Monda v G & E Monda Pty Ltd

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Monda v G & E Monda Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 568
APPELLANT:	Giosino Monda
RESPONDENT:	G & E MONDA PTY LTD
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Mitchell Strachan
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John O’Neill
DATE OF DECISION:	4 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from assessment of Medical Assessor (MA); incorrect criteria; demonstrable error; application to rely on fresh evidence; Ross v Zurich Workers Compensation Insurance, and Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operation Pty Ltd applied; nature of dispute referred for assessment; Skates v Hills Industries Ltd, and Klement v Bull ‘N’ Bush Nurseries Pty Limited applied; Held – MA fell into error in making finding as to causation beyond scope of referral; MAC revoked; new MAC issued.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 14 April 2025, the appellant, Giosino Monda, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Ross Mellick, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 13 March 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 grounds 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 sustained an injury on 1 February 2016 in the course of his employment with the respondent. The injury occurred as a result of reaching over to pick up a box.
Solicitors acting for the appellant initially wrote to the insurer for the respondent making a claim for lump sum compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The claim was with respect to 24% whole person impairment (WPI) and relied upon reports of Dr Berry dated 2 September 2020 and 30 November 2021.
The claim was responded to by solicitors acting from the respondent’s insurer on
10 May 2022 whereby an offer was made with respect to 14% WPI. This offer does not appear to have been accepted.
This original claim was later superseded when solicitors for the appellant wrote to the respondent making a claim with respect to 30% WPI on 7 February 2024 and enclosing reports of Dr Berry dated 2 September 2020, 30 November 2020, 22 August 2023,
11 December 2023 and 30 January 2024, reports of Dr Rooney dated 29 July 2021 and
8 November 2022 and a statement of the appellant dated 25 August 2022.
Particulars were exchanged and a notice subsequently issued by the respondent’s insurer pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act disputing liability for a consequential condition to the left hip and otherwise disputing that the appellant’s degree of WPI exceeded the 10% threshold required by s 66(1) of the 1987 Act to be entitled to lump sum compensation. The notice set out that the respondent’s insurer accepted liability for an injury to the right hip, right thigh (meralgia paraesthetica) and the lumbar spine occurring on 1 February 2016.
This decision was reviewed at the appellant’s request and a further notice issued dated
8 October 2024 accepting a consequential condition to the left hip but maintaining that the appellant’s degree of permanent impairment was below the threshold prescribed by s 66(1) of the 1987 Act.
On 22 November 2024 the appellant filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) seeking lump sum compensation with respect to 30% WPI to the lumbar spine, right lower extremity, left lower extremity and nervous system.
On 13 December 2024 a Reply to ARD was filed on behalf of the respondent.
As there was no liability dispute identified by the parties in the pleadings, on
17 December 2024 the matter was referred to Medical Assessor Ross Mellick. The referral sets out the medical dispute referred for assessment as being with respect to:
(a)    the degree of permanent impairment of the worker as a result of an injury (s 319(c));
(b)    whether any proportion of permanent impairment is due to any previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality, and the extent of that proportion (s 319(d));
(c)    whether impairment is permanent (s 319(f)), and
(d)    whether the degree of permanent impairment of the injured worker is fully ascertainable (s 319(g)).
The referral identified the date of injury as 1 February 2016 and the body parts referred for assessment as “Lumbar Spine, Right lower extremity, Left lower extremity, Nervous system”.
Medical Assessor Mellick issued a MAC dated 13 March 2025 wherein he assessed 0% permanent impairment with respect to the lumbar spine and nervous system however advised he was unable to assess impairment of the left and right lower extremities.
As such, on 14 March 2025 the balance of the medical dispute with respect to the left and right lower extremities was referred to Medical Assessor David Crocker. On 7 April 2025 Medical Assessor Crocker issued a MAC assessing 4% permanent impairment with respect to the left lower extremity and 8% with respect to the right lower extremity.
The appellant only appeals the MAC of Medical Assessor Mellick.

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.
As a result of that preliminary review and having found error as set out further below, the Appeal Panel determined that the appellant should undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient evidence on which to make a determination with respect to the appellant’s degree of permanent impairment.

