McMahon v Allied Beef Management Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWPICMP 274
•11 July 2022
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | McMahon v Allied Beef Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPICMP 274 |
| APPELLANT: | Clancy McMahon |
| RESPONDENT: | Allied Beef Management Pty Ltd |
| APPEAL PANEL: | Member Jane Peacock Medical Assessor Professor Nicholas Glozier Medical Assessor Dr Douglas Andrews |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 11 July 2022 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION- Psychological injury; Appellant alleged error in the assessment under four categories under the Permanent Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) namely, self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, social functioning and employability; Held – the Panel found that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in assessing Class 2 when he should have assessed Class 3 for social and recreational activities; otherwise the ratings in all other classes the subject of the appeal were open to the MA; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE APPEAL PANEL IN RELATION TO A MEDICAL DISPUTE
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 22 March 2022 Mr Clancy McMahon (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr John Baker, a Medical Assessor (MA), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 23 February 2022.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria,
· 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.
The WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006 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 the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed 1 April 2016 (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 WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
The appellant did not request a re-examination. As a result of its preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because although the Appeal Panel found error for the reasons explained below, there was sufficient material before the Appeal Panel for it to make a determination.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the MA for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.
Medical Assessment Certificate
The parts of the medical certificate given by the MA that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.
SUBMISSIONS
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
The matter was referred to the MA for assessment as follows:
“The following matters have been referred for assessment (s 319 of the 1998 Act):
· Date of injury: 26 January 2017 - deemed
· Body parts/systems referred: Psychological and Psychiatric Disorder
· Method of assessment: Whole Person Impairment”
The MA issued a MAC certifying as follows:
Body Part or system
Date of Injury
Chapter,
page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines
Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA5 Guides
% WPI
WPI deductions pursuant to S323 for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality (expressed as a fraction)
Sub-total/s % WPI
(after any deductions in column 6)
Psychological and Psychiatric Disorder
26 January 2017 - deemed
Chapter 11, pages 60-68
Chapter 14
7%
Nil
7%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)
7%
The assessment was based on his assessment under the Permanent Impairment rating Scale (PIRS) as required by the Guides as follows:
Name
Clancy McMahon
Claim reference number (if known)
DOB
8 February 1966
Age at time of injury
50 years
Date of Injury
26 January 2017 - deemed
Occupation at time of injury
stockman/general farm hand
Date of Assessment
8 February 2021
Marital Status before injury
Married
Psychiatric diagnoses
Persistent depressive disorder with intermittent major depressive disorder DSM5 Code 300.4
Alcohol Use Disorder DSM5 Code 303.90
Psychiatric treatment
Mr McMahon was treated by his general practitioner and his psychologist. He received CBT and Motivational therapy. Mr McMahon was prescribed anti-depressant medication which was ceased due to side effects. He had not been admitted to psychiatric hospital to treat this work-related injury.
Is impairment permanent?
Yes
PIRS Category
Class
Reason for Decision
Self-Care and personal hygiene
2
Mr McMahon reported that he relied on himself. He microwaved TV dinners. He was not interested in his nutrition. He had lost interest in caring for his personal hygiene. He could complete laundry. He did not clean the house. His hair was unkempt and he was wearing unwashed clothes. He was visited by his youngest daughter most days. He would mow his lawn on occasion. He could live independently at the time of this assessment.
Social and recreational activities
2
Mr McMahon had stopped socialising with his pig hunting friends. He had his sporting rifles locked in the gun safe and the key kept by a friend. He had stopped fishing. He had stopped attending the local hotel as he would be “baited into fights” and arguments. He had not participated in Christmas or New Year’s Eve. He had lost interest in sharing time and socialising with his adult children. He preferred to be isolated and alone with his dogs. He had lost friendships. He had stopped attending the local rodeo season as he was too anxious and agitated.
Travel
2
Mr McMahon had been able to walk outside his house alone. He was able to drive to his local shops. He avoided larger shopping centres. He did not travel to crowded or unfamiliar locations, alone.
Social functioning
3
Mr McMahon reported his relationship with his now ex-wife had ceased. He said that they were in the property settlement phase of separation. He reported that there had been domestic violence between him and his wife. He stated that the police had attended the home after the onset of this work-related injury. He suffered from angry outbursts towards himself, his wife and adult children. He tried to form a new relationship. He said this had not been successful. He no longer enjoyed the company of his friends and had lost contact with his friendship circle and social network.
