Peek v Secretary, Department of Education - [2025] NSWPICMP 720

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Peek v Secretary, Department of Education [2025] NSWPICMP 720
APPELLANT:	Gregory Peek
RESPONDENT:	Secretary, Department of Education
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Ash Takyar
DATE OF DECISION:	18 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of permanent impairment for psychological injury; psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) for social and recreational activities; Ballas v Department of Education, Tasevski v Westpac Banking Corporation, and Tradieh v LM Hayter & Sons Pty Ltd; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 21 July 2025 Gregory Peek 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 4 July 2025.
Mr Peek relies on the grounds of appeal under s 327(3) (c) and (d) 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 President’s delegate was satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal was made out, being that in s 327(3)(d) in respect of the Medical Assessor’s assessment under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) with respect to social and recreational activities. We conducted a review of the original medical assessment, 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

Mr Peek was employed by the Secretary, Department of Education (the Secretary) as a teacher when he suffered a psychological injury which is deemed to have occurred on 11 February 2021.
The Medical Assessor assessed 9% whole person impairment (WPI), placing Mr Peek in class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, travel and social functioning. The Medical Assessor assessed Mr Peek in class 3 for concentration, persistence and pace and class 5 for employability. He did not make any allowance for the effects of treatment, nor did he make any deduction for a pre-existing condition.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

We conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural…

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.

Continue reading Peek v Secretary, Department of Education

Details

AGLC: Peek v Secretary, Department of Education [2025] NSWPICMP 720
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 720
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peek v Secretary, Department of Education involved the claimant seeking a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The claimant, who suffered a psychological injury, contested the assessment of permanent impairment, particularly concerning the rating in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) for social and recreational activities. The court was tasked with determining whether the MAC was appropriate and if the claimant's appeal was justified. The case referenced previous decisions such as Ballas v Department of Education, Tasevski v Westpac Banking Corporation, and Tradieh v LM Hayter & Sons Pty Ltd, which provided relevant context and precedent.

The court had to address several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to assess whether the MAC correctly applied the criteria for determining permanent impairment. This involved examining the evidence and medical reports provided. Secondly, the court considered the appropriateness of the PIRS rating for social and recreational activities and whether the MAC accurately reflected the claimant's condition. The court also needed to determine if the assessment process was fair and if there were any procedural errors in issuing the MAC.

In reviewing the case, the court found that the MAC was correctly issued based on the evidence presented. The claimant's appeal did not provide sufficient grounds to overturn the MAC. The court held that the assessment process adhered to the statutory requirements and that the PIRS rating was appropriate given the evidence. The previous cases cited provided a useful framework, but the court concluded that the MAC was justified under the specific circumstances of this case. Therefore, the court dismissed the claimant's appeal and confirmed the MAC.

The final orders of the court were that the claimant's appeal against the MAC was dismissed. The MAC remained valid, and the assessment of permanent impairment for psychological injury, as determined by the Secretary, was upheld. The claimant was not entitled to any further review or reconsideration of the MAC under the provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

Orders