Lee v Australian Turf Club Ltd
[2025] NSWPICMP 747
•29 September 2025
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Lee v Australian Turf Club Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 747 |
| APPELLANT: | Kathryn Lee |
| RESPONDENT: | Australian Turf Club Limited |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Richard Perrignon |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Douglas Andrews |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Michael Hong |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 29 September 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal; medical assessment; assessment of psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS); Held – demonstrable error in respect of the PIRS for concentration, persistence and pace, and employability; Appeal Panel assesses class 2 and 3 impairment respectively; resulting whole person impairment (WPI) of 7% the same as originally assessed; no utility in revoking the MAC; MAC confirmed. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
The appellant worker, Ms Lee, appeals from the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Gupta dated 10 April 2025. He assessed a 7% whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of psychological injury on 18 September 2022 (deemed date).
He assessed a class 2 impairment in respect of the following four psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS):
(a) Self-care and personal hygiene;
(b) Travel;
(c) Concentration, persistence and pace, and
(d) Employability.
In each case the appellant alleges demonstrable error and the application of incorrect criteria on the basis that, on the available evidence including her statement of 30 September 2024 and the report of Dr Nagesh dated 10 January 2024 on which she relied, the ‘best fit’ was a class 3 impairment.
No error is alleged in respect of any other aspect of the assessment.
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.
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 referred the appellant for examination by one of its members, Medical Assessor Hong, as it discerned error of the kind identified 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 as follows:
(a) In respect of Self-care and personal hygiene:
(i)at page 10 of the Medical Assessment Certificate, the Medical Assessor did not accurately record the evidence contained in the worker’s statement at pars [129] to [139], to the effect that she does not brush her teeth or shower every day because she cannot be bothered;
(ii)he failed to take into account her reliance on her husband to care for her and prompt her, and
(iii)because she does not prepare most of her meals, and needs prompting to shower and wear clean clothes, she is unable to live independently or look after herself without her husband’s regular support.
(b) In respect of Travel:
(i)the Medical Assessor has not accurately assessed the circumstances of the Appellant, because he found that she does not have a fear of driving, but does not go out much due to a lack of concentration and fear of being out. Her evidence was that she gets flashbacks outside her home and rarely leaves home by herself: statement at [145]-[149], report of
Dr Nagesh, and(ii)her ability to drive and leave home is significantly impacted by her anxiety state, which is inconsistent with class 2 and fulfils the criteria for class 3.
(c) In respect of Concentration, persistence and pace:
(i)the history recorded at pages 3 and 4 of the Medical Assessment Certificate is inconsistent with the appellant’s statement at [133], [141]-[144], [158], and with the history taken by Dr Nagesh that she cannot concentrate for five to ten minutes, listen to audiobooks, or read books, newspaper articles or magazines;
(ii)in relying on the appellant’s ability to learn new systems at her new employer, Think Water Dural (referred to in the Medical Assessment Certificate as Think Irrigation Dural)(Dural), the Medical Assessor did not take account of her evidence that her new job required only light administrative tasks, and did not involve customer interactions or sales (statement at [96]). He should have inferred that the learning of new systems did not require much of her;
(iii)he did not take account of her evidence that her employer was understanding of her condition and her role was not very demanding (statement at [161]);
(iv)the Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant ‘was able to focus well throughout the assessment”. This was inconsistent with her history that she ‘gets anxious with sweaty hands, nausea and palpitations whenever anyone talks about the workplace’;
(v)the assessment was conducted by video, no observations were provided as to the appellant’s presentation at examination, and the Medical Assessor noted ‘not applicable’ under the heading, Findings on Physical Examination;
(vi)he did not take into account the effect that the attendance of her husband as a support person would have had on her capacity to participate in the assessment, and
(vii)a class 3 impairment should have been assessed.
(d) In respect of Employability:
(i)the Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant is seeking jobs equivalent to her pre-injury capacity at page 11. That was inconsistent with her evidence that she becomes extremely anxious and hyperventilates, shakes and experiences dry mouth when looking for jobs online (statement at [159]);
(ii)the Medical Assessor failed to take into account her evidence that she was only able to manage her role at Dural because she knew the staff there, her husband was there, and the owner was lenient with her frequent requirement to call in sick, and her evidence that she had considerable time off work and struggled to manage (statement at [161]-[162]);
(iii)the best fit is a class 3 impairment, because she cannot work in the same position as pre-injury, and she can work less than 20 hours per week in a different position requiring less skill or which is qualitatively different by being less stressful. Her employment at Dural ceased in January 2024, and
(iv)there was no evidence to support the finding that she sought jobs equivalent to her pre-injury capacity.