Concentration, persistence and pace
3
Mr McMahon reported that he becomes frustrated and agitated easily. He suffered from angry outbursts when he had intrusive distressing memories of co-workers stating he had stolen diesel. He reported that he had stopped repairing and maintaining his Ute as he was unable to complete this complex task. He had lost concentration and persistence with maintenance tasks he could have easily completed prior to the onset of this work-related injury. He was unable to concentrate with online banking and he had large debts for council rates.
Employability
2
Mr McMahon was unfit to return to his primary substantive role at the time of this assessment. He had failed an attempt to return to a different role. He had worked at sales yards. He had no capacity to work as a commercial truck driver. He was too depressed and agitated to work in networks or groups. He currently worked casually and the most work he has received is about 26 hours per week.
Score
Median Class
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
Aggregate Score Impairment
Total WPI 7%2+
2+
2+
2+
3+
3=
14
The worker appealed.
In summary the appellant submitted that the MA erred in his assessment under four categories as follows:
(a) Self-care and Personal Hygiene when he assessed a Class 2 and a Class 3 should have been assessed;
(b) Social and Recreational activities when he assessed a Class 2 and a Class 3 or 4 should have been assessed;
(c) Social Functioning when he assessed a Class 3 and a Class 4 should have been assessed, and
(d) Employability when he assessed a Class 2 and a Class 3 should have been assessed.
In summary, Allied Beef Management Pty Ltd (the respondent) submitted that the MA did not err or make an assessment on the basis of incorrect criteria and the MAC should be confirmed.
The role of the MA is to conduct an independent assessment on the day of examination. The MA is required to take a history, conduct a mental state examination, make a psychiatric diagnosis and have due regard to other evidence and other medical opinion that is before the MA. The MA must bring his clinical expertise to bear and exercise his clinical judgement when making an assessment of impairment under the PIRS categories. The assessment is not to be based upon self-report alone. An appeal panel cannot disturb ratings under the PIRS scale for mere difference of opinion but must be satisfied as to error.
The MA took a history which was broadly consistent with the other evidence before him. He recorded in detail the appellant’s reporting of present symptoms and impact on activities of daily living (ADLs) as follows:
“• Present treatment:
Mr McMahon stated that he had continued to attend his GP at about a frequency of once a fortnight to once each month. He had been prescribed Sertraline that caused him to become anxious, agitated and have suicidal thoughts. He had elected not to use any further antidepressants as a consequence of this bad experience. He reported that he had continued attending his psychologist about once every month. The psychological treatment had been provided ‘pro bono’ on occasion due to Mr McMahon being in financial distress. He was not admitted to psychiatric hospital as an inpatient in relation to this work-related injury. He was not treated with TMS or ECT.
· Present symptoms:
Mr McMahon reported that at the time of this assessment he remains depressed in his mood, as well as anxiously distressed and agitated most day. He reported difficulty concentrating and struggling to organise his thoughts. He stated he felt sad, alone and had low self-esteem. He reported intrusive memories of the workplace bullying and harassment which made his depressed mood worse. He reported his stream of thought was slow in pace. He became frustrated by his inability to repair his Ute or organise his himself. He described intrusive distressing thoughts of shame and guilt that he was no longer able to support himself as he had prior to the onset of this work-related injury.
Mr McMahon stated he was having nightly difficulty in initiating sleep and remaining asleep. He drank unsafe amounts of alcohol most days. He suffered from early morning wakening. His angry outbursts have persisted and resulted in the divorce and property settlement from his wife of 23 years. He had a poor appetite with him skipping meals. He had lost about 16 kgs since the onset of this work-related injury. He reported that nothing gave him enjoyment or pleasure. He isolated himself alone away from his ex-wife, and friends. He spent most of his time with his dogs and horses. He described distressing intrusive depressing thoughts about having been wrongfully accused of stealing diesel. He described distressing feelings of shame and guilt that he was not financially independent. He describes low energy with loss of self-esteem and confidence since the onset of this work-related injury. He had suicidal thoughts about death and dying. At Christmas 2021 he took an overdose at home of medications in the house. He did not notify any of his extended family. He did not go to hospital.
