
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 neither the appellant nor the respondent requested re-examination by a Medical Assessor who is a member of the Appeal Panel, and the Panel considers that there is sufficient information in the Appeal Papers with which to make its decision on the appeal.
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
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
Appellant
In summary, the appellant submits that the assessment of the Medical Assessor,
Dr McGroder, was made on the basis of incorrect criteria and/or that the MAC contains a demonstrable error. It submits that the Medical Assessor erred in failing to make an appropriate deduction from the degree of WPI assessed by him for any portion of the impairment that is due to previous injury or that is due to any pre-existing condition or abnormality in accordance with s 323 of the 1998 Act. The appellant also alleges that the Medical Assessor also failed to adequately explain why there was no deductible proportion, despite evidence of previous lumbar injuries.The appellant draws attention to the direction issued by Arbitrator Marshall Douglas dated 7 May 2020[6] remitting the matter to the Registrar for referral to an AMS for assessment of the degree of permanent impairment of the respondent resulting from injury on 13 July 2017 and “whether any proportion of permanent impairment is due to any previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality.” (emphasis in appellant’s submissions)
[6] Appeal Papers p 36.
The appellant refers to the well known authorities dealing with a deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act, which will be referred to hereunder where relevant.
The appellant refers to the supplementary report of Dr Richard Powell dated 19 March 2021[7] in which the doctor expressed the opinion that two-thirds of the respondent’s permanent impairment was occasioned by the injury on 13 July 2017 (11% WPI), with the remaining one-third (6% WPI) attributed to each of the events occurring in 1998 (2% WPI), July 2012 (2% WPI) and August 2012 (2%). This reflected the relative contributions of the various workplace incidents to the lumbar spine pathology and the need for treatment.
[7] Appeal Papers pp 114 and 191.
The appellant notes the belief of the Medical Assessor that the apportionment made by
Dr Powell in his supplementary report dated 19 March 2021 was reasonable, and the only basis for the Assessor not apportioning any impairment between the various dates was because it had not been required according to the terms of the referral. Notwithstanding that expressed belief, the Medical Assessor did not apply any deduction for any pre-existing condition because the previous back injuries occurred whilst Mr Jackson was in the employment of the appellant employer. This was an error according to the appellant.The appellant notes that the respondent’s injury is not pleaded as a disease injury pursuant to ss 15 or 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). Rather the respondent relies on one frank incident date. The appellant submits that if it was the respondent’s intention to combine the impairments for the separate frank incidents on 13 July 2017, 2012 and 1998, all dates needed to have been included as part of the referral.
The appellant submits that, having regard to the fact that the separate dates of injury were not included in the referral to the Medical Assessor, a deduction for such injuries ought to have been applied. This deduction ought to have been applied whether or not the previous injuries had been sustained by the respondent in the employ of the same employer.
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to explain why he concluded there was no deductible proportion despite the evidence of previous lumbar injuries and his agreement with Dr Powell as to the apportionment of such injuries.
The appellant submits that the MAC of Dr McGroder should be revoked, and that there should be a deduction of 6% from the 17% WPI assessed by him, resulting in a final level of WPI of 11%.
Alternatively the appellant submits that a 1/10th deduction should be applied to both of the respondent’s previous injuries (1998 and 2012) pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act. That would result in, according to the appellant, a deduction of 3% (3.4% with rounding) should be applied, resulting in a total of 14% WPI.
Respondent
In reply, the respondent submits that although the Medical Assessor suspected that the approach of Dr Powell to be reasonable, he did not adopt it, say that he agreed with it, or say that it was correct. He did however agree with and adopt an assessment akin to that of
Dr Bodel when agreed with Dr Bodel that there was to be no deduction for a pre-existing condition.The respondent submits that the appellant does not explain why an apportionment was proper and/or appropriate, nor did the referral to the Medical Assessor require an apportionment of impairment amongst different dates of injuries. The respondent submits that a Medical Assessor addressing matters other than those referred to him for assessment would constitute a demonstrable error in accordance with the finding in Aircons v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales[8].
[8] [2006] NSWSC 322.
The respondent submits that the Medical Assessor adopted the approach required by s 323 of the 1998 Act and the terms of referral of the matter to him in making his assessment.