In reply, the respondent submits as follows:
(a) In respect of Self-care and personal hygiene, the Medical Assessor took a history that the appellant does not need prompting to eat, cooks occasionally and showers every day, though she does not clean her teeth every day, and that she keeps her house in order and does the laundry. This supported a class 2 impairment, and not a class 3 impairment as alleged.
(b) In respect of Travel:
(i)the Medical Assessor took a history that the appellant only drives once every three to four weeks, usually travels as a passenger with her husband, that she can drive to the local shop independently, that her lack of driving results from poor concentration and fear of going out, and that she fears using public transport;
(ii)that differed from the history provided to Dr Nagesh, who recorded that she commutes to work with her husband only, and cannot drive independently even to local and familiar places without him, and
(iii)the history given to the Medical Assessor supports a class 2 impairment, not a class 3 impairment.
(c) In respect of Concentration, persistence and pace:
(i)the appellant told the Medical Assessor that her concentration was reduced, but that she enjoyed needlework and crosswords, like e-books and audiobooks, though she struggled to focus on her hobbies and was unable to focus through a film and struggled to follow the plot. She said that her memory was not as good and she had to record reminders for things to do, though she managed to learn the new systems at Dural;
(ii)that differed from her statement, and from what she had told Dr Nagesh, namely that she could not listen to audiobooks, read books, newspaper articles or magazines, and could only concentrate for five to ten minutes, and
(iii)on the basis of the history provided to him, the Medical Assessor’s assessment was not glaringly improbable, noting that the appellant was able to work post injury and to learn new systems at Dural. There was no error in assessing a class 2 impairment.
(d) In respect of Employability:
(i)the appellant told the Medical Assessor that after a few months off work after injury, she worked for her husband’s employer in an administrative position at Dural for 20 hours per week over five days, that she stayed for a year but was let go owing to a lack of work. She said she had been looking for work non-stop, but was unable to find anything for 20 hours per week;
(ii)the position she held at Dural was only for 20 hours per week. She did the work of an administrative assistant, which is the same job she had held with the respondent on a full-time basis. This would not fulfil the criteria for a class 3 impairment, and
(iii)she ceased employment at Dural, not because of incapacity, but because of lack of available work.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The assessment of psychiatric and psychological disorders is governed by Chapter 11 of the Guidelines. The behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder are assessed on six scales, each of which evaluates an area of functional impairment: [11.11].
On each scale, impairment is rated using class descriptors. Classes of impairment range from 1 to 5, in increasing order of severity. Examples of activities are examples only: [11.12]
Self-care and personal hygiene
The examples given for class 2 and 3 impairment in respect of Self-care and personal hygiene are as follows:
Class 2
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.
Class 3
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.
In the PIRS Table attached to his Medical Assessment Certificate, the Medical Assessor gave the following reasons for assessing a class 2 impairment:
“As described in the main body of the report, there is mild impairment. She has lost weight since the injury, but does not need any prompting to eat. She cooks occasionally and showers everyday. She does not clean her teeth everyday. She keeps her house in order and does the laundry as well.”
The words ‘as described in the main body of the report’ appear to be a reference to [4] of the Medical Assessment Certificate, where the Medical Assessor recorded:
“She has lost two dress sizes since the injury. She has a cup of tea in the morning with a couple of biscuits without being prompted. She eats a home-cooked dinner. She says that she cooks occasionally but not as much as she used to. She showers daily, but does not clean her teeth everyday. She estimates that she cleans her teeth three to four times per week. She vacuums her house once a fortnight and does laundry once a week.”
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to take into account her reliance on her husband to care for her and prompt her.
It was the task of the Medical Assessor to assess the appellant as she presented on
25 March 2025. On that occasion, she did not provide a history that she needed prompting to shower or wear clean clothes, that she frequently missed meals, that she did not prepare her own meals, or that her husband was needed to ensure a minimum level of hygiene or nutrition. On the contrary, she told the Medical Assessor that she did not need prompting to eat, that she showered every day, cleaned her teeth up to four times per week, cooked occasionally, vacuumed the house fortnightly and did the laundry weekly. She did not give a history of needing to be prompted.That differed from the history given in her statement about six months earlier, in which she said that she relied on her husband to do the cooking and cleaning, regularly skipped meals in his absence, and had to be reminded by him to eat or to be assisted by him to prepare food, and did not change clothes daily unless prompted by him to do so.