Fresh evidence

Section 328(3) of the 1998 Act provides that evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to a medical assessment appealed against may not be given on an appeal by a party unless the evidence was not available to the party before the medical assessment and could not reasonably have been obtained by the party before that medical assessment.
Procedural Direction PIC7 - Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes provides as follows at paragraph 18:
“If a party seeks to rely on additional relevant information as a ground of appeal (s 327(3)(b) of the 1998 Act) or give fresh evidence, additional evidence or substituted evidence on appeal (s 328 of the 1998 Act) they must provide: (c) submissions as to why the evidence is additional relevant information/fresh evidence, and (d) submissions as to why the evidence was not available to and would not reasonably have been obtained by the party before the medical assessment appealed against.”
The appellant seeks to admit the following evidence:
(a) supplementary statement of the appellant dated 10 April 2025.
The Form 10 filed by the appellant does not identify additional relevant information, as an additional ground of appeal pursuant to s 327(3)(b) of the 1998 Act in the filed Form 10. However the appellant seeks to put additional relevant evidence (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against) before the Appeal Panel.
The appellant submits that the evidence is relevant to the conduct of the examination by the Medical Assessor including that the appellant “was not taken seriously and that there were communication problems”. The appellant submits that the evidence was not available and could not reasonably have been obtained because it is with respect to the medical assessment which took place as part of the proceedings and after the ARD had been filed.
The respondent makes no substantive submissions with respect to the appeal other than it does not oppose the appeal as filed but does not concede to or agree with any submission made by the appellant.
The additional statement evidence sets out the appellant’s account of the examination with the Medical Assessor and asserts a number of errors in the history and findings made by the Medical Assessor as set out in the MAC.
Deputy President Flemming considered the introduction of fresh evidence into an appeal in Ross v Zurich Workers Compensation Insurance [2002] NSWWCCPD 7 (Ross) where the Deputy President said at [11]:
“A number of authorities have considered the tests at common law for the introduction of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings before the Courts. The relevant tests are firstly, that the evidence which is sought to be admitted on appeal was not available to the Appellant at the time of the original proceedings or could not have been discovered at that time with reasonable diligence, and secondly that the evidence is of such probative value that it is reasonably clear that it would change the outcome of the case (Wollongong Corporation v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435; McCann v Parsons (1954) 93 CLR 418; Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632). These tests are addressed to the underlying principle of the need for finality in litigation and the importance of the ability of the successful party to rely on the outcome of the litigation. They are also addressed to the fundamental demands of fairness and justice in the instant case.”
The principles set out by the Deputy President in Ross are applicable and have been applied to the admission of fresh evidence by an Appeal Panel.
In Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operation Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 112 at [78] Hodgson JA said:
“…in my opinion it would be reasonable for an AP not to admit evidence raising such a dispute unless that evidence had substantial prima facie probative value, in terms of its particularity, plausibility and/or independent support. Otherwise, simply by raising such a dispute, going to a matter relevant to the correctness of the certificate, a worker could put the AP in a position where it had to have a further medical examination conducted by one of its members. I do not think this would be in accord with the policy of the WIM Act.”
Evidence should only be admitted by an Appeal Panel where it is of “substantive prima facie probative value”.
The further statement of the appellant does no more than provide his account of the assessment by the Medical Assessor and a critique of alleged inconsistencies in the MAC. Admission of the further evidence would undermine the principles of finality in litigation.
The Appeal Panel considers that the further statement does no more than cavil with the method of assessment and the history recorded by the Medical Assessor. The appellant’s complaints with respect to this history including the identity of the employer and this history recorded are essentially submissions which could be made to the Appeal Panel with reference to other evidence that was before the Medical Assessor. The complaints under the heading “Findings on physical examination” are without independent support and not of probative value.
For the reasons set out above, the Appeal Panel determines that the further statement of the appellant should not be received on the appeal.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

Further medical examination

Medical Assessor John O’Neill of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 16 July 2025 and reported to the Appeal Panel. The examination report is included below under findings and reasons.

