Johnston v Secretary, Department of Education
[2024] NSWPICMP 788
•22 November 2024
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Johnston v Secretary, Department of Education [2024] NSWPICMP 788 |
| APPELLANT: | Vanessa Johnston |
| RESPONDENT: | Secretary, Department of Education |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Deborah Moore |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Douglas Andrews |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Ash Takyar |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 22 November 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of two of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), namely self-care and personal hygiene, and concentration, persistence and pace; no error as regards to self-care and personal hygiene; error found in concentration, persistence and pace; the MA relied on the NuCOG test he performed; the MA has used this cognitive function test in a non-standard way; he extracted part of the test for assessment of attention; this test is brief and requires the subject's attention for only a minute or two; attention is a subset of concentration persistence, and pace, but this limited test provides insufficient information to use in determining the overall outcome; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 18 September 2024 Vanessa Johnston (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Yu Tang Shen, a Medical Assessor, (MA) who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 29 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 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, 4th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th 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 which will become apparent below.
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 MA erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of two of the categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), namely Self-Care and Personal Hygiene and Concentration, Persistence and Pace.
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 MA for assessment of WPI in respect of a primary psychological injury on a date of injury of 24 May 2022.
The Medical Assessor obtained the following history:
“She said she was exposed to a series of violent incidents over the space of six months. These incidents including having to intervene to stop a boy attacking another student, as he was trying to cover him in hand sanitiser, and the assailant did not stop even after she intervened. The boy backed her into the corner of the room and he ended up pushing her. She said she did not sustained any serious injuries, and she said he was not brandishing any weapons, and she described him as not quite her size, but he was ‘worked up’. She said at the time, she was not afraid she would die or sustain serious injury.
She said another incident occurred a few weeks later, a girl in year 9 or 10, a group of them tried to force entry into her year 7 class, and she was making threats to one of the girls, and she tried to bar the door. There was a group of students outside the classroom and she was quite worried about the Year 7 being harmed, and she called out for help from colleagues in the playground and they came over. This went on for about 20 minutes, with the old girl making aggressive postures and refusing to move out of the doorway. One of the teachers left her and another older female teacher to deal with the incident. One of the students go through to switchboard to get help, and the response was that they were talking about what they might do. In the end, the aggressor half-sister talked her down and they were able to secure the door. The boy from the first incident was in the crowd. At the time, she said she was not worried about dying, but she was worried about that she could not stop the older girl in injuring the younger girl.
There was another incident at the end of term, and she was in the photocopier room, and as she looked up she saw a large group of students standing around a fight between two girls. She said she was the first adult on the scene, and it seemed like both girls were smashing their heads into the concrete. She pulled the girls apart, and the girl she moved away was bleeding from the mouth, and riled up. The other staff arrived to help restrain the other girl away. She said the children were cheering it on and filming it. It turned out that there was a diversionary tactic to draw the senior staff away.
She said the next term, in May 2022, a student pulled a gun on her partner’s face while he was on playground duty sand said ‘Bang Bang, you’re dead cunt’. On the following Monday, there was a disturbance around this incident, and she went to playground duty at the canteen, to control the movement of the children in line. She said there was a student who shoved her from behind and made her stumble and laughed in her face. On the Tuesday, she was on playground duty, at the girls’ toilets, there was a large group vaping and she was not able to disperse the group. They had the centre aisle of the toilets blocked off, and there were girls hanging over the cubicles. She said they would not follow her instructions to disperse, so she blocked entry of anyone else. At this point, a group became aggressive and threatening towards her, and were behind and in front of her. She sought support from colleagues, and even with three other staff, it took a while to disperse them. The girls who were the main aggressors were involved in the previous fight and had a history of violence. They tried to intimidate her a few times afterwards while she was on her duties. She said this broke her and she has not been able to return to school since.
She said that the police were not contacted or involved in any of the incidents. She said that there was a suspension for the main aggressors.
She said after the final incident in May 2022, she developed psychological symptoms, including being really shaky, crying all the time, not being able to sleep, and she would try to put her children to bed and she felt she could not breathe.
She saw a psychologist since August 2022 until now. She said she is not sure of the treatment. She found it of some benefit after each session, and she feels calmer, until something sets her off again.
