Rahmani v Velocity Frequent Flyer Pty Ltd

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Rahmani v Velocity Frequent Flyer Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPICMP 447
APPELLANT:	Mohamed Rahmani
RESPONDENT:	Velocity Frequent Flyer Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier
DATE OF DECISION:	13 September 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- the appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor had erred in several of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) categories; Panel found no error except in the category of social and recreational activities; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 25 May 2023 Mohamed Rahmani (the appellant) 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 18 May 2023.
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) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

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 although one was requested in respect of some of the categories in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal for reasons that will become apparent in due course.

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, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred with respect to three of the categories in PIRS, namely Self-care and personal and hygiene; Social and recreational activities and Social functioning.
In reply, the respondent concedes that the mathematical calculation by the Medical Assessor of his aggregate scores was incorrect, but submits that no errors were made by the Medical Assessor in his assessment of the categories the subject of this appeal.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
The appellant was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a primary psychological injury on 26 September 2019.
The Medical Assessor set out the history he obtained as follows:
“Mr Rahmani was employed as a Senior CRM Analyst in the Marketing Automation and Cloud Department within the Marketing and Analytics Division of Velocity Frequent Flyer Pty Ltd (Velocity)…
Mr Rahmani reported that soon after commencing work for this employer he became the focus of bullying, harassment, intimidation, religious slurs, and withholding of necessary tools to prevent him successfully performing his role. He reported that he was told by his senior manager to ‘first help fellow Indians in their careers’ and ‘I will certainly not give any opportunities to Arabs like you who invaded India’. Mr Rahmani reported he became the focus of false allegations made by his co-workers.
Mr Rahmani made a formal complaint and his circumstances deteriorated. He reported that he was given two jobs and was overwhelmed by his workload. He stated that he was threatened with having his Australian work visa withdrawn should he take the bullying and harassment to more senior management. He was advised by the Australian Work Safety Officer to report the bullying and harassment as he was obviously becoming increasingly psychologically injured by the unsafe workplace.
Mr Rahmani failed in his attempts to work in various other roles since the onset of this workplace injury. His primary psychological injury had never entered full remission since the onset of this injury. He had attempted to return to work in both Sydney and France unsuccessfully due to increasing psychiatric symptoms that increased his impairment for employment.
Mr Rahmani reported that his psychiatric and psychological work-related injury symptoms increased in severity since the initial onset in September 2019. He developed the following symptoms caused by this primary psychological injury:
• Recurrent distressing intrusive memories of the bullying and harassment
• Increased anxiety in the presence of both his flat mates and community
• Loss of appetite, and poor nutrition
• Poor sleep with middle insomnia
• Loss of self-esteem
• Loss of hope for his future career
• Angry outbursts directed towards himself and others in close vicinity
• Increased social isolation and avoidance of his flat mates
• Estrangement from his past friendship circle
• Loss of interest in participation in his sport of running and attending the gym
• Poor concentration with inability to concentrate on complex tasks such as typing long English documents.
• Loss of libido with loss of interest in socialising
• Loss of interest in family celebrations.
• Depressed mood most days
Mr Rahmani was treated by his local medical practitioner, clinical psychologist and consultant psychiatrists. He had received psychiatric treatment in France after he had returned to receive care and support from his family of origin.
Mr Rahmani had been treated with evidence based pharmacotherapy for his persistent depressive disorder. He had been treated with duloxetine 30mg daily, sodium valproate 200mg bd and quetiapine 150mg at night. He received CBT, Relaxation techniques and Mindfulness for psychological treatment of his condition. In France he had received benzodiazepines as part of his treatment regime. He was not treated in a psychiatric hospital as an inpatient for this injury.”
After setting out details of Mr Rahmani’s treatment, the Medical Assessor noted “present symptoms” identical to those set out above.
The Medical Assessor then turned to consider the impact of Mr Rahmani’s injury on his social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) and said:
“Mr Rahmani was born in Montpellier France… He was the only member of his family living in Australia. Mr Rahmani reported that he was educated between kindergarten to graduation from his master’s degree in Montpellier France.
Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in his self-Care and personal hygiene. He had lived both alone and in a communal flat since the onset of this work injury. He looked unkempt in his appearance at the time of this assessment. He was able to cook meals for himself. He did not receive any prompting from his flatmates to maintain his personal hygiene or selfcare. He managed his own personal living space without assistance.
Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in his social and recreational activities. He had lost all his friendship circle since the onset of this injury. He no longer participated in his sport of long-distance running. He no longer held a gym membership and did not attend any gym as he had prior to the injury. He isolated himself from his flatmates and did not share television programs or movies. Mr Rahmani had stopped attending clubs as he had lost interest in this activity.
Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in his capacity to travel. Prior to this injury he was an experienced international traveller. Mr Rahmani, at the time of this assessment, was able to travel alone in local and familiar regions only. He had been able to attend his medical team for treatment without support. Mr Rahmani took his usual route to fly home to gain support from his family. The duration, progress and process of travel was familiar to him between his family home in Montpelier in Southern France and Sydney Australia.
Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in social functioning. He experienced his relationships with his flatmates as strained. Mr Rahmani was able to remain in communication with his family of origin who all lived in France.
Mr Rahmani suffered moderate impairment in his concentration, persistence and pace. He did not read more than brief text articles or news. He finds it difficult to follow complex instructions and type long type long documents in English. His use of current French language and capacity to learn new language developments had reduced since the onset of this primary psychological injury.
Mr Rahmani had attempted to return to work on two prior occasions. He had failed attempts to work either in the workplace or via videoconference. Since returning to Australia he had not worked in any capacity. Mr Rahmani suffered a severe impairment in his employability. He could not work more than one or two days at a time, less than 20 hours per fortnight. His pace is reduced and his attendance was erratic causing failure in his return to work plan.”
Findings on examination were reported as follows:
“Mr Rahmani presented as an anxious, agitated and unkempt man. He was irritable and agitated during this assessment. He was unkempt with an unshaven beard and uncombed hair. He became distressed when asked to talk about the details of his most upsetting incidents of bullying, harassment, and religious discrimination. He reported he had low energy and loss of interest in his own life and his prior daily activities. His speech was normal in rate. His volume of speech was at times increased when he became agitated. He tried to contain himself and did not have an outburst of anger during this assessment. He complained of increased agitation and irritability.
Mr Rahmani complained of poor concentration. He required prompting to remain on topic. His concentration waned throughout the assessment. His concentration was impaired. Mr Rahmani had difficulty controlling his emotions. He said he was depressed in his mood most days. He was increasingly socially isolated since the onset of this injury. He felt he had lost his selfesteem and his self-confidence.
Mr Rahmani did not describe any delusional ideas or psychotic symptoms. He did describe intrusive thoughts involving themes of death and dying. He had no plan to harm himself at the time of this assessment. He was insightful into his condition. His judgment was fair.”
He then summarised the injuries and diagnoses as follows:
“In my medical opinion Mr Rahmani’s work-related injury is Persistent depressive disorder DSM5 code 300.4. Mr Rahmani had not been able to recover from this work-related injury. His increased social isolation had resulted in outbursts of anger and agitation towards himself and others. He had recurrent feelings of shame and guilt that he was unable to financially support himself due to his lost career. He was uncertain about his future and capacity for work…
Mr Rahmani’s presentation was consistent with his diagnosed condition. His assessable primary psychological injury symptoms had not entered remission at any time from the date of onset of this work-related injury to the date of this assessment.”
The Medical Assessor assessed 7% WPI. Both parties agree that the correct assessment should have been 8% WPI.
He then turned to consider the other medical reports and documents before him, summarising them and saying, relevantly:
“Dr Frank Chow psychiatrist report dated 9 July 2022… Mr Rahmani reports experiencing sufficient symptomatology to warrant a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. He continues to suffer severe disability as a result of the psychiatric injury.
Dr Yajuvendra Bisht psychiatrist's report dated 11 February 2022 and 3 March 2022… It would appear Dr Bisht places his opinion heavily on the factual investigation and statements by the workplace. The client's diagnosis is major depressive episode, as per DSM 5
Dr Frank Chow psychiatrist report dated 23 July 2022… With an Aggregate Score of 18 and a Median Class of 3, the PIRS is 22%... There are no pre-existing conditions and no treatment effect.
Dr Yajuvendra Bisht psychiatrist Supplementary report dated 24 November 2022… The current condition is worse than the original the injury he sustained in 2019, but it is not different in nature in any other manner… He is not fit, from a psychological perspective, to return to pre-injury duties even with another employer. It is uncertain whether that he will have any increase in capacity in the foreseeable future.”