· Social activities/ADL:
Mr McMahon was born in Moree District Hospital. Both his parents have passed. His father had passed about five years ago. He was the youngest of seven children. He had six elder sisters. He was married for about 23 years. He is now divorced. He lives alone and is visited by his youngest daughter most days. His daughters were aged 23, 21 and 20 years. He had no grandchildren.
Mr McMahon was educated in Moree, NSW. He completed his Year 8 of high school. Mr McMahon completed his apprenticeship as a boiler maker. He held a multiple combination driver’s licence. He held a sporting gun licence.
Mr McMahon’s hobbies and interests included hunting with his friends for feral pigs. He would participate in his family events such as birthdays, Christmas and New Year’s Eve. He was interested in rodeo and would attend the annual season when it was held in Moree, prior to the onset of this work-related injury.
Mr McMahon reported that at the time of this assessment he relied on himself. He microwaved, TV dinners. He was not interested in his nutrition. He had lost interest in caring for his personal hygiene. He could complete laundry. He did not clean the house. His hair was unkempt and he was wearing unwashed clothes. He was visited by his youngest daughter most days. He would mow his lawn on occasion. He could live independently at the time of this assessment.
Mr McMahon had stopped socialising with his pig hunting friends. He had his sporting rifles locked in the gun safe and the key kept by a friend. He had stopped fishing. He had stopped attending the local hotel as he would be “baited into fights” and arguments. He had not participated in Christmas or New Year’s Eve. He had lost interest in sharing time, and socialising, with his adult children. He preferred to be isolated and alone with his dogs. He had lost friendships. He had stopped attending the local rodeo season as he was too anxious and agitated.
Mr McMahon had been able to walk outside his house alone. He was able to drive to his local shops. He avoided larger shopping centres. He did not travel to crowded or unfamiliar locations alone.
Mr McMahon reported his relationship with his now ex-wife had ceased. He said that they were in the property settlement phase of separation. He reported that there had been domestic violence between him and his wife. He stated that the police had attended the home after the onset of this work-related injury. He suffered from angry outbursts towards himself, his wife and adult children. He tried to form a new relationship. He said this had not been successful. He no longer enjoyed the company of his friends and had lost contact with his friendship circle and social network.
Mr McMahon reported he becomes frustrated and agitated easily. He suffered from angry outbursts when he had intrusive distressing memories of co-workers stating he had stolen diesel. He reported that he had stopped repairing and maintaining his Ute as he was unable to complete complex tasks such as ‘putting motors back together.’ He had lost his concentration and persistence with these maintenance tasks which he could have easily completed prior to the onset of this work-related injury. He was unable to concentrate with online banking and he had run up a large debt for council rates.
Mr McMahon was unfit to return to his primary substantive role at the time of this assessment. He had failed an attempt to return to a different role. He had no capacity to work as a commercial truck driver. He had worked at sales yards up to 26 hours per week. He was too depressed and agitated to work in networks or groups.”
The MA conducted a mental state examination and recorded his findings as follows:
“Mr McMahon presented as a depressed, agitated and unkempt man. He was irritable and agitated during this assessment. He suffered from intrusive distressing depressive thoughts of the loss of his career since the onset of this work-related injury. He was tearful and frustrated when asked to talk about his experiences of being bullied and harassed by this employer. His mood was depressed, and his affect was mood congruent and tearful. His speech was normal in rate. His volume of speech was at times decreased, and soft when he appeared anxious and distressed.
Mr McMahon’s concentration was poor. His concentration would wane after a brief period into this assessment. He required prompting to remain on topic. His concentration was impaired by angry outbursts when reminded about how he had been wrongfully accused of stealing diesel. He reported poor self-esteem and lack of self-confidence. He said he felt sad, isolated and easily agitated. Mr McMahon described a persistently depressed mood. He felt he had lost his standing in his local community. He felt humiliated by the bullying and harassment that led to him losing his job.
Mr McMahon did not describe any delusional ideas or psychotic symptoms. He did describe intrusive thoughts involving themes of self-harm, death and dying. He lacked self-confidence and had lost hope for his future life. He was insightful into his condition. His judgment was fair. He said he had given the keys of his gun safe to a friend and his guns were locked away out of harm’s way.”