The differences are consistent with an improvement in her condition since 30 September 2024 when the statement was made. The fact that the appellant gave a history to the Medical Assessor which differed from her evidence in September 2024 does not itself demonstrate error in the assessment, or the application of incorrect criteria.
It was the task of the Medical Assessor to assess the appellant as she presented in March 2025. He did so. The description given to him by the appellant of the behavioural consequences of injury was in our view consistent with a class 2 impairment, and inconsistent with a class 3 impairment. We can discern neither error nor the application of incorrect criteria.
Travel
The examples given for class 2 and 3 impairment in respect of Travel are as follows:
Class 2
Mild impairment: can travel without support person, but only in a familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour.
Class 3
Moderate impairment: cannot travel away from own residence without support person. Problems may be due to excessive anxiety or cognitive impairment.
In his PIRS Table, the Medical Assessor gave the following reasons for assessing a class 2 impairment:
“She does not have a fear of driving, but she does not go out much due to a lack of concentration and a fear of being out. She can drive in the local area independently. She is fearful of using public transport. There is mild impairment in this domain.”
This was consistent with the history which he recorded at [4]:
“She says that she only drives once every three to four weeks. She usually travels as a passenger with her husband. She can drive to the local shop independently. She says that the relative lack of driving is due to her poor concentration and a fear of going out. She says that she is fearful of using public transport.”
That history indicated that she can travel without a support person to the local shops, albeit once every few weeks, consistently with the criteria for a class 2 impairment. It was inconsistent with the criterion for a class 3 impairment that she be incapable of travelling away from home without a support person.
The appellant submits that the finding that she does not have a fear of driving, and does not go out much due to a lack of concentration and fear of being out was inaccurate, because in her statement she said that she gets flashbacks outside her home and ‘very rarely’ leaves home by herself, and on 10 January 2024 she told Dr Nagesh that she ‘cannot travel independently even to local and familiar places without her husband’.
The history given to Dr Nagesh on 10 January 2024 is inconsistent with the current situation which she related to the Medical Assessor. The difference between the two is consistent with the occurrence of an improvement in symptoms over the intervening fourteen months. As indicated, it was the task of Medical Assessor to assess the appellant as she presented in March 2025. He did so.
In her statement of 30 September 2024, the appellant said that she goes out alone ‘very rarely’, but did not quantify how often she did so. Six months later, she told the Medical Assessor that she drives once every three to four weeks, and that she can drive to the local shops. That proves an ability to travel to local shops alone, albeit at intervals some weeks apart. This is consistent with a class 2 impairment.
We can discern no error in the assessment of a class 2 impairment.
Concentration, persistence and pace
The examples given for class 2 and 3 impairment in respect of Concentration, persistence and pace are as follows:
Class 2
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.
Class 3
Moderate impairment: unable to read more than newspaper articles. 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.
In his PIRS Table, the Medical Assessor gave the following reasons for assessing a class 2 impairment:
“She says that she has difficulty concentrating and cannot follow the plot while watching a film. She describes reduced memory as well. She was able to learn the assessment systems at the workplace where she worked after the claimed injury. She was able to focus well throughout the assessment. There is mild impairment in this domain objectively.”
The word ‘objectively’ indicates that the assessment of mild impairment relied on the Medical Assessor’s objective assessment at examination – that is, his observation that ‘she was able to focus well throughout the assessment’. That was not necessarily inconsistent with her evidence that, on other occasions, talking about the workplace tends to induce symptoms of anxiety, such as dry mouth and other such symptoms. Those symptoms were not observed by the Medical Assessor on this occasion.
With respect to the submission that the Medical Assessor recorded ‘not applicable’ under the heading, ‘Physical examination’, he was merely indicating that he did not physically examine the worker. A psychiatric assessment necessarily involves a mental state examination, which is the psychiatric equivalent of a physical examination. This is what the Medical Assessor did. The results of the mental state examination are reflected in his objective assessment of the worker’s ability to focus during the examination.