Dealing firstly with the category of Self-care and personal hygiene, the Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 and said:
“Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in his Self-Care and personal hygiene. He had lived both alone and in a communal flat since the onset of this work injury. He looked unkempt in his appearance at the time of this assessment. He was able to cook meals for himself. He did not receive any prompting from his flatmates to maintain his personal hygiene or self-care. He managed his own personal living space without assistance.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 in respect of this category reads:
“Mild impairment: able to live independently; looks after self adequately, although may look unkempt occasionally; sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food.”
For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: Can't live independently without regular support. Needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. Does not prepare own meals, frequently misses meals. Family member or community nurse visits (or should visit) 2-3 times per week to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition.”
The appellant makes the following submissions:
(a) The reasons which Dr Baker gave, particularly that the worker was able to cook meals for himself, did not receive prompting to maintain his personal hygiene or self care and that he managed his living space without assistance, are contradictory to the overwhelming body of evidence before him, including:
(i)the IME Report of Dr Frank Chow dated 9 July 2022 which states: "One of his friends visits him once a week to help him with house chores."
"Mr Rahmani is neglecting his hygiene and appearance. He skips shower and meals and he showers every 3 or 4 days. He mostly stays in bed. He is not wearing clean clothes. He is not engaging in house chores. He stated that the house is a mess. He orders groceries online and picked up the groceries. He has gained 20 kg over the last few years due to binge eating. He has seborrheic dermatitis and TMJ disorder due to teeth grinding and clenching mainly at night”;
(ii)the IME Report of Dr Yajuvendra Bisht dated 11 February 2022 which states: "He said that he would not leave the room and his mother had to look after his meals, as well prompt him to shower. He does not cook and eats ready-made meals…One of his close friends checks on him every few days. he eats lot of candies he said, and he drinks lot of soft drinks - he only makes sandwiches; otherwise he eats ready to eat food; sometimes his friend cooks for him";
(iii) the worker's statement dated 29 March 2022, which reports: "my mother has commented that caring for me is like caring for a homeless person due to my lack of hygiene and inability to look after myself… my friends have to remind me to shower and change my clothes. I do not regularly brush my teeth and have developed cavities… I am unable to tidy and clean my apartment and often accumulate garbage bags and dirty dishes. As a result, I now have cockroaches in my house. I often have clothes lying everywhere";
(iv) at page 6 of the MAC Dr Baker stated that: "The facts on which I have based my assessment of whole person impairment are the history I obtained from the applicant, the documentation provided with the referral and the mental state examination I conducted during this assessment". These are not facts. These are sources of facts;
(v) it is not clear which of these sources (if any) Dr Baker relied upon to arrive at his assumptions that the worker cooks meals for himself, did not receive prompting to maintain his personal hygiene or self care or that he managed his living space without assistance. This is because Dr Baker has failed to identify any source for those assumptions. If the source was the history obtained from the worker during the examination (which the worker denies), it was incumbent upon Dr Baker to put the documentary inconsistencies to the worker, or to at least acknowledge the inconsistences between the worker's presentation on examination and the history as repeatedly recorded in the documents, and give those inconsistencies consideration;
(vi) at page 5 of the MAC, Dr Baker observed that “Mr Rahmani’s presentation was consistent with his diagnosed condition”. There is no suggestion by
Dr Baker that the worker's presentation or the history which the worker gave during the examination was inconsistent with that observed by
Dr Chow or Dr Bisht, or that recorded in the worker's written statement, and
(vii) despite reproducing portions of the reports of Dr Chow and Dr Bisht and the worker's written statement, Dr Baker fails to refer to the parts of those documents which contradict his assessment as to self-care and personal hygiene and he gives no reason for any difference.
On one view of the evidence Mr Rahmani’s level of self-care is clearly poor, and some features of his presentation to the Medical Assessor as regards this PIRS category may be consistent with a Class 3.
However, having said that, one key difference between a Class 2 and 3 is whether the person can live independently without regular support.
In our view, Mr Rahmani has shown that he can live independently, albeit with some difficulty, and returned to Australia away from where he may have received support if he was so dependent. The Medical Assessor reported that he said, for example, that he “had lived both alone and in a communal flat… He managed his own personal living space without assistance.”
Chapter 1.6 of the Guidelines provides: “Assessing permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of assessment…” (our emphasis)