Medical Assessment Certificate

The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor 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.
In summary, the appellant submits:
(a)    while the Medical Assessor was required to apply his own clinical judgment, his assessment was an outlier when considered in the context of the other assessments obtained by the appellant and the respondent;
(b)    liability with respect to all injuries sustained by the appellant and referred to the Medical Assessor had been accepted by the respondent and there was no dispute that the appellant had sustained injuries to his lumbar spine, right thigh (nervous system); right hip and left hip;
(c)    as liability had been accepted the referral did not include, as a medical dispute, “the worker’s condition (including the worker’s prognosis, the aetiology of the condition, and the treatment proposed or provided”. As such, it was not within the scope of the referral for the Medical Assessor to assess the cause of the appellant’s injuries but rather the Medical Assessor was only to assess the extent of permanent impairment;
(d)    that in finding the injury to the lumbar spine was essentially a muscular or ligamentous injury and not assessing impairment, the Medical Assessor went beyond commenting on the extent of impairment resulting from the accepted injury;
(e)    the Medical Assessor sought to make a determination with respect to causation of the appellant’s Meralgia Paresthetica in the right thigh, finding that it was not related to the injury on 1 February 2016;
(f)    the Medical Assessor failed to afford procedural fairness and give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the appellant’s claims, and
(g)    for these reasons, the MAC contains a demonstratable error and the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria.
In reply, the respondent submits that it does not oppose the appeal as filed however this position does not indicate any concession or agreement with any submissions made by the appellant.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

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 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 (being the errors identified by the parties in their submissions) (see New South Wales Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1792).
To this end, an appeal panel must not disturb any findings in a MAC that are not challenged and subject to the parties’ submissions. In Queanbeyan Racing Club Ltd v Burton [2021] NSWCA 304, Basten JA stated (at [35]):
“The Appeal Panel was correct in the present case to address the subject matter of the ground of appeal, set aside the medical assessment certificate and issue another certificate including the amended assessments and [emphasis in original] the original unchallenged assessment. In doing so it neither purported to reassess the unchallenged finding nor to adopt the medical assessor’s reasoning with respect to that finding; neither course was part of its statutory function.”
The Appeal Panel notes that the MAC of Medical Assessor David Crocker dated 7 April 2025, who was appointed to assess the left and right lower extremities is not the subject of any submissions on appeal. His assessment of 8% WPI with respect to the right lower extremity and 4% with respect to the left lower extremity are not disturbed by the Appeal Panel.
Importantly in the context of the issues raised on appeal, Medical Assessor Mellick reached the following conclusions:
“The clinical features do not establish evidence of an assessable organically determined lumbar spinal injury and also no evidence of an assessable nervous system disorder or radiculopathy associated with the injury that occurred on 1 February 2016 involving the lumbar spine.
There is long standing pre-existing degenerative disease of the lumbar spine.
The acute pain he experienced on 1/2/2016 should be regarded more likely than not to have been due to a muscular or ligamentous cause as diagnosed by his general practitioner on the day after the injury. It is noted that the dominate persisting pain is situated in both hips and is likely to be of orthopaedic origin. This is in keeping with reports prepared by Dr Rooney and Dr Pope.
Mr Monda reports that the symptoms involving the anterior and lateral right thigh did not occur on the date of the injury or near that date but occurred after a considerable delay. It is also noted that Dr Pope referred to the symptoms in that distribution as being new when he assessed him approximately six months after the injury. Those mild symptoms are due to Meralgia Parasthetica, a common condition which on the present evidence should not be etiologically connected with the injury that occurred on 1/2/2016 because that condition is not usually related causally to what Mr Monda was doing when he developed pain on the day of the injury. The delay in the appearance of the symptoms further dissociates the condition of Meralgia Parasthetica causally from the injury in question.”
In assessing the appellant’s degree of permanent impairment the Medical Assessor, having considered the diagnosis of Dr Martin McGee-Collett of “symptoms arising from the lateral cutaneous nerve of the right thigh in its course under the inguinal ligament”, states:
“I agree with that diagnosis but cannot establish a causal connection of that disorder with the injury in question because of the time which has elapsed between the time of the injury in question and the first appearance of symptoms of Meralgia Parasthetica reported by Mr Monda.”
Further, with respect to the lumbar spine, the Medical Assessor notes:
“my findings today also indicate no evidence of paraspinal muscle spasm in the lumbar region associated with the grossly reduced and highly variable lumbar spinal movements …
There is no collateral clinical or historical evidence of assessable impairment of the lumbar spine and no long tract or segmental signs and no symptoms suggesting cauda equina impairment.”
The Appeal Panel accepts the submission by the appellant (and not opposed by the respondent) that there is a demonstrable error in the MAC.
In Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission & Anor [2006] NSWSC 939 at [39] Hoeben SCJ said:
“I do not propose to, nor is it necessary, that I define what is ‘demonstrable error’ for the purposes of s 327 of the Act in an exhaustive way. It is sufficient for the purposes of this matter that I conclude that ‘demonstrable error’ is an error which is readily apparent from an examination of the medical assessment certificate and the document referring the matter to the AMS for assessment.”

