Miller v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 582

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Miller v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 582
APPELLANT:	Amanda Miller
RESPONDENT:	Capgemini Australia Pty Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Doug Andrews
DATE OF DECISION:	7 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal by claimant from 20% whole person impairment (WPI) assessment for psychological injury; whether social and recreational category assessment of class 3 should have been increased to class 4; whether travel category assessment of class 1 should have been increased to class 2; whether concentration, persistence and pace category assessment of class 3 should have been increased to class 4; whether one-tenth deduction justified; Held – social and recreational category should have been assessed at class 2 but no appeal made from the employer; category of travel confirmed at class 1 on the facts; category of concentration, persistence and pace confirmed at class 3 on the facts; conflicting Supreme Court decisions noted regarding application of Chapter 11.10 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines), Marks v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 2), Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT (and MP decision of Camden Council v Harle) referred to; Chapter 11.10 of the Guidelines applied; MAC revoked regarding section 323.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 10 March 2025 Amanda Miller, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Suneel Chamoli, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
10 February 2025.
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). WPI is reference to whole person impairment. Baseline WPI is a reference…

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 Miller v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd 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 582
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Miller v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd, the Court of Appeal was asked to review a decision made by the Workers Compensation Commissioner concerning the assessment of a psychological injury sustained by the appellant, Mr Miller, in the course of his employment. The Commissioner had assessed Mr Miller's whole person impairment (WPI) at 20% and issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) reflecting this assessment. The dispute centred around the specific assessments within the certificate, particularly whether certain categories should have been assessed at a higher class than determined.

The court was required to determine if the assessments for the social and recreational category, travel category, and concentration, persistence, and pace category should have been increased to a higher class than those originally determined. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the one-tenth deduction applied to the WPI assessment was justified. The primary legal issue was the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

The Court of Appeal found that the social and recreational category should have been assessed at class 2, but no appeal was made by the employer regarding this category. The travel category assessment was upheld at class 1 based on the facts presented. The concentration, persistence, and pace category was also confirmed at class 3, based on the facts. The court noted conflicting decisions from the Supreme Court regarding the application of Chapter 11.10 of the Guidelines, referencing Marks v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 2) and Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT, along with the MP decision in Camden Council v Harle. Ultimately, the court applied Chapter 11.10 of the Guidelines and revoked the MAC in relation to section 323 of the Act.

Orders