Neal v Impact Care Solutions Ltd - [2024] NSWPICMP 787

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Neal v Impact Care Solutions Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 787
APPELLANT:	Kellindy Neal
RESPONDENT:	Impact Care Solutions Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Jacqueline Snell
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
DATE OF DECISION:	22 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; the appellant essentially submitted the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in his assessment in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) category of social functioning and did not provide reasoning for disagreement with the assessments of the independent medical examiners (IMEs) in the PIRS category of social functioning; erred in his assessment in the PIRS category of concentration, persistence and pace; erred in his assessment in the PIRS category of employability and did not provide reasoning for disagreement with IMEs’ assessment in the PIRS category of employability; Medical Appeal Panel (Panel) accepts the MA was in error in his assessment in the PIRS category of employability in that the Panel is of the view the evidence supports assessment of moderate impairment and a rating of Class 3; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 1 August 2024 Kellindy Neal (also known as Kellindy Price and Kellindy Houghton), (Ms Neal) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr John Baker, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 10 July 2024.
Ms Neal 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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms Neal made a claim for permanent impairment compensation resulting from psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment with Impact Care Solutions Limited (Impact Care Solutions), with the deemed date of injury being 30 November 2020. An Application to Resolve a Dispute was lodged with the Personal Injury Commission…

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 Neal v Impact Care Solutions 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: [2024] NSWPICMP 787
Decision Date: 22 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Neal v Impact Care Solutions Ltd involved an appeal against a Medical Assessment Certificate issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appellant, Neal, contested the assessment made by the Medical Assessor (MA) in several categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), including social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and employability. The appellant argued that the MA had erred in these assessments and failed to provide adequate reasoning for disagreeing with the independent medical examiners (IMEs).

The court was required to determine whether the MA's assessments in the specified PIRS categories were erroneous and whether the MA provided sufficient reasoning for disagreeing with the IMEs. This involved examining the evidence presented and determining if the MA's conclusions were supported by the evidence. The court needed to decide whether the Medical Appeal Panel's (Panel) findings were correct in accepting that the MA was in error regarding the employability category, leading to a rating of moderate impairment and a Class 3 assessment.

The court found that the MA's assessment in the employability category was indeed erroneous, as the evidence supported a moderate impairment rating and a Class 3 assessment, as determined by the Panel. The court also noted that the MA had not provided adequate reasoning for disagreeing with the IMEs in the employability category. Consequently, the court accepted the Panel's decision and revoked the Medical Assessment Certificate. This ruling underscores the importance of providing clear and substantiated reasoning when differing from independent medical assessments in workers' compensation cases.

Orders