We are required to determine if the Medical Assessor made an error, regardless of other “reasonable minds” that may differ.
In addition, as the respondent points out:
“It is not open to the appellant to complain about facts recorded by the MA, which are presumed to have been correct. Alleged errors in the history taken by the MA are not a proper basis for an appeal and do not found an incorrect criteria or demonstrable error. (Lukasevic v Coates Hire Operations PtyLimited [2011] NSWCA 112; Petrovic v BC Serv No 14 Pty Limited and Ors [2007] NSWSC.)”
It is perhaps timely at this point to set out the task of an Appeal panel as stated in Ferguson v Stateof New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887 where Campbell J said:
“[23] By reference to NSW Police Force v Daniel Wark [2012] NSWWCCMA 36, the Appeal Panel directed itself that in questions of classification under the PIRS: ‘... the pre-eminence of the clinical observations cannot be underrated. The judgment as to the significance or otherwise of the matters raised in the consultation is very much a matter for assessment by the clinician with the responsibility of conducting his/her enquiries with the applicant face to face’ (our emphasis).
[24] The Appeal Panel accepted that intervention was only justified: if the categorisation was glaringly improbable; if it could be demonstrated that the AMS was unaware of significant factual matters; if a clear misunderstanding could be demonstrated; or if an unsupportable reasoning process could be made out. I understood that all of these matters were regarded by the Appeal Panel as interpretations of the statutory grounds of applying incorrect criteria or demonstrable error. One takes from this that the Appeal Panel understood that more than a mere difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ is required to establish error in the statutory sense.
[25] The Appeal Panel also, with respect, correctly recorded that in accordance with Chapter 11.12 of the Guides ‘the assessment is to be made upon the behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder, and that each category within the PIRS evaluates a particular area of functional impairment’…
[37] The descriptors, or examples, describing each class of impairment in the various categories are ‘examples only’…”
In this case, the Medical Assessor clearly noted that Mr Rahmani was able to live independently without regular support, cook and undertake other self-care tasks.
For these reasons, we do not consider that the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment in this category. His assessment was open to him on all of the evidence.
Turning now to the category of Social functioning, the Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 and said:
“Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in social functioning. His relationships with his flatmates was strained. Mr Rahmani was able to remain in communication with his family of origin who all lived in France.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 reads:
“Mild impairment: Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.”
For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children.”
The appellant submits as follows:
(a)   Dr Baker observed that the worker has developed the following behavioural consequences as a result of his injury, but then did not rely on them for the purposes of his assessment of this PIRS category:
•angry outbursts directed towards himself and others in close vicinity;
• increased anxiety in the presence of both his flat mates and community;
• estrangement from his past friendship circle… He had lost all his friendship circle since the onset of this injury;
• loss of libido with loss of interest in socialising, and
• loss of interest in family celebrations.
(b)   Furthermore, Dr Baker did not give any or any apparent regard to the significant strain on the worker's family relationships, including as reported in paragraph 27 of the worker's written statement dated 29 March 2022, which states that: "…our family dynamics have been greatly impacted by my injuries. For example, my mother has commented that caring for me is like caring for a homeless person due to my lack of hygiene and inability to look after myself. I often become distressed or agitated and take it out on them. I feel compromised in my private life as I cannot enjoy simple things like eating dinner with my family at the table."
(c)    In evaluating the degree of impairment to the worker's social functioning, it was incumbent on Dr Baker to:
• assesses the worker's social functioning separately (as required by paragraph 11.15 of the Guidelines);
• identify the behavioural consequences which he has taken into account for the purposes of that assessment;
• consider the extent to which the worker's family relationships, friendships and relationships with his flatmates have been affected, and
• provide a comparison of the key findings of his evaluation with the impairment criteria in Table 11.4 of the Guidelines.