It is evident from the findings made by the Medical Assessor that he has misunderstood what was required of him. This is apparent from an examination of the MAC and therefore a demonstrable error.
The Medical Assessor was required to assess the medical dispute referred to him. This required review of the documents exchanged between the parties and attached to the ARD to identify the relevant medical dispute together with the referral.
In Skates v Hills Industries Ltd [2021] NSWCA 142 Leeming JA said at [46]-[50]:
“The dispute between Mr Skates and the insurer was crystallised by the correspondence attached to Mr Skates’ application; indeed, it was why the documents setting out both sides’ claims were attached. That was the dispute which was referred to the Commission pursuant to s 288. It was a ‘medical dispute’ because the parties had made different claims about the degree of permanent impairment suffered by Mr Skates as a result of the injury. It was therefore apt to be referred for medical assessment. The point of doing so was to resolve the dispute…Sections 321 and 321A concern referrals of a dispute for assessment. The language of the heading of each section commences ‘Referral of medical dispute’ and each provision confirms that it is the medical dispute which is referred for assessment. Section 293 authorises the referral of a medical dispute for medical assessment and the deferral of determination of the dispute. All these provisions proceed on the basis that the outcome of the assessment is the resolution of the medical dispute. So too does the conclusive presumption of correctness accorded by s 326 to assessments which are certified in a medical assessment certificate…In the absence of a dispute, the worker and the insurer would not need to go to the Commission. An important category of disputes is medical disputes, and the referral of the medical dispute to an Approved Medical Specialist is but an aspect of the statutory scheme to resolve the dispute…The foregoing substantially corresponds with the first explanation given by Basten JA for confirming the correctness of the result reached by the Appeal Panel and the primary judge, with a heavier emphasis upon the purpose of the statutory regime being to resolve a medical dispute and that a dispute is identified by the disputants’ competing claims [emphasis in original].”
In Klement v Bull ‘N’ Bush Nurseries Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 466, Schmidt SCAJ applied Skates and her Honour stated at [58]:
“The Panel was thus plainly mistaken in its understanding of what Mr Klement’s claim had advanced. In a passage in Skates at [46], not referred to by the Panel, it was what was attached to his application, which included Mr Klement’s claim letter and the documents attached to it as well as his statement and the documents attached to the insurer’s reply, which had crystallised the parties’ medical dispute.”
In the present matter, the appellant initially made a claim for lump sum compensation with respect to 24% WPI based on assessments of Dr Neil Berry dated 2 September 2020 and
30 November 2021. This claim was responded to by a solicitor acting for the respondent however it appears the offer made was not accepted.
The claim was remade by the appellant on 7 February 2024 with the applicant now making a claim with respect to 30% WPI based on further assessments by Dr Berry.
There was an exchange of particulars between the parties and the respondent arranged for the appellant to be medically examined.
On 18 June 2024 the respondent’s insurer issued a notice pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act. The notice clearly set out the nature of the dispute as follows:
“EML has accepted liability for your right hip, right thigh (Meralgia Paraesthetica) and lumbar spine injuries sustained on 1 February 2016. You now allege sustaining a consequential left hip condition.”
The notice then discusses the opinion of A/Prof Courtenay (which the insurer says it prefers) before setting out the following:
“…EML:
1. Disputes liability for your alleged consequential left hip condition as same does not result from your accepted injury on 1 February 2016.
2. Disputes liability for payment of permanent impairment compensation as you have not sustained greater than 10% WPI as required by s 66(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.”
On 8 October 2024 following a review of the decision of 18 June 2024 at the appellant’s request, the original notice was said to be “confirmed and amended”. This dispute with respect to the degree of impairment was maintained but the dispute with respect to a consequential condition to the left hip was withdrawn.
At this point, consistent with Skates and Klements, the medical dispute between the parties had been crystalised and is reflected in the referral to Medical Assessor Mellick.
The Appeal Panel finds that Medical Assessor Mellick did not appreciate the dispute between the parties, which was limited to the degree of permanent impairment resulting from injuries to the lumbar spine, peripheral nervous system (left thigh) and the left and right lower extremities (the latter two Medical Assessor Mellick was unable to assess and were subsequently assessed by a different Medical Assessor and are not subject to this appeal).
Because of this the Medical Assessor considered issues outside the scope of the dispute, including the aetiology of the condition in the left thigh. In doing so the Medical Assessor did not fulfil his statutory function to resolve the medical dispute referred. This is a demonstrable error.
This is evident with respect to both the nervous system injury at the right thigh and the lumbar spine from the following findings reached by Medical Assessor Mellick:
“The clinical features do not establish evidence of an assessable organically determined lumbar spinal injury and also no evidence of an assessable nervous system disorder or radiculopathy associated with the injury that occurred on 1 February 2016 involving the lumbar spine.”
The appellant seeks re-examination by a Medical Assessor who is a member of the Appeal Panel. Having found error with respect to the assessment of permanent impairment by Medical Assessor Mellick the panel considered a re-examination to be necessary.
The Appeal Panel appointed Dr John O’Neill, Medical Assessor member of the Appeal Panel to conduct the re-examination. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the re-examination was conducted thoroughly, a complete physical examination of the appellant occurred, and that Medical Assessor O’Neill considered all ‘relevant and significant material’ in the ARD and the Reply.
Medical Assessor O’Neill reported to the Appeal Panel in the following terms:
“1.DETAILS OF MATTERS REFERRED FOR ASSESSMENT
The following matters have been referred for assessment (s 319 of the 1998 Act):
1.   Date of injury: 1 February 2016
2.   Body parts/systems referred: lumbar spine; (peripheral) nervous system
3.   Method of assessment: whole person impairment
2.EVIDENCE

