Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Masurkun - [2025] NSWPICMP 679

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Masurkun [2025] NSWPICMP 679
APPELLANT:	Qube Ports Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Peter Masurkun
APPEAL PANEL
SENIOR MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Lam-Po-Tang
DATE OF DECISION:	8 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal regarding reaching maximum medical improvement; psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) classifications and secondary psychological injury; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 14 April 2025, Qube Ports Pty Ltd lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Wayne Mason, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 14 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 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

Mr Masurkun (the respondent worker) made a claim for a primary psychological injury arising out the nature and conditions of his employment. The matter was referred to Medical Assessor Mason who on 14 March 2025 assessed the worker as having a 24% whole person impairment (WPI) relating to a primary psychological injury, and 0% WPI relating to a secondary psychological injury.

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, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because there had been an adequate examination of the worker.

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.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full…

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 Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Masurkun 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 679
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Qube Ports Pty Ltd versus Masurkun involved a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The matter centred on a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued to the plaintiff, Masurkun, who claimed secondary psychological injury following a workplace incident. Qube Ports challenged the MAC, particularly the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) classifications and the assessment of Masurkun's condition.

The court was required to determine whether the MAC correctly assessed Masurkun's condition and whether the classification of his secondary psychological injury was appropriate. Specifically, the court needed to examine the evidence regarding the plaintiff's maximum medical improvement and whether the MAC accurately reflected this, given the statutory criteria. The court had to balance the statutory provisions with the medical evidence and the plaintiff's testimony.

The court found that the MAC was correctly issued and confirmed the classification of the plaintiff's condition as per the statutory criteria. The court held that the evidence supported the findings that the plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement, and the PIRS classifications were appropriately assigned. The plaintiff's claim for secondary psychological injury was substantiated by the evidence, and the MAC accurately reflected his condition. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the MAC.

As a result, the court confirmed the validity of the MAC issued to Masurkun, ensuring that Qube Ports complied with the statutory obligations regarding workers' compensation. The court's decision reinforced the importance of accurately assessing and classifying workplace injuries, particularly those involving psychological impairment, under the statutory framework.

Orders