Narooma Sporting & Services Club v Tague - [2025] NSWPICMP 149

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Narooma Sporting & Services Club v Tague [2025] NSWPICMP 149
APPELLANT:	Narooma Sporting & Services Club
RESPONDENT:	Sone Tague
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Ash Takyar
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
DATE OF DECISION:	7 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Assessment under the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) of travel, and concentration, persistence and pace; worker was able to travel to new areas as part of her employment; worker had memory difficulties and relied on notes and prompting to participate in assessment; Held – worker had no or minor restriction in travel; worker had moderate restriction in concentration, persistence and pace; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 16 December 2024 the appellant lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Michael Hong, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 18 November 2024.
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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The respondent worker (Ms Tague) was employed at the Dalmeny Bowling Club as a junior manager. At the end of her shift on 15 June 2021, as she was closing up, a violent robbery occurred at the club. She hid in a back room during the robbery, and later discovered that one of the offenders had a shotgun.
As a result of this incident Ms Tague suffered a psychological injury. She brought a claim for lump sum compensation for 19% whole person impairment that was disputed by the insurer only on the basis of the degree of permanent impairment. Accordingly, Ms Tague was referred to a Medical Assessor who assessed 15% whole person impairment.
The appellant appeals against that assessment on the basis that the MAC contains a demonstrable error in the assessment of impairment under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scales (PIRS) and that the Medical Assessor applied incorrect criteria in his assessment.
The appellant…

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 Narooma Sporting & Services Club v Tague 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 149
Decision Date: 7 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Narooma Sporting & Services Club contested a Workers Compensation claim brought by a former employee, Ms Tague, who was alleging psychiatric impairment following a workplace incident. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the assessment of Ms Tague's psychiatric impairment, specifically the rating of her restrictions in travel, concentration, persistence, and pace, as measured by the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS).

The central legal issues were the appropriate ratings for Ms Tague's restrictions in travel, and concentration, persistence and pace under the PIRS. The Commission had to determine whether Ms Tague's ability to travel and her cognitive functions were sufficiently impaired to warrant the assigned ratings. The Commission was required to review the evidence presented, including Ms Tague's ability to travel to new areas as part of her employment and her reliance on notes and prompting during the assessment.

The Workers Compensation Commission found that Ms Tague had no or minor restrictions in travel, as she continued to travel to new areas for work, despite her memory difficulties. The Commission determined that Ms Tague had moderate restrictions in concentration, persistence, and pace, considering her reliance on notes and prompting to participate in the assessment. Consequently, the Medical Assessment Certificate issued to Ms Tague was revoked, reflecting the Commission's findings on her impairment ratings.

The Commission ordered the revocation of Ms Tague's Medical Assessment Certificate and directed that her psychiatric impairment ratings be adjusted to reflect the findings. The case underscores the importance of a thorough and evidence-based assessment of psychiatric impairment under the Workers Compensation scheme.

Orders