Documentary Evidence

The following documents were referred by the Commission for this assessment:
4.   As listed in the referral
3.WORKER’S DETAILS INCLUDING
5.   Date of examination: 16 July 2025
6.   Date of birth and age at examination: [DOB omitted] 56 years
7.   Hand dominance: right
8.   Details of who attended the examination: Mr Monda attended alone
9.   Date of injury: 1 February 2016
10.Employer and occupation: self-employed
4.HISTORY RELATING TO THE INJURY
11.Brief history of the incident/onset of symptoms and of subsequent related events, including treatment:
Mr Monda said he was inside his work van both bending and reaching to drag a heavy bundle of photocopy papers towards him. In doing so he felt a ‘sharp pain’ in the central lower back and right buttock.
He was able to continue working but pain was still present at the end of the day and worsened after his shower and when he sat down on his lounge that night.
He attended his GP the following day and was given time off work.
A CT scan of the lumbar spine on 15 February 2026 reported a diffuse disc bulge and focal central protrusion at L4/5 which appeared to contact the traversing L5 nerve roots.
On 19 March 2016 the GP noted ‘chronic lower back pain and right-sided numbness on the thigh region’.
Mr Monda told me that at some stage, about a month or so after the injury, he developed a ‘hot burning sensation’ from the right groin to involve his right lateral thigh.
An MRI of the lumbar spine on 30 March 2016 reported multilevel spondylotic change with exit foraminal narrowing, more pronounced on the right, at L5/S1 but without definite nerve root impingement.
The GP arranged a CT-guided right L5 nerve root block on 24 March 2016 which Mr Monda told me took away the sharp pain in the low back.
Consultation was arranged with Dr Pope (neurosurgeon) on 10 August 2016. Dr Pope stated Mr Monda had noted only low back pain at the time of the incident but had later developed the new altered sensation down the right lateral thigh to the knee, especially when twisting and bending.
Dr Pope wondered about right hip pathology and Mr Monda was subsequently seen on multiple occasions by Dr Rooney (orthopaedic surgeon).
I note a further MRI scan of the lumbar spine was undertaken on 1 July 2017 with no new pathology.
The GP arranged a further right L5 periradicular injection on 21 December 2017 and Mr Monda said this again helped reduce his low back pain.
I note a further MRI scan of the lumbar spine on 24 February 2018 which noted foraminal narrowing bilaterally at L4/5 without definite nerve root impingement.
An injection of the right lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh in the groin was arranged on 10 May 2018 and Mr Monda told me this greatly relieved the persisting hot burning sensation in the right groin and lateral thigh.
Mr Monda was seen by Dr McGee-Collett (neurosurgeon) on 18 June 2018.
Dr McGee-Collett confirmed the diagnosis of meralgia paraesthetica (entrapment of the lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh) and that there had been benefit from the injection on 10 May 2018. He advised against surgery.
Mr Monda told me there was one further injection to the aforementioned nerve and again this helped with symptoms in the right groin and lateral thigh.
Mr Monda said that he has subsequently learnt to live with symptoms.
He said he continues to work but with alterations to his work. He now has a small commercial automatic truck. He avoids heavy lifting.
12.Present treatment: See below.
13.Present symptoms:
In terms of his back, Mr Monda said he has constant stiffness and intermittent pain. Pain is felt in the central low back. Each day he would take between four and six Panadol Osteo. He would also take a Mobic tablet or two Voltaren Rapid tablets. If pain was bad at night, he would take an Endone in order to sleep. He obtained benefit from regular physiotherapy.
He said his back pain was associated with limited movement, worse in winter. He said he had to buy slip-on shoes as he had trouble putting on shoes. He said he can't remain in a bent position for any length of time so he can no longer garden. He cannot run and walks at a slow pace.
In terms of the right thigh, he said he now has constant numbness in the territory of the right lateral thigh. It is aggravated and can be associated with pain on standing in one place for more than five minutes and also on lying in bed on his back with his right leg rotated outwards. When pain occurs, he applies an icepack to the groin region. He cannot use a hot shower or a hot tub as this causes pain.
14.Details of any previous or subsequent accidents, injuries or condition: N/A
15.General health: N/A
16.Work history including previous work history if relevant: N/A
17.Social activities/ADLs: N/A
5.FINDINGS ON PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