She saw a psychiatrist once, who provided a report. She has been on sertraline 50mg, which has been mildly helpful, with initial nausea; and she has been on melatonin, which she has found of mild benefit with getting off to sleep. She has been on fluoxetine, which she found made her worse with panic attacks.”
Present symptoms were noted as follows:
“She said she has been feeling depressed sometimes, and she is able to enjoy time with her children. She said she has not been seeing her friends anymore. Her sleep has been better than before, and she said she gets about 4 hours of sleep, and she has both initial and middle insomnia. Her appetite has been generally poor and she is disinterested in food, but she then binge-eats on junk food, and she has made herself sick a few times for eating too much, and she has put on 10kg overall, and she has tried to get some off. Her energy has been low and easily fatigued and unmotivated, and she is not exercising much, though when she has an exercise physiologist she can maintain the structure. Her concentration has been poor, and she can read with the children for up to 5 minutes, and she doesn’t read much apart from headlines on the News app. She said she feels worthless and guilty, often. She denied any suicidal ideations. She has anxious worrying regarding her older son starting kindergarten next year, and she worries about him in a school setting where she has little confidence in them managing children safety. She said she had one panic attack when she was on fluoxetine, and she has minor anxiety attacks around having to go to family functions and having to be away from her home.
She said she has a had intrusive recollection of the subject incident when she passes some of the students who have been involved in the incident. She said she has nightmares of the subject incident, which causes her distress. She tries to avoid passing children in school uniforms, and avoid driving past the school, and she avoids thinking or talking about the incident. She feels she cannot trust other people. She has a constant feeling of shame and guilt. She has a diminished interest in her previous activities, and she feels detached from friends and family, and has difficulties experiencing positive emotions. She has been more frequently irritable and less tolerant around her children, though she doesn’t manifest this in physical aggression. She has been easily startled when her children grab her clothes from behind with an exaggerated startle reaction. She has poor concentration.”
The MA then set out details of the impact of her injury on her social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) as follows:
“She is currently 44 years old and lives in Corlette with her partner of 12 years, Laurie and her two children, aged 5 years old and 3 years old. She has one sister and her parents are still around.
Prior to the subject injury, she said she had a good relationship with her partner, without any significant arguments. She said she was capable of caring for her two children without any issues. She said she had a good relationship with her parents and her sister.
Since the subject injury, she said her relationship with her partner has been strained, with reduced intimacy, and she dislikes being held or touched, and they don’t sleep in the same room, but without any physical fights or separation. She said she has been involved in bathing them, dressing them, organise meals for them, and she gets them to daycare, but she has not been able to get them involved in any sports team as she cannot manage it. She said their grandmother takes them to buy new clothes.
Prior to the subject injury, she said she had many friends, whom she would see a couple of times a week. She said she would attend an art class with a friend on Tuesday evenings, and sometimes go for a walk together, have coffee together or go to the markets together. She said she would also enjoy doing Crafts, fishing regularly and camping every school holidays.
Since the subject injury, she said she has no friends, and she has lost friends. She has not talked to anyone, and she has not meet anyone in person. She has not engaged in any social activities at all.
Prior to the subject injury, she said she would shower every day, and she would be able to cook every day, and she would do the laundry and cleaning regularly. She would also do the grocery shopping weekly. She would be able to drive regularly alone, to new places and far away destinations, without any Issues.
Since the subject injury, she said she is showering 3-4 days a week, and she has been able to reheat food, and she said she can organise it, though her partner usually organises the take-away 2- 3 times a week, and she does some of the cleaning, and laundry, though not as comprehensive as before. She said she organises grocery shopping online, and she will do light shopping for milk and bread at the corner store. She has been able to drive the children to and from daycare, and usually in the local area, and she struggles to drive to new destinations.
Prior to the subject injury, her concentration was good and she was able to good and she was able to read extensively, including as part of her class preparation for lesson presentation, for up to 2 hours.
Prior to the subject injury, she was working as a high school teacher of 20 years, and she was working full-time, though she had been on maternity leave and she had returned to work for 2 days a week after her first child, then returned to maternity leave for her second child and then return to work around Term 3 in 2021, working 3 days a week, from 8.30am to 3.30pm, and a few more hours of work in the evening, approximately about 10 hours a day of work.