The respondent submits that Dr Powell in his report of 31 December 2019[9] expressed the opinion that he would not make any deduction for pre-existing pathology. In his supplementary report dated 19 March 2020 he apportions one third of the impairment to other “injuries” without an actual path of reasoning as to why he did so. The respondent submits that the apportionment and level of apportionment are arbitrary and unjustifiable.
[9] Appeal Papers p 105.
The respondent submits that the Medical Assessor’s view as to whether a deduction was required was decisive and clear, noting that he agreed with he assessment of Dr Bodel in this regard.
The respondent submits that, prior to 2017 he had suffered three [sic] discreet back injuries, required conservative treatment only and returned to full time work. There was a period of five years between the last of those discreet back injuries and the injurious event the subject of the current claim. Mr Jackson was completely asymptomatic prior to the frank incident in 2017, required no surgery and was working unimpaired on a full-time basis. Since the 2017 incident he has been symptomatic, has required two surgical interventions, has been recommended for a third lot of surgery and is now totally incapacitated for employment. He submits that there has been a dynamic shift in his pre and post injurious state, all attributable to the single frank incident the subject of the current claim.
The respondent submits that the mere existence of a pre-existing condition is not sufficient on its own to warrant an automatic s 323 deduction. An assumption “will not suffice”, citing Fire & Rescue NSW v Clinen[10]. Given that there are no findings to that effect, the respondent submits that a deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act is not warranted.
[10] [2013] NSWSC 629.
Alternatively, the respondent submits that if there is to be a deduction, it should be no more that 1/10th. It is too difficult to determine the extent to which, if any, if his previous injuries or conditions contribute to his current impairment. There is no evidence available that would enable precise or even approximate quantification of the proportion of his current impairment that is allegedly due to previous injuries.
The respondent submits that the deduction of 6% submitted by the appellant is manifestly excessive, unwarranted, unjustified and arbitrary. He submits that if there is to be a deduction, it should be no more than 1/10th of the total WPI attributable in accordance with
s 323(2) of the 1998 Act.
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. Once error is made out, the Panel may “review” the MAC (see Siddik v Workcover Authority of NSW[11] and NSW Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales[12])
[11] [2008] NSWCA 116.
[12] [2013] NSWCA 1792.
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 Appeal Panel does not regard the back injury that the respondent worker suffered in 1998 as significant in the current assessment of WPI as a result of injury to his lumbar spine. Mr Jackson gives brief details of this injury in his statement dated 12 March 2020 at [4]-[5][13]. He says that “After the 1998 incident, my symptoms settled and I returned to work.” He then goes on to discuss the 2012 back injury. There are no reports from specialists or results of radiological investigations in evidence in respect of this 1998 injury. Dr Bodel, in his report dated 19 September 2019 records a history of “minor backache” in 1997. Dr Richard Powell in his report dated 2 January 2019 records that in 1998 Mr Jackson was lifting cartons onto a truck when he developed lower back pain and radiating left leg pain, was reviewed by his local doctor and referred to physiotherapy. Symptoms settled and Mr Jackson was able to resume his full pre-injury duties. In his supplementary report dated 19 March 2020[14]
Dr Powell refers to two incidents in 2012, one in July 2012 and one in August 2012. The Panel notes that there is no evidence of an incident in August of that year. The appellant gives evidence in his statement of the July 2012 incident only.[13] Appeal Papers p 47.
[14] Appeal Papers p 115.
A similar history to that recorded by Dr Bodel and Dr Powell is recorded by the Medical Assessor, Dr McGroder[15].
[15] Appeal Papers p 29.
Following the July 2012 incident Mr Jackson consulted his general practitioner, Dr Van Nguyen, who organised an MRI scan of the lumbar spine dated 4 September 2019[16]. Relevantly this showed:
“At the L4/5 level, there is a moderate left sided foraminal disc protrusion, effacing the perineural fat where there Is likely Impingement of the exiting left L4 nerve root. There is some minor background posterior disc bulging and the protrusion extends towards the left paracentral region where there is some slight effacement of the lateral recess and potential impingement of the left L5 nerve root in this area. There is an associated annular tear involving the disc in this region. There is some mild background degenerative facet joint disease.
