Legal Research
Cases
Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & Act

Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & Act

Link copied

Case Copied 18 March 2025 32 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT [2025] NSWSC 213
Hearing dates: 12 March 2025
Date of orders: 18 March 2025
Decision date: 18 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Basten AJ
Decision:
(1)   Set aside the determination of the Medical Appeal Panel, Workers Compensation Division, Personal Injury Commission, dated 17 May 2024.
(2)   Set aside the medical certificate issued by the Commission, based on the appeal panel determination, and dated 17 May 2024.
(3)   Order that the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs in this Court.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – medical appeal panel determination of permanent impairment – reductions for pre-existing injury and previous secondary psychological injury – whether appeal panel complied with requirements for exercise of its statutory function
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether guidelines for evaluation of permanent impairment inconsistent with Act – guidelines having effect in accordance with Act – statutory provisions to be read harmoniously – whether permanent impairment guidelines invalid to extent of inconsistency with operative provision of Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (1998 Act) – reading that Act harmoniously with Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)(1987 Act)
WORKERS COMPENSATION – psychological injury – determination of degree of whole person impairment – deduction for asymptomatic pre-existing psychological condition – disregard of secondary psychological injury – whether possible to apply s 65A without assessing permanent impairment with respect to injury subject to claim – interaction between 1987 Act, s 65A and s 323 of 1998 Act

Legislation Cited:
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 65A, 66
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 293, 319, 322, 323, 376
State Insurance Regulatory Authority, “NSW workers compensation guidelines for the evaluation of permanent impairment”, (4th ed, reissued 1 March 2021), cl 1.22, Ch 11

Cases Cited:
Quintiliani-Johns v Secretary, Department of Education [2024] NSWSC 1200
Marks v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 616
Mercy Centre Lavington Ltd v Kiely [2017] NSWSC 1234
Vitaz v Westform (NSW) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 254
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners API Pty Ltd v Pombinho [2024] NSWCA 191

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michele Jean Matheson (Plaintiff)
Baptistcare NSW & ACT (First Defendant)
President, Personal Injury Commission of NSW (Second Defendant)
Medical Appeal Panel constituted under Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), s 328 (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Grotte (Plaintiff)
D Stiles (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Somerville Laundry Lomax (Plaintiff)
Gair Legal (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2024/00298864
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under review

Court or tribunal:

Personal Injury Commission

Jurisdiction:

Workers Compensation Division

Date of Decision:

17 May 2024

Before:

Medical Appeal Panel

File Number(s):

M1-W2360/23

JUDGMENT

BASTEN AJ: In 2013 Michele Jean Matheson (the claimant), suffered a psychiatric injury during her employment with Baptistcare NSW & ACT (the employer). She lodged with the Personal Injury…

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 Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & Act 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] NSWSC 213
Decision Date: 18 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & Act involved a dispute concerning the assessment of a worker's permanent impairment following an injury sustained during employment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Matheson, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, an appeal panel established under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). The panel had determined the degree of Matheson's permanent impairment following a workplace injury, reducing the impairment assessment by considering a pre-existing condition and a previous psychological injury unrelated to the claimed incident.

The court had to determine whether the appeal panel appropriately exercised its statutory function when making the assessment of permanent impairment, specifically whether the panel complied with legislative requirements. Another issue was whether the guidelines used by the panel for evaluating permanent impairment were consistent with the Act. The court also had to consider whether the guidelines could be read in a way that was consistent with other relevant statutory provisions, particularly the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). A further issue was the applicability of section 65A of the 1987 Act in conjunction with section 323 of the 1998 Act, particularly in relation to the deduction of impairment due to asymptomatic pre-existing conditions and the disregard of secondary psychological injuries.

The court found that the appeal panel did not comply with the statutory requirements in its assessment of Matheson's permanent impairment. It concluded that the guidelines used by the panel were not inconsistent with the Act but needed to be interpreted harmoniously with other relevant statutory provisions. The court held that section 65A of the 1987 Act could not be applied without assessing the permanent impairment in relation to the injury subject to the claim. This meant that the panel should have considered the full extent of the impairment attributable to the claimed injury before making any deductions. The court allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the appeal panel's decision, ordering a re-assessment of Matheson's permanent impairment in accordance with the law.

Orders