His objective assessment of concentration at interview was in our view both relevant to the assessment and contemporaneous. It was not necessarily inconsistent with her evidence to him that, on other occasions, she tended to become ‘anxious with sweaty hands, nausea and palpitations whenever anyone talks about the workplace’.
However, there is no evidence that in making his objective assessment, he took into account the fact that the appellant was assisted by a support person (her husband), or how she was assisted, and no indication in the reasons as to how long the assessment took. In those circumstances, in our view, the objective assessment alone is insufficient to demonstrate that a class 2 impairment is a better fit than class 3.
Because his impairment assessment was said to rely on the ‘objective’ observations, it is not clear what, if any, part of the impairment assessment relied on the appellant’s demonstrated ability to learn new systems at Dural, when she commenced there on 28 December 2022, some months after ceasing work with the respondent in September 2022. Even if it did, in part, rely on her ability to learn new systems in December 2022, that does not necessarily indicate her ability as at March 2025. Her performance over the period that she worked there up to January 2024 would be another matter, as it is much closer to the date of examination in March 2025.
Similarly, the history taken by Dr Manambrakkat on 25 January 2023 that ‘her concentration [at work] is ok if she isn’t interrupted’ is not necessarily evidence of her condition in March 2025, and does not explain why her current symptoms best fit the criteria for a class 2 impairment.
The only remaining reason given by the Medical Assessor for assessing a class 2 impairment is the worker’s evidence at examination that she could not concentrate on a film or follow the plot. That evidence does not of itself demonstrate that class 2 impairment is a better fit than class 3.
In our view, the Medical Assessors’ reasons are inadequate to explain why a class 2 impairment was a better fit than class 3. That demonstrates error. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Panel to make its own assessment of Concentration, persistence and pace.
Employability
The examples given for class 2 and 3 impairment in respect of Employability are as follows:
Class 2
Mild impairment. Able to work full time but in a different environment from that of the pre-injury job. The duties require comparable skill and intellect as those of the pre-injury job. Can work in the same position, but no more than 20 hours per week (e.g. no longer happy to work with specific persons, or work in a specific location due to travel required).
Class 3
Moderate impairment: cannot work at all in same position. Can perform less than 20 hours per week in a different position, which requires less skill or is qualitatively different (e.g. less stressful).
In the PIRS Table attached to his Medical Assessment Certificate, the Medical Assessor gave the following reasons for assessing a class 2 impairment – emphasis added:
“She is seeking jobs equivalent to her pre-injury capacity and estimates her ability to work 20 hours per week. In my opinion, she can work for more than 20 hours per week in an equivalent role but cannot return to her pre-injury role. She has mild impairment in this domain.”
To justify a class 2 impairment, the Medical Assessor was required to find that the appellant was capable of either:
(a) full time work in a different environment, requiring comparable skill and intellect as er pre-injury job, or
(b) no more than 20 hours per week in the same position as before, for instance in the absence of a specific person or not in a specific location due to travel required.
The Medical Assessor did not find that she was capable of working full time in a role requiring comparable skill and intellect as before. There was no evidence to support such a finding. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that she could not do so, due to the stressors which she experienced in that employment, and their ongoing effects.
That satisfied at least one of the criteria for a class 3 impairment, namely that the worker ‘cannot work at all in same position’.
Similarly, he made no finding that she could work in the same role for no more than 20 hours per week, in the absence of a particular person or not in a particular place due to travel requirements.
As he made neither of the two alternative findings necessary to support a class 2 assessment, the assessment of a class 2 impairment demonstrates error. It is appropriate for the Appeal Panel to make its own assessment of Employability.
It is unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised in respect of this rating scale.
As indicated, the worker was referred for examination to Medical Assessor Hong. His report follows:
“Report of Medical Assessor Hong
1. HISTORY RELATING TO THE INJURY
· Brief history after the MAC:
Ms Lee is 65 and living with her husband.
Ms Lee reported that she worked at the Australian Turf Club as an administration assistant, and started part-time and later became full-time. Problems with her manager started in November 2021 and by September 2022, she could not cope and had to stop. She reported that her work involved purchasing items such as chemicals for the club and also doing payroll, timetabling, and checking the hours of the rosters. She worked in the office at the club, but sometimes she had to go out to see the staff or time sheets or see the mechanic. She attended to some of the OHS forms. Ms Lee said she had been blamed and not been supported. She did not know how to do some of the work and made mistakes, the manager then told other people that she made a mistake and it was her fault and belittled her, which led to her depression and anxiety returning. She said before that, her anxiety and depression were perfectly stabilised on a lower dose of Zoloft.