Since the subject injury, she has not been able to return to any form of work or training. She said her main barriers are her lack of focus and feeling unsafe and loss of confidence. She said she was not wanting to return to work in the classroom.”
Findings on examination were reported as follows:
“She was dressed in her pink dressing gown and appeared somewhat dishevelled. She had an average build and appeared to be her stated age. She engaged cordially in the assessment and provided relevant answers to questions asked, spontaneously supplying detail.
She told me she was feeling depressed and anxious much of the time.
She displayed limited emotional reactivity and appeared dysthymic during the interview.
She spoke articulately and in a logical sequence most of the time, though frequently overinclusive, though she responded to re-directions.
She complained of feeling worthless and denied any suicidal ideations.
She had intrusive recollection of the incidents at school, which still cause her some distress.
She was alert, appeared grossly cognitively intact and was able to sustain her concentration for the duration of the assessment, with occasional lapses of memory about what question she was asked.”
The MA then said:
“She undertook a cognitive screening test called the Neuropsychiatry unit COGnitive screening tool (NuCOG), and only the subtest related to attention was assessed. The Attention Index score was 16 out of 20, and was in the normal range with a Z-score of -0.7. Temporal orientation had 0% errors. Spatial orientation had 0% errors. Attention span with digit forwards had 25% errors. Working memory with digit backwards had 75% errors, and days of the week backwards had 0% errors.”
The MA then summarised the injuries and diagnoses as follows:
“She has been diagnosed with:
1. Other Specified Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder (F43.89), due to the incident not quite meeting Criterion A regarding the degree of severity or threat according to the DMS-5 descriptors, though the incidents themselves are quite distressed; and meeting Criterion B due to experiencing symptoms of intrusive recollections, distressing dreams; meeting Criterion C due to avoidance of potential triggers; meeting Criterion D due to a persistent feeling of shame and lack of trust of others, marked diminished interest in her previous activities, feeling detached from family and friends, difficulties experiencing positive emotions; meeting Criterion E due to irritability, sleep disturbances, and problems with concentration and exaggerated startle reaction; meeting Criterion F as the duration of her symptoms are more than 1 month; meeting Criterion G as she has had significant distress and there has been impairment with her social and occupational functioning; and meeting Criterion H as these conditions are not wholly attributable to any other conditions.
2. Persistent Depressive Disorder (F34.1), due to meeting Criterion A with her depressed mood; Criterion B due to appetite changes, insomnia, anergia, low self-esteem, reduced concentration and feelings of hopelessness; meeting Criterion D as there has been depressive symptoms longer than 2 years, and Criterion E and F have been met due to absence of manic episodes or psychosis; and meeting Criterion G as this episode is not attributable to another condition or effect of a substance; and Criterion H has been met due to significant functional impairment.”
The MA assessed 8% WPI to which he added 1% for the effects of treatment, a total of 9% WPI.
The MA did not explain his reasons for assessment other than to state that it was based on “the information she provided in the interview, my observations of her during the course of the interview, and the medical records provided to me.”
He did not explain his calculations other than by stating: “Please refer to the PIRS worksheet.”
He then set out a summary of the material he had before him.
Relevant to the issues in dispute, he said:
“The report written by Dr Mukesh Kumar, psychiatrist, dated 19 December 2023. She was diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. She takes Melatonin as needed. She has tried Fluoxetine but has not found it helpful. She sees her psychologist regularly. She was deemed to have reached maximum medical improvement. Self-care was moderately impaired as she had no routine to self-care and sometimes struggles taking a shower. Social and recreational activities was moderately impaired as she does not go out by herself and has not been able to engage in her usual activities and struggled with engaging in social activities. Travel was mildly impaired as she was able to drive in the local area. Social functioning was mildly impaired. Her relationship with her husband has been strained and she spends time with her children. Concentration was moderately impaired and her concentration has been poor and chaotic. Employability was totally impaired. Her whole person impairment was 22% with an adjustment of 1% for treatment effect with a total whole person impairment of 23%.
The report written by Dr Naresh Verma, consultant psychiatrist and occupational physician, dated 8 March 2024.