At the L5/S1 level, the disc shows degenerative features appearing reduced in height and there are reactive changes involving the endplates. There is a small left paracentral disc protrusion/endplate osteophyte complex, narrowing the left lateral recess where there is effacement and likely impingement of the left S1 nerve root. There is no significant central canal stenosis.”
[16] Appeal Papers p 149.
Dr Nguyen referred the respondent to Dr Darwish who saw him on 24 September 2012 and reported to Dr Nguyen the following day[17]. He said that the MRI scan showed degenerative changes at multiple levels, the most significant being loss of L5/S1 disc space and Modec type two endplate changes at that level. He also noted a small synovial cyst arising from the right L3/L4 level but no obvious nerve root or cauda equina compression. Clinically,
Mr Jackson had no symptoms or signs of lumbar radiculopathy. Dr Darwish referred the respondent for physiotherapy and advised him to avoid lifting objects heavier than 5 kg. He noted that he was back to work full time.[17] Appeal Papers p 116.
Dr Darwish reviewed the respondent on 30 October 2012[18] and was pleased with his progress. His lower back pain had significantly improved since last seen, although there was complaint of pain around the left ankle. The doctor was happy for Mr Jackson to return to pre-injury duties on a trial basis.
[18] Appeal Papers p 117.
The final review by Dr Darwish at that time was on 10 December 2012. In his report to
Dr Nguyen dated 13 December 2012[19] Dr Darwish noted that Mr Jackson continued to do well and was asymptomatic, back at full-time work duties and coping very well with that. The doctor was very please with his progress and discharged him into the care of Dr Nguyen.[19] Appeal Papers p 118.
The respondent confirms the findings of Dr Darwish in his statements dated 20 December 2017 and 12 March 2020. He states that he was asymptomatic in his back and leg until the injury of 13 July 2017[20].
[20] Appeal Papers p 48.
Dr Darwish next saw Mr Jackson on 10 October 2017[21]. The reference in the first line of the report of Dr Darwish of that date to correspondence dated 24 March 2015 is an error (see [7] in Mr Jackson’s statement dated 12 March 2020[22]). Dr Darwish found his symptoms highly suggestive of left L5 radiculopathy and organised an MRI scan, which took place on 12 October 2017[23]. When Dr Darwish saw the appellant on 16 October 2017 he reported:
“The MRI scan of the lumbosacral spine on the 12th October 2017 showed left L4/L5 disc protrusion with sequestered fragment along the left L5 pedicle compressing the left LS nerve root in the lateral recess. He also has advanced degenerative changes at L5/S 1 level.”[24]
[21] Appeal Papers p 119.
[22] Appeal Papers p 47.
[23] Appeal Papers p 150.
[24] Appeal Papers p 120.
As noted in [7]-[9] above, the respondent underwent surgery at the hands of Dr Darwish on 20 October 2017, an L4/5 laminectomy and discectomy, and 1 March 2019, an L5/S1 laminectomy and discectomy. Mr Jackson has declined further surgery, in the form of a fusion, recommended by Dr Darwish and endorsed by Dr Damodaran. The Medical Assessor Dr McGroder has summarised the subsequent MRIs of the lumbar spine carried out on 24 January 2019, 14 February 2019, 22 May 2019 and 14 February 2020 at [6] in the MAC[25].
[25] Appeal Papers pp 30/31.
Dr Bodel in his Impairment Assessment report dated 4 October 2018[26] found no indication clinically of any pre-existing abnormality or condition and no basis for a deduction for pre-existing impairment. The medical members of the Appeal Panel do not agree that there is no basis for a deduction for pre-existing impairment. There is clear clinical material with reference to the left leg and evidence of protrusion at L4/5 in 2012. This appears from the MRI scan of 4 September 2012. The Appeal Panel is of the view that having regard to this not insignificant evidence of injury in 2012, and notwithstanding that the appellant was asymptomatic from the time of his recovery from the injury in December 2012 until the injury of 13 July 2017, that 2012 injury contributes to the degree of WPI assessed by the Medical Assessor in the MAC dated 11 September 2020.