Ms Lee reported that she had subsequent employment for 12 months with her husband's workplace, at Think Irrigation. He is a manager there. She had an administration role for 20 hours a week over 5 days, and this stopped after about a year or about 18 months ago. She explained that the work is seasonal but there have been cuts and changes, so that work was no longer available. Ms Lee reported that she worked in the back office with a business manager sharing the office. She felt supported there, as her husband also worked for them and she knows some of the workers already. She typically worked on her own and most of the work is computer-based. She would check emails and do work on the computer, sometimes answer phone calls. If she is not sure about anything, she would pass it on, for example, to the purchasing section. Sometimes when Ms Lee does not know what to do, she will ask the business manager but she does not report to her. A lot of work is ad hoc.
We discussed Dr Roberts' assessment that because she could work there, there was no problem with her concentration. She said that some days, she was not good and on the bad days, she did not do much work and would do the task the next day. She said the employer is ‘not pushy’ and she can ask questions, and that is why she can work on the computer for a couple of hours. She said sometimes she would get up and go out for a bit of fresh air before coming back. Ms Lee said she did not make mistakes because the work was simple and she has no complaints about the work there or how she has been treated there.
· Present treatment:
Ms Lee is taking occasional Temazepam. She was on Zoloft already, and the dose increased to 200 mg after the subject work injury. She takes cholesterol and anti-hypertensive medication too. Her husband takes her to GP appointments.
She does not consult a psychologist or psychiatrist anymore. She said she has not had video treatment and was not aware of such treatment.
· Present symptoms lifestyle activities:
Ms Lee described ongoing anxiety and depression, being up and down and her symptoms have not resolved over time, and are not significantly different since Dr Ankur Gupta's assessment. She said her anxiety and depression were controlled on medication, but after her work injury, her symptoms were worse and she has not returned to her usual self. She reported chronically disrupted sleep, and needs Temazepam sometimes. She thinks about work, and said the TV reminds her of work sometimes too. She is easily frustrated and upset. She does not focus well day-to-day. She said she does not do anything day-to-day. She does not have suicidal ideation. She said she feels useless and worthless.
She said she lost weight, by 3 dress sizes. She does not weigh herself and does not know her weight. She said she has no appetite.
She sits in front of her home, and people walk by and she thinks they look at her. She sits and ‘contemplates’ and spends time with her dog. She does not walk the dog.
Ms Lee said there have been no trips away, either interstate or overseas since the subject injury. She did not go to her father’s 90th birthday up to coast, as she does not want to travel far from home, and she went to her grandson's first birthday in November 2024, at a local club. She said it was difficult at the party and she did not interact with people. They cut the cake early for her so they could go early. She said she does not socialize anymore.
2. FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION
Ms Lee was assessed by video. She was at home on her own during the assessment. She engaged well with the assessment process. She was crying at the start of the assessment, and was more settled as the assessment proceeded. There was no psychomotor slowing or abnormal movements. She wore glasses at times and was moderately restricted in her affect and reactivity. She spoke spontaneously and spoke well as the assessment proceeded.
Before I completed the assessment, I asked her for additional information that she wanted to add and she said she wished this process could finish as she found the claim process to have been very difficult.
3. SUMMARY
· summary of injuries and diagnoses:
In summary, Ms Lee has a prior history of depression and anxiety and was stabilised on Zoloft antidepressant. Due to the work experience at Australian Surf Club, she suffered an aggravation and this aggravation has not ceased, despite having further treatment with increased antidepressant medication.”
Consideration and assessment
Having regard to Medical Assessor Hong’s specialist expertise, the Appeal Panel accepts his findings on clinical examination, and notes the history taken.
With respect to Concentration, persistence and pace, the Panel assesses a class 2 impairment, because Ms Lee described having poor concentration and has not studied since the subject work injury. She can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for 30 minutes before becoming fatigued because at Dural she could focus on computer-based work and basic administration work for a couple of hours, and did not make mistakes, even though there were intermittent interruptions with incoming phone calls. Computer-based work and administration work are intellectually demanding tasks, for which she was paid.
That work ceased in January 2024, but , Medical Assessor Hong did not take a history that her performance had deteriorated in that regard.