Mr Monda walked slowly.
He complained of pain in the low back on bending to about 30° and when doing so he also had to have his knees bent. He complained of pain on extension of the back 5° beyond the midline. Today back extension was associated with a brief episode of spasm.
He was able to stand symmetrically on the balls of both feet and the heels. Romberg's was negative.
Lower limb bulk and power were normal. All deep tendon reflexes were symmetrical and normal with both plantar responses flexor.
There was blunting to pinprick over the anterolateral aspect of the right thigh in the territory of the right lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh.
6.DETAILS AND DATES OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
See above.
7.SUMMARY
18.summary of injuries and diagnoses:
Mr Monda experienced low back pain in the awkward bending and dragging movement at work on 1 February 2016.
Low back pain has been persistent.
It continues to require daily medication and physiotherapy. It is associated with restriction of activities of daily living although Mr Monda has been able to continue working with appropriate restrictions.
At no stage has there been clear symptoms or signs of radiculopathy and nor would this be expected from the radiological findings.
Current low back symptoms and signs have best fit with DRE Lumbar Category 2 (AMA5, Table 15.3, p384) with 5% WPI. There would be an additional 1% whole person impairment for restriction of activities of daily living.
Although there have been reasonable concerns to the contrary, symptoms involving the right groin and lateral thigh began soon after the incident and have been deemed to be caused by the incident.
The symptoms are those of entrapment of the right lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh.
There is continuing numbness and intermittent pain.
I assessed impairment using AMA5, Table 17.37, p552. This allows 1% whole person impairment for sensory loss and 3% whole person impairment for dysaesthesia. I think 3% whole person impairment for sensory loss and dysaesthesia is reasonable.
The combined whole person impairment arising from the injury, therefore, is 6% combined with 3% = 9% WPI.
19.consistency of presentation
There were no inconsistencies.
8.EVALUATION OF PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT
My answers to the following questions regarding the assessment of impairment and or whole person impairment in accordance with the NSW workers compensation guidelines for the evaluation of permanent impairment with respect to the injury suffered in the accident are:
a.   Is the worker claiming for any body part/system outside your field of expertise? If so, please indicate the body par/system: NO
b.   Have all body parts/systems stabilised/reached maximum medical improvement? YES
c.   If not, please list those injuries not yet stable/at maximum medical improvement: N/A
d.   If stabilisation/maximum medical improvement, of any or all injuries has not been reached, when, in your opinion, will this occur? N/A
e.   Is any proportion of loss of efficient use or impairment or whole person impairment, due to a previous injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality? NO
f.    If so, please indicate which body part/system is affected by the previous injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality. N/A
g.   Indicate whether there has been any further injury subsequent to the subject work injury. If this injury has caused any additional impairment this should not be included with the assessment of impairment due to the subject work injury. N/A
9.THE FACTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS BASED
The facts on which I have based my assessment of whole person impairment are:
The history I obtained today; the examination I performed today; and review of all documents referred from the Registrar.
10.REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT
a.   My opinion and assessment of whole person impairment is stated above.
b.   An explanation of my calculations is stated above.
c.   My brief comments regarding the other medical opinions and findings submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the reasons why my opinion differs
My opinion agrees with those of Drs Courtenay and Berry (orthopaedic surgeons).
My comments differ from those of Dr Mellick (MAC, 13 March 2025). Dr Mellick did not find any impairment related to the low back which I believe is incorrect. Dr Mellick felt the injury to the right lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh was not related to the incident which was a technical error in that the Commission had deemed the nerve injury had been caused by the accident.
d.   I certify that the impairment is permanent and that the degree of permanent impairment is fully ascertainable.”

