Marsters v YP Space MNC Incorporated - [2025] NSWPICMP 186

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Marsters v YP Space MNC Incorporated [2025] NSWPICMP 186
APPELLANT:	Ramona Marsters
RESPONDENT:	YP Space MNC Incorporated
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
DATE OF DECISION:	20 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Assessment of primary psychiatric injury; appellant worker alleged assessment on basis of incorrect criteria and demonstrable error in assessment of all six of the psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS); Held – Appeal Panel found error made out in five of the six PIRS; worker re-examined; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 13 December 2024 Ramona Marsters (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Ankur Gupta, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
22 November 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, 4^th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 27 September 2024 in which she claimed 26% whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a psychiatric and psychological disorder as a result of an injury in her employment with YP Space MNC Incorporated (the respondent).
The matter was referred to the Medical Assessor, Dr Gupta, for assessment of WPI of a psychological/psychiatric disorder with the date of injury being 30 October 2020.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 13 November 2024 and assessed 6% WPI for the psychological injury on 30 October 2020.

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.
The appellant requested that she be re-examined by a Medical Assessor who is a member of the Appeal Panel.
As a result of…

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 Marsters v YP Space MNC Incorporated 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 186
Decision Date: 20 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marsters v YP Space MNC Incorporated involved the assessment of workers' compensation for primary psychiatric injury sustained by the appellant. The dispute centred on the correctness of the assessment criteria used and the alleged error in evaluating the psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS). The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant argued that the assessment was based on incorrect criteria and that there were demonstrable errors in the evaluation of all six PIRS. The respondent maintained that the assessment was conducted appropriately and that any perceived errors were insignificant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the assessment of the appellant's psychiatric injury was conducted correctly, and if there were any errors in the evaluation of the PIRS. The court needed to determine if the appeal panel's findings regarding the errors were justified and whether the appellant should be re-examined or if the Medical Assessment Certificate should be revoked. The court was required to examine the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning workers' compensation and psychiatric injury assessments.

The court found that the appeal panel's determination that errors were made in five of the six PIRS was well supported by the evidence presented. The panel identified specific instances where the assessment criteria were misapplied, leading to an underestimation of the appellant's psychiatric injury. As a result, the court upheld the appeal panel's decision to revoke the Medical Assessment Certificate and ordered that the appellant be re-examined. The court concluded that the errors were material and affected the accuracy of the assessment, necessitating a re-evaluation of the appellant's psychiatric injury. The court's decision underscored the importance of precise and accurate assessments in workers' compensation claims involving psychiatric injuries.

Orders