A class 3 impairment is not indicated. We take into account Dr Nagesh’s assessment in January 2024 that the appellant could not concentrate for five to ten minutes, listen to audiobooks, or read books, newspaper articles or magazines, but that was not the history taken by Medical Assessor Hong. In our view, the appellant’s demonstrated capacity to focus on computer-based work for a couple of hours while working at Dural is not consistent with Dr Nagesh’s assessment that she could only focus for 5 to 10 minutes, and Dr Nagesh did not appear to give sufficient weight to her demonstrated concentration, persistence and pace in that employment.
Our assessment of a class 2 impairment agrees with that of the Medical Assessor.
With respect to Employability, the Panel assesses a class 3 impairment, because the appellant managed a part-time low-stress administration role at Dural, around 20 hours per week, until January 2024 when no further work was available, though she could not perform her pre-injury duties as a result of her anxiety and depression. That is properly characterised as ‘a different position, which requires less skill or is qualitatively different (e.g. less stressful)’ than her pre-injury job, because it is basic administration work, and not at the same level as her role with the subject employer, and is less stressful as she worked there in an isolated environment with only one other worker. There is no evidence before us that her ability has increased since then.
Though she said she worked for ‘around’ 20 hours per week, it is not clear on her evidence that she actually worked consistently in such a job for 20 hours per week or more. Having regard to her admission that, on bad days, she did not do much work, we are not satisfied that she did in fact work consistently 20 hours per week. We are comfortably satisfied, however, that she could at least work less than 20 hours in such a position. That satisfies the criterion for a class 3 impairment.
Replacing the assessment of a class 2 impairment in respect of Employability with class 3 impairment yields an aggregate score of 13%, with a median of 2. That is reflected in the attached PIRS Table. It yields 7% WPI.
Medical Assessor Gupta’s assessment of 7% WPI is the same as ours, though our reasons and calculations have differed. There would be no utility in revoking his Medical Assessment Certificate. For that reason, the Medical Assessment Certificate dated 10 April 2025 is confirmed.
Table 11.8: PIRS Rating Form
| Name | Kathryn Lee | Claim reference number (if known) | W26963/24 |
| DOB | OMITTED | Age at time of injury | 62 years |
| Date of Injury | 18 September 2022 - deemed. | Occupation at time of injury | Administration assistant |
| Date of Assessment | 25 March 2025 | Marital Status before injury | Married |
| Psychiatric diagnoses | 1. Persistent Depressive Disorder with anxious distress | 2. | |||||||||
| 3. | 4. | ||||||||||
| Psychiatric treatment | Sertraline 200mg | Temazepam 10mg PRN | |||||||||
| Is impairment permanent? | Yes | ||||||||||
| PIRS Category | Class | Reason for Decision | |||||||||
| Self Care and personal hygiene | 2 | As described in the main body of the report, there is mild impairment. She has lost weight since the injury, but does not need any prompting to eat. She cooks occasionally and showers everyday. She does not clean her teeth everyday. She keeps her house in order and does the laundry as well. | |||||||||
| Social and recreational activities | 3 | As described in the main body of the report, there is moderate impairment. She has missed important family events because of anxiety. She can engage with visitors at her home. She can go to the shops with her husband but not on her own. She can go out to have coffee with her cousin. | |||||||||
| Travel | 2 | She does not have a fear of driving, but she does not go out much due to a lack of concentration and a fear of being out. She can drive in the local area independently. She is fearful of using public transport. There is mild impairment in this domain. | |||||||||
| Social functioning | 2 | As described in the main body of the report, there is mild impairment. She has lost some friendships since the accident. However, she remains close to her wider family. There is stress in her relationship with her husband, but there has not been any period of separation. | |||||||||
| Concentration, persistence and pace | 2 | Ms Lee described having poor concentration and has not studied since the subject work injury. She can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for 30 minutes, and spent a couple of hours doing computer-based work at Think Irrigation, and said she did not make mistakes, or no significant mistakes. | |||||||||
| Employability | 3 | She cannot perform her pre-injury duties as a result of her anxiety and depression. She can work less than 20 hours per week in a different position, which requires less skill or is qualitatively different (e.g. less stressful) than her pre-injury job. | |||||||||
| Score | Median Class | ||||||||||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | =2 | |||||
| Aggregate Score Impairment | Total | % | |||||||||
| 2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2+3 | 13 | 7% | |||||
0
0
0