Lachlan Shire Council v Stanley - [2025] NSWPICMP 765

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Lachlan Shire Council v Stanley [2025] NSWPICMP 765
APPELLANT:	Lachlan Shire Council
RESPONDENT:	Jammie Michael Stanley
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Garvey
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Christopher Grainge
DATE OF DECISION:	3 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appellant appealed against medical assessments of two Medical Assessor’s (MA); one assessment relates to the respondent’s upper and lower gastrointestinal tact and the other to the impairment the respondent has due to a respiratory-sleep disorder from his injury; whether MA correctly classified the respondent’s impairment of his upper gastrointestinal tract by reference to the criteria of Table 6-3 of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5); whether MA erred by assessing the respondent had a permanent impairment due to symptoms in his lower gastrointestinal tract; whether the respondent’s sleep disorder was a primary sleep disorder following neurological injury and if not whether the MA erred by assessing the respondent had a permanent impairment from the consequential sleep disorder he had from his injury; Held – the MA’s rating of the respondent’s permanent impairment of his upper gastrointestinal tract was correctly done by reference to the criteria of Table 6-3 of AMA 5 and involved no error; the MA erred by assessing the respondent had permanent impairment due his lower gastrointestinal tract; the respondent’s injury was in part a neurological injury; the respondent’s sleep disorder is not a primary consequence of his neurological injury but rather is secondary to the pain he suffers from his neurological injury and cannot be rated for impairment under Table 13.4 of AMA 5; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

Lachlan Shire Council, the appellant, employed Jammie Michael Stanley, the respondent, as a plant operator and labourer. While working for the appellant on 17 February 2015, the respondent suffered an injury to his lumbar spine.
On 24 June 2022 the respondent’s solicitors wrote to the appellant’s insurer advising it that the respondent claimed compensation for permanent impairment from the respondent’s injury. The respondent’s solicitors advised in their correspondence that the respondent’s permanent impairment was of the order of 35% whole person impairment (WPI). The respondent’s solicitors provided the insurer with reports of Associate Professor Nigel Hope dated 17 March 2017, Dr David Freiberg dated 25 February 2022 and Dr Anthony Greenberg dated 16 June 2022 to support the respondent’s claim.
Associate Professor Nigel Hope is an orthopaedic surgeon, who assessed the respondent had 7% WPI resulting from the respondent’s injury insofar as his injury affected his lumbar spine. Associate Professor Hope diagnosed the respondent’s injury, insofar as it related to his lumbar spine, is “lumbar spine permanent aggravation of L4/5/S1 degenerative discopathy”.
Dr David Freiberg is a consultant physician in respiratory and sleep medicine. He assessed the respondent had 20% WPI “from a sleep perspective”. Dr Frieberg advised in his report that the respondent’s “sleep and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lachlan Shire Council v Stanley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 765
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lachlan Shire Council contested a decision against the respondent, Stanley, regarding the assessment of his permanent impairment under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute arose from the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) that evaluated Stanley's injuries and the resulting impairments. Stanley appealed the MAC, challenging the assessments related to his upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts, as well as the respiratory-sleep disorder he experienced due to his injury.

The court was required to determine whether the Medical Assessors (MA) correctly classified the impairment of Stanley's upper gastrointestinal tract, referencing Table 6-3 of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition (AMA 5). Additionally, the court had to assess whether the MA erred in attributing a permanent impairment to symptoms in Stanley's lower gastrointestinal tract. The final issue was whether Stanley's sleep disorder was a primary consequence of his neurological injury or if it was secondary to the pain he experienced from the injury. If secondary, the court had to consider whether the MA made an error in assessing permanent impairment from the consequential sleep disorder.

The court ruled that the MA's assessment of Stanley's upper gastrointestinal tract impairment was accurate, adhering to the criteria in Table 6-3 of the AMA 5, and no error was found. However, the court found that the MA erred by attributing a permanent impairment to Stanley's lower gastrointestinal tract. Furthermore, the court concluded that Stanley's injury included a neurological component, but his sleep disorder was secondary to the pain resulting from this injury, rather than a primary consequence. Consequently, the court determined that the MA erred in rating this sleep disorder for impairment under Table 13.4 of the AMA 5. As a result, the MAC was revoked.

Orders