Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Masters v Healthshare NSW [2025] NSWSC 821 Hearing dates: 24 July 2025 Date of orders: 28 July 2025 Decision date: 28 July 2025 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Griffiths AJ Decision: (1) Summons dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff to pay first defendant’s costs.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — review of medical assessment by appeal panel — judicial review of appeal panel decision — where medical assessment certificate revoked by appeal panel — whether appeal panel erred in finding demonstrable error in assessment of impairment for concentration, persistence and pace — whether appeal panel misunderstood statutory task
Legislation Cited: Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (NSW), r 128
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 65A, 66
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 323, 324, 327, 328
Cases Cited: Ballas v Dept of Education (NSW) (2020) 102 NSWLR 783; [2020] NSWCA 86
Campbelltown City Councilv Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284
Chalkias v New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1561
Cheers v Mid Coast Council [2024] NSWSC 1553
Ferguson v New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887
Jenkins v Ambulance Service of NSW [2015] NSWSC 633
Johnson v Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 102
Kempe v Complete Community Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1095
Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 929
Pitsonis v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission (2008) 73 NSWLR 366; [2008] NSWCA 88
Roads and Maritime Services v Wilson [2016] NSWSC 1499
Sleiman v Gadalla Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 236
Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 324
Ziraki v Australian Islamic House Liverpool Area [2019] NSWSC 1158
Texts Cited: NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed, 1 March 2021, ss 11.1, 11.11, 11.12
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tracey Masters (Plaintiff)
Healthshare NSW (First Defendant)
Personal Injury Commission (Second Defendant) (Submitting Appearance)
Catherine McDonald, Dr Douglas Andrews and Dr
Michael Hong as a Medical Appeal Panel constituted
under s 328 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (Third Defendant) (Submitting Appearance)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B McManamey (Plaintiff)
J Hart (First Defendant)
One Law (Plaintiff)
Gair Legal (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second and Third Defendants)
File Number(s): 2024/00441625 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
This application for judicial review relates to a decision dated 27 August 2024 by a Medical Appeal Panel (Appeal Panel) of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission), which reviewed a medical assessment certificate (MAC) issued by Dr Clayton Smith and dated 26 April 2024. Dr Smith assessed a 19% whole person impairment (WPI) to the plaintiff, Ms Tracey Masters, as a result of a psychological injury sustained while in the employ of the first and only active defendant, Healthshare NSW. The Appeal Panel revoked Dr Smith’s MAC and issued its own, assessing an 8% WPI. The plaintiff now seeks…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Masters v Healthshare NSW 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWSC 821
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the appeal panel had erred in concluding that there was a demonstrable error in the assessment and whether the panel had misunderstood its statutory task. The court was required to examine the statutory framework governing the appeal process, the principles of judicial review, and the specific provisions related to the assessment of impairment.
The court found that the appeal panel had not erred in its assessment. The panel had correctly identified a demonstrable error in the initial assessment, which was supported by the evidence and aligned with the statutory framework. The court further determined that the panel had properly understood and applied its statutory task. The appeal panel's decision was therefore affirmed, and Masters' application for judicial review was dismissed. The court made no further orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.