[26] Appeal Papers p 96.
It is not to the point that the pre-existing condition was asymptomatic if the Medical Panel finds, as it does, that the current level of WPI is to some extent due to the pre-existing condition or injury. In this regard, the Panel notes what was said in Matthew Hall Pty Ltd v Smart at [32][27] in respect of s 68A of the 1987 Act (the predecessor to the current s 323 of the 1998 Act), namely:
“It does not matter that the pre-existing condition was asymptomatic, and if the loss is to some extent due to the pre-existing condition there must be deduction of the deductible proportion for that loss. But it is necessary that the pre-existing condition was a contributing factor causing the loss. And, of course, it is necessary that there was a pre-existing condition.”
[27] [2000] NSWCA 284.
Section 323(1) of the 1998 Act provides the deduction from the degree of permanent impairment resulting from an injury for any proportion of the impairment that is due to any previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality. Section 323(2) provides:
“(2) If the extent of a deduction under this section (or a part of it) will be difficult or costly to determine (because, for example, of the absence of medical evidence), it is to be assumed (for the purpose of avoiding disputation) that the deduction (or the relevant part of it) is 10% of the impairment, unless this assumption is at odds with the available evidence.”
The Appeal Panel does not accept the opinion of Dr Powell in his supplementary report dated 19 March 2020 that two-thirds of the 17% WPI assessed by him should be deducted therefrom. Dr Powell rounded that two-thirds to 11% WPI and stated that of the remaining one-third (6%), 2% WPI should be attributed to each of the events occurring in May 1998, July 2012 and August 2012. He said that the rationale for such deduction had been discussed in his original report, and that such deduction and attribution reflect the relative contributions of the various workplace incidents to the lumbar spine pathology and the subsequent need for treatment.[28]
[28] Appeal Papers p 192.
As noted above at [39], there is no evidence of an August 2017 injury. Reference to his original report appears to be to the principal report of Dr Powell dated 31 December 2019[29]. At [10] in that report, Dr Powell assessed 17% WPI and said:
“Noting the history of lower back symptoms and multiple work related
injuries with the same employer going back to 1998, I would not makeany deductions for pre-existing pathology.”
[29] Appeal Papers p 182.
It was after he was asked to apportion WPI between injuries, one in 1998, two (incorrectly) in 2012 and one in 2017, that he gave the apportionment referred to in [51] above. In the view of the Appeal Panel, that apportionment is quite arbitrary and does not reflect an examination of the evidence in respect of the injuries of 1998 and 2012, in particular the minor 1998 injury.
The Medical Assessor, Dr McGroder, said in his Reasons for Assessment at [10] of the MAC that:
“I have not made a deduction for a pre-existing condition as the previous back injuries occurred whilst he was in the employment of Janala.”
The Appeal Panel finds that the Medical Assessor made an error in failing to make a deduction for a pre-existing condition. He was asked to assess permanent impairment as a result of injury on 13 July 2017, not as a result of previous back injuries whilst the appellant was in the employ of the respondent. Having made an assessment of WPI of 17%, which is not disputed, he was obliged to then comply with s 323 of the 1998 Act and make the deduction required by that section.
The Appeal Panel finds that the extent of the deduction is difficult or costly to determine in terms of s 323(2) of the 1998 Act, and that the deduction from the undisputed assessment of the Medical Assessor of 17% WPI should be 10% thereof, which is 1.7%. When this is rounded up to 2%, a final figure of 15% WPI is obtained as a result in the injury of 13 July 2017
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 11 September 2020 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002
This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr Greg McGroder 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 WorkCover Guides | Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides | % WPI | Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition | Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6) |
| 1. Lumbar Spine | 13/07/17 | Chapter 4 Pages 26-30 | Chapter 15 Page 384 Table 15.43 | 17% | 1/10th | 15% |
| 2. Scarring | 13/07/17 | TEMSKI Chapter 14 Table 14.1 Pages 73-74 | - | 0% | N/A | |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 15% | |||||
Brett Batchelor
Member
Dr Richard Crane
Medical Assessor
Dr Ross Mellick
Medical Assessor
26 April 2021
0
5
0