She was diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. There has been mild improvement with treatment with only one brief antidepressant trial and she continues to see the psychologist. He recommended she be reviewed by a psychiatrist and undertake eye movement desensitisation, reprocessing therapy and group therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. She had reached maximum medical improvement. Self-care was mildly impaired as she needed prompting to shower but does this most days and grooming was reduced. Social and recreational activities was mildly impaired as she goes out occasionally but does not become actively involved and does not see friends much. Travel was mildly impaired as she is limited to the local area. Social functioning was mildly impaired as her relationship with her husband is strained and they sleep in separate rooms and has lost some friendships. Concentration was mildly impaired as she can focus on looking after the children with some difficulty but unable to follow TV shows. Employability was moderately impaired as she cannot work at all in the same position. Her whole person impairment was 7%.”
He added:
“My assessment is more aligned with Dr Verma’s report, and substantially less than Dr Kumar’s report, with the specific rating of the PIRS for comparison to be found in the PIRS worksheet. My diagnosis of comparable to both, but for the severity of the incidents not meeting Criterion A for a posttraumatic stress disorder, though as she has the posttraumatic stress syndrome, she meets the diagnosis of [??]. She has worked as a teacher, including conversational English in Japan, before her permanent appointment.”
The appellant’s submissions
Self-Care and personal Hygiene
The appellant submits:
(a) the MA’s assessment of a Class 2 rating is contrary to prior assessments and the appellant’s own recorded account of her difficulties;
(b) Dr Kumar assessed a Class 3 rating, and
(c) it is unclear as to whether certain evidence has been preferred and how that has influenced the MA’s assessment.
Concentration, persistence and pace
The appellant submits:
(a) the MA assessed a Class 2 rating;
(b) the MA should have found a Class 3 given his own findings;
(c) there is more than just a mere disagreement as to the level of the impairment and contains findings that are glaringly improbable and with an unsupportable reasoning process;
(d) NuCOG testing does not form part of the Guidelines for assessing permanent impairment, nor is a means identified as informing a determination and finding of class ratings in the PIRS, and
(e) the MA has erred by applying a test with no apparent function or relevance to this category.
The respondent’s submissions
In respect of both categories the subject of appeal, these are as follows:
(a) the descriptors, or examples, describing each class of impairment in the various categories are examples only and provide a guide which can be consulted as a general indicator of the level of behaviour that might generally be expected. (See Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 887.)
(b) A MA is able to make assessments based on his expertise and experience that other rational minds might disagree with.
(c) Mere disagreement about the level of impairment is not sufficient to demonstrate error.
(d) The appellant’s statement was before the MA (it is summarised at page 7 by the MA) and he was entitled to use his clinical judgement as to the probative weight when considering the material before him.
(e) The appellant does not point to any factual error, nor any misunderstanding that had been demonstrated, but her complaint is that the MA did not put sufficient weight on her self-reporting.
(f) There was no requirement for the MA to include information from the appellant’s own description of her functioning and limitation. He may if he wishes, but the guidelines clearly give him a discretion (‘may include’).
(g) There is no error in the assessments.
(h) Chapter 11.6 of the Guidelines provides that ‘clinical assessment of the person may include … medical reports, feedback from treating professionals and the results of standardised tests - including appropriate psychometric testing … which may provide useful information to assist with the assessment.’
Discussion
Self-Care and personal Hygiene
The MA assessed a Class 2 and said:
“Since the subject injury, she said she is showering 3-4 days a week, and she has been able to re-heat food, and she said she can organise it, though her partner usually organises the take-away 2-3 times a week, and she does some of the cleaning, and laundry, though not as comprehensive as before. She said she organises grocery shopping online, and she will do light shopping for milk and bread at the corner store.
As she can still function independently in the community, albeit with a degree of self-neglect, she has mild impairment.”
The concept of “self-care and personal hygiene” is not defined in the Guidelines. The reference is to examples or “descriptors” relevant to the assigning of a specific class.
The examples in Table 11.1 are examples only and are not exclusive.
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 evidence to suggest that Ms Johnston needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes, nor that she frequently misses meals, or that she needs any particular r support “to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition.”