The Appeal Panel, having reviewed the assessment and findings on examination of
Medical Assessor O’Neill are satisfied that it appropriately determines the medical dispute between the parties with respect to the degree of permanent impairment to the nervous system and lumbar spine as a result of injury on 1 February 2016 being the extent of the dispute (subject to appeal) as crystalised in the documents exchanged between the parties and reflected in the referral.
In doing so, it provides relevant WPI assessments in relation to the appellant’s lumbar spine at 6% WPI and nervous system at 3% WPI. In reaching the assessment, Medical Assessor O’Neill has used his clinical judgment and explained the assessment with reference to the Guides and Guidelines.
In Coca-Cola Europacific Partners API Pty Ltd v Pombinho [2024] NSWCA 191, Ward P considered at [88]:
“The statutory provisions assume power on the part of a medical member of the Appeal Panel to carry out a re-examination and assessment of the worker. It may be inferred that the Appeal Panel, in adopting the report and findings, was endorsing the reasoning in that report since that is where the reasons are to be found. I do not accept that the Appeal Panel was required to deliver separate or distinct reasons as to why the Appeal Panel (or two of the three members of it, perhaps) accepted Medical Assessor Glozier’s assessment in preference to the assessment of, say, the Medical Assessor. In my opinion, it was sufficient for the Appeal Panel to adopt Medical Assessor Glozier’s assessment (for the reasons contained therein).”
The Appeal Panel considers the findings and assessments of Medical Assessor O’Neill to be reliable, and the Appeal Panel adopts those findings and assessments.
The WPI assessments of the appellant found by Medical Assessor O’Neill and adopted by the Appeal Panel are of course different to the assessments of Medical Assessor Mellick.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 13 March 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued.
As set out about the medical dispute with respect to the lumbar spine and nervous system were assessed by Medical Assessor Mellick and the medical dispute with respect to the left and right lower extremities were assessed by Medical Assessor Crocker.
The Appeal Panel has not disturbed the assessment made by Medical Assessor Croker and had adopted the findings and assessment set out in the MAC of 7 April 2025 in the new combined certificate.
The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION

APPEAL PANEL

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W29125/24
Applicant:	Giosino Monda
Respondent:	G & E MONDA PTY LTD

This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998.

The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Ross Mellick and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:

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 AMA 5 Guides	% WPI	Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition	Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
Right Lower Extremity	1 February 2016	Chapter 3, pp13-23	Chapter 17, 17.2f, Tables 17-9 & 17-10, pp 533-538; 17.2j, Table 17-33, pp545-549; 17.2l, Table 17-37, p552; Table 16-10, pg 482	8%	0	8%
Left Lower Extremity	1 February 2016	Chapter 3, pp13-23	Chapter 17, 17.2f, Tables 17-9 & 17-10, pp 533-538;	4%	0	4%
Lumbar spine	1 February 2016	Points 4.24, 4.34 & 4.35 pp 27 & 28	Table 15.3, p384	6%	0	6%
Peripheral nervous system (right thigh)	1 February 2016	Point 3.32, p22	Table 17.37, p552	3%	0	3%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					19%

The above assessment is made in accordance with the SIRA NSW Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002

[2025] NSWPICMP 568

4 August 2025