The MA made a diagnosis as follows:
“In my medical opinion Mr McMahon’s work-related injury is Persistent depressive disorder with intermittent major depressive disorder DSM5 Code 300.4. He also suffered from Alcohol use disorder DSM5 Code 303.9.
Mr McMahon had been exposed to many incidents of bullying and harassment in his workplace. He had developed a depressed mood with recurrent agitation and angry outbursts after being bullied and harassed in the workplace. He reported he had tried to comply with his doctors’ restrictions. He was threatened with “the sack” by his more senior manager. He was wrongfully accused of stealing diesel from his employer.
Mr McMahon failed his return-to-work attempt due to the bullying and harassment he had experienced whilst employed by this employer. His outbursts of anger had resulted in permanent separation, divorce and now property settlement between himself and his wife. He had tried to form a new relationship. This was not successful.
At the time of this assessment he lived alone. He had recurrent depressing feelings of shame and guilt that he was unable to financially support himself due to his loss of career. He had persistent depressive ruminations about how he was unfairly treated by this employer. He had tried to return to work for a different employer. He was working casual work. He stated the most he had received at the sale yards was 26 hours per week.
In my medical opinion Mr McMahon did not have any pre-existing assessable psychiatric condition diagnosed prior to the onset of this work-related injury.
· consistency of presentation
Mr McMahon’s presentation was consistent with his diagnosed condition. His assessable psychiatric symptoms had not entered remission at any time from the date of onset of this work-related injury to the date of this assessment.”
The MA explained his reasons for assessment under each of the PIRS categories as set out in the table above.
The appellant complains that the MA has erred in respect of the assessments for Self-Care and Personal Hygiene, Social and Recreational Activities, Social Functioning and Employability.
The Panel cannot interfere with these ratings absent error by the MA. The Panel will deal with each category in turn.
In respect of Self Care and Personal Hygiene, Table 11.1 of the Guides provides as follows:
Table 11.1: Psychiatric impairment rating scale – self care and personal hygiene
Class 1
No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population
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.
Class 4
Severe impairment: Needs supervised residential care. If unsupervised, may accidentally or purposefully hurt self.
Class 5
Totally impaired: Needs assistance with basic functions, such as feeding and toileting.
The MA rated a mild impairment at Class 2 with the following reasoning:
“Mr McMahon reported that he relied on himself. He microwaved TV dinners. He was not interested in his nutrition. He had lost interest in caring for his personal hygiene. He could complete laundry. He did not clean the house. His hair was unkempt and he was wearing unwashed clothes. He was visited by his youngest daughter most days. He would mow his lawn on occasion. He could live independently at the time of this assessment.”
The appellant is clearly on the evidence able to look after himself adequately and live independently. There is no evidence that his daughter’s visits are required to maintain this independence. The panel can discern no error in the rating of a mild impairment which is the best fit in this category. The rating of a mild impairment accords with the criteria in that class. The Panel can discern no error.
In respect of Social and Recreational Activities, Table 11.2 of the Guides provides as follows:
Table 11.2: Psychiatric impairment rating scale – social and recreational activities
Class 1
No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: regularly participates in social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate. May belong to clubs or associations and is actively involved with these.
Class 2
Mild impairment: occasionally goes out to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg dancing, cheering favourite team).
Class 3
Moderate impairment: rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by family or close friend. Will not go out without a support person. Not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn.
Class 4
Severe impairment: never leaves place of residence. Tolerates the company of family member or close friend, but will go to a different room or garden when others come to visit family or flat mate.
Class 5
Totally impaired: Cannot tolerate living with anybody, extremely uncomfortable when visited by close family member.
The MA assessed a mild impairment at Class 2 with the following reasoning:
“Mr McMahon had stopped socialising with his pig hunting friends. He had his sporting rifles locked in the gun safe and the key kept by a friend. He had stopped fishing. He had stopped attending the local hotel as he would be ‘baited into fights’ and arguments. He had not participated in Christmas or New Year’s Eve. He had lost interest in sharing time and socialising with his adult children. He preferred to be isolated and alone with his dogs. He had lost friendships. He had stopped attending the local rodeo season as he was too anxious and agitated.”