We are mindful of the opinion of Dr Kumar, however, it must be remembered that Chapter 1.6 of the Guidelines provides that assessing permanent impairment “involves clinical assessment of the Plaintiff as they present on the day of assessment taking account the claimant’s relevant medical history and all available relevant medical information…” (our emphasis).
Although not bound by other medical opinions, the Medical Assessor noted them and explained his own views vis a vis those opinions.
In our view, the MA’s assessment in this category was open to him on all the evidence, and we see no error by him in this category.
Concentration, persistence and pace
The MA assessed a Class 2 and said:
“Her energy has been low and easily fatigued and unmotivated, and she is not exercising much, though when she has an exercise physiologist she can maintain the structure. Her concentration has been poor, and she can read with the children for up to 5 minutes, and she doesn’t read much apart from headlines on the News app.
She was alert, appeared grossly cognitively intact and was able to sustain her concentration for the duration of the assessment, with occasional lapses of memory about what question she was asked.
She undertook a cognitive screening test called the Neuropsychiatry unit COGnitive screening tool (NuCOG), and only the subtest related to attention was assessed. The Attention Index score was 16 out of 20, and was in the normal range with a Z-score of -0.7. Temporal orientation had 0% errors. Spatial orientation had 0% errors. Attention span with digit forwards had 25% errors. Working memory with digit backwards had 75% errors, and days of the week backwards had 0% errors.
As she has reduced energy and difficulties with concentration, but not to the extent it would be overtly obvious in a brief conversation, and her screening was in the normal range despite some impairment in her attention span, she has mild impairment.”
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: Unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (eg operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting.”
We repeat our earlier comment that the examples in Table 11.1 are examples only and are not exclusive.
In this case, on the MA’s own findings, the appellant is only able to “read with the children for up to 5 minutes, and she doesn’t read much apart from headlines on the News app.”
In her statement dated 13 June 2024, Ms Johnston said:
“My ability to drive has greatly declined, as even over short distances, I find that my mind is drifting, and I am misjudging distances. Recently, after parking after dropping my children off to school I mistakenly drove into a wall. I’ve also driven into a bollard when exiting a parking space, despite having taken great care in parking beside it. I just forgot it was there when leaving.
My concentration is also extremely poor, and I have to write myself a list of tasks to do for the day, and constantly refer to the list or I will forget.
I feel chaotic in my mind, and even doing simple chores is difficult as my mind drifts. I leave one unattended and start doing something else.
Although I can read, I struggle to understand what I have just read, and I have to read things over and over again.”
Consistent with a Class 3 rating, it is clear that Ms Johnston has a very limited reading ability, finds it difficult to maintain focus on many aspects of her everyday life, such as household chores, and more significantly, poses a danger to herself and others with her mind “drifting” when driving.
It must also be remembered that the circumstances of the appellant’s injury involved significant and prolonged violence which of itself would have a lasting impact.
The MA appears to us to have been heavily focussed on the NuCOG test he performed. The MA has used this cognitive function test in a non-standard way. He extracted part of the test for assessment of attention. This test is brief and requires the subject's attention for only a minute or two. Attention is a subset of concentration, persistence, and pace, but this limited test provides insufficient information to use in determining the overall outcome. The MA does not provide information about the validity of the test in a relevant population, that is injured workers in a medicolegal setting. It has limited, if any, value in assessing permanent impairment.
In our view, a Class 3 rating is appropriate since it is consistent with the Guidelines and the evidence before us.
This then means that the ratings are:
(a) Self-care and personal hygiene – Class 2;
(b) Social and recreational activities – Class 3;
(c) Travel – Class 2;
(d) Social functioning – Class 2;
(e) Concentration, persistence and pace – Class 3, and
(f) Employability -- Class 4.
The aggregate of class ratings is 16, median 3 for a 17% WPI.
The MA added 1% WPI adjustment for the effects of treatment, which was not challenged on appeal. Therefore, the final impairment is 18% WPI.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 12 December 2023 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: | W24084/24 |
Applicant: | Vanessa Johnston |
Respondent: | Secretary, Department of Education |
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 Yu Tang Shen 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) |
| Psychological | 24/5/2022 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 14 | 17% | Nil | 17% |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 17% | |||||
0
2
0