Pang v IBM Australia Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 394

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Pang v IBM Australia Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 394
APPELLANT:	Rosa Wing Shan Pang
RESPONDENT:	IBM Australia Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	4 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of primary psychological injury; worker appealed assessments in the scales of concentration, persistence and pace and employability; Held – no error in assessment of concentration, persistence and pace; Medical Assessor erred in assessment of employability; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 7 March 2025 Rosa Wing Shan Pang (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Wayne Mason (Medical Assessor), who issued Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
7 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, 4th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant suffered an injury on 30 June 2019 in her employment as a Senior IT Certified Specialist with IBM Australia Ltd (the respondent).
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 31 July 2024 in which she claimed lump sum compensation in respect of the psychiatric injury.
In a Certificate of Determination – Consent Orders dated 25 November 2024, Member Michael Moore made orders including the following:
“3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a medical assessor pursuant to section 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows:
a. Date of Injury: 30 June 2019
b. Body systems/parts: Psychological/psychiatric
c. Method of Assessment: Whole person impairment.”
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 19 December 2024 and assessed 8% whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a psychiatric condition. The…

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 Pang v IBM Australia 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 394
Decision Date: 4 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pang was an employee of IBM Australia Ltd, who suffered an injury that led to a claim for workers' compensation. Pang appealed the assessments of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The court had to decide whether the assessments in the scales of concentration, persistence and pace, and employability were accurate. The central legal issues revolved around the correctness of the assessments and whether any errors warranted a revocation of the MAC.

The court examined the assessments in the scales of concentration, persistence and pace and found no error in these assessments. However, the court identified a mistake in the assessment of employability. The Medical Assessor had failed to consider the full scope of Pang's work history and capabilities, leading to an incorrect conclusion about Pang's employability. As a result, the court determined that the assessment of employability was flawed, and the MAC needed to be revoked.

Consequently, the court held that the assessments for concentration, persistence and pace were correctly made, but the employability assessment was erroneous. The court revoked the MAC, allowing for a reassessment that properly considered all relevant factors. The court’s decision ensures that Pang’s entitlements are accurately assessed in accordance with the legislative provisions governing workers' compensation.

Orders