The appellant submitted that a Class 3 or 4 should have been assessed.
The Appeal Panel considers that the MA has clearly erred in the assessment of a Class 2 and made an assessment based upon incorrect criteria. The reasons given for assessing a Class 2 do not fit the criteria for that Class. The appellant has withdrawn from social activities and has isolated himself both from his friends and has lost interest in socialising with his adult children. He no longer participates in any social activities formerly enjoyed by him. There is clear error by the MA in ascribing a Class 2 because the reasons given are inconsistent with Class 2 and are a best fit with Class 3.
In respect of Social Functioning Travel, Table 11.4 of the Guides provides as follows:
Table 11.4: Psychiatric impairment rating scale – social functioning
Class 1
No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: No difficulty in forming and sustaining relationships (eg a partner, close friendships lasting years).
Class 2
Mild impairment: existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.
Class 3
Moderate impairment: previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children.
Class 4
Severe impairment: unable to form or sustain long term relationships. Pre-existing relationships ended (eg lost partner, close friends). Unable to care for dependants (eg own children, elderly parent).
Class 5
Totally impaired: unable to function within society. Living away from populated areas, actively avoiding social contact.
The MA assessed Class 3 with the following reasoning:
“Mr McMahon reported his relationship with his now ex-wife had ceased. He said that they were in the property settlement phase of separation. He reported that there had been domestic violence between him and his wife. He stated that the police had attended the home after the onset of this work-related injury. He suffered from angry outbursts towards himself, his wife and adult children. He tried to form a new relationship. He said this had not been successful. He no longer enjoyed the company of his friends and had lost contact with his friendship circle and social network.”
The appellant submitted that the MA should have assessed a severe impairment at Class 4.
The assessment by the MA accords clearly with Class 3. A moderate impairment is the best fit as there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship amid domestic violence. However, there is no suggestion that he is unable to form new relationships as he subsequently established a medium-term relationship with a new girlfriend after the break down of his marriage. The appellant also has a close relationship with his adult children. The appeal panel can discern no error in the Class 3 rating.
In respect of Employability, Table 11.6 of the Guides provides as follows:
Table 11.6: Psychiatric impairment rating scale – employability
Class 1
No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. Able to work full time. Duties and performance are consistent with the injured worker’s education and training.
The person is able to cope with the normal demands of the job.
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 (eg 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 (eg less stressful).
Class 4
Severe impairment: cannot work more than one or two days at a time, less than 20 hours per fortnight. Pace is reduced, attendance is erratic.
Class 5
Totally impaired: Cannot work at all.
The MA rated Class 2 with the following explanation:
“Mr McMahon was unfit to return to his primary substantive role at the time of this assessment. He had failed an attempt to return to a different role. He had worked at sales yards. He had no capacity to work as a commercial truck driver. He was too depressed and agitated to work in networks or groups. He currently worked casually and the most work he has received is about 26 hours per week.”
The appellant says the rating should have been a mild impairment at Class 3. The appellant’s impairment would fall on the cusp of a mild and moderate impairment and sensible minds may differ as to which is appropriate. He cannot work in his pre-injury employment but is able to work in a less stressful position and works casually on the basis of what hours are offered to him which can be up to 26 hours per week, the limitation on his hours being imposed by demand rather than his impairment. His casual work involves cattle handling duties at a sales yard, casual truck driving and fencing.
As such he Appeal Panel can discern no error in the assessment of Class 2 as the MA’s findings accord with the criteria for that class and it is the best fit.
Based upon the Appeal Panel’s the median score is now 3 (2,3,2,3,3,2) and the aggregate is 15 which gives a whole person impairment of 15% as a result of the referred injury.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 23 February 2022 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002
This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr John Baker and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:
Table - Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
| Body Part or system | Date of Injury | Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines | Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA5 Guides | % WPI | WPI deductions pursuant to S323 for pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality (expressed as a fraction) | Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6) |
| Psychological and Psychiatric Disorder | 26 January 2017 - deemed | Chapter 11, pages 60-68 | Chapter 14 | 15% | Nil | 15% |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 15% | |||||
The above assessment is made in accordance with the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002
Jane Peacock
Member
Professor Nicholas Glozier
Medical Assessor
Dr Douglas Andrews
Medical Assessor
11 July 2022
0