(d)   Dr Baker has failed to give regard to the loss of the worker's friendship circle and the severity of the strain on the worker's family relationships, including as evidenced by his angry outbursts. Had Dr Baker properly engaged with the impairment criteria in Table 11.4 of the Guidelines, it would or should have been apparent to him that the degree of impairment to the worker's social functioning was at least moderate.
We repeat the comments made earlier as regards Chapter 1.6 of the Guidelines which provides: “Assessing permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of assessment…”
We are required to determine if the Medical Assessor made an error, regardless of other “reasonable minds” that may differ.
The appellant has emphasised the behavioural consequences of the injury to justify a Class 3 rating, but that is not the only feature to consider as regards this category.
We note that the appellant told the Medical Assessor that he was the only member of his family living in Australia which does not sit comfortably with his statement that he had lost interest in family gatherings.
Whilst the descriptors for a Class 3 do not really fit Mr Rahmani’s particular circumstances, as we said earlier, they are merely descriptors. A Class 3 suggests a person with significant difficulties where violence may be present and others are required to take responsibility for children.
Overall, in our view, it was open to the Medical Assessor to find a Class 2 in this category, and we do not agree that he erred.
Turning now to the category of social and recreational activities, the Medical Assessor assessed a Class 2 and said:
“Mr Rahmani suffered mild impairment in his social and recreational activities. He had lost all his friendship circle since the onset of this injury. He no longer participated in his sport of long distance running. He no longer held a gym membership and did not attend any gym as he had prior to the injury. He isolated himself from his flat mates and did not share television programs or movies. Mr Rahmani had stopped attending clubs as he had lost interest in this activity.”
The descriptor for a Class 2 reads:
“Mild impairment: Occasionally goes to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg dancing, cheering favourite team).”
For a Class 3 it reads:
“Moderate impairment: Rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by family or close friend. Will not go out without a support person. Not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn.”
The appellant submits as follows:
(a)    Dr Baker made the following findings (the panel have identified those specific to this category) upon which he based his assessment of the impairment to the worker's social and recreational activities:
•the worker has lost all his friendship circle since his injury;
•the worker no longer participates in his sport of long-distance running;
•the worker no longer holds a gym membership and does not attend any gym as he had prior to the injury;
•the worker no longer shares television programs or movies with his flatmates, and
•the worker no longer attends any clubs, as he has lost interest in this activity.
(b)    No countervailing findings are made for this PIRS category which would mitigate or temper the severity of these behavioural consequences.
(c)    It is readily apparent when one examines Dr Baker's findings for this PIRS category against the descriptors within Table 11.2 of the Guidelines that his findings do not support the assessment of a 'mild' degree of impairment.
In this instance, we agree with the appellant.
The findings made by the Medical Assessor almost exactly replicate the descriptor for a Class 3 rating.
We do not accept the respondent’s submission that because the appellant was: “able to travel to and from France independently since the date of injury, care for his own medical needs, attend to his own food and hygiene, and leave home unaccompanied in order to obtain food or medical support” was consistent with a mild impairment. These activities do not constitute “social and recreational activities”.
This then means that the aggregate score is as follows: 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, = 16. Median 3 – 17% WPI.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 18 May 2023 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

APPEAL PANEL

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W1161/23
Applicant:	Mohamed Rahmani
Respondent:	Velocity Frequent Flyer Pty Ltd

This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998.

The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor John Baker and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:

Table - whole person impairment (WPI)

Body Part or system	Date of Injury	Chapter, page and paragraph number in WorkCover Guides	Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides	% WPI	Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition	Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)
1.Psychiatric disorder	26 September2019	Chapter 11, page 54	Chapter 14, pg 361-365	17	0	17
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					17%

The above assessment is made in accordance with the SIRA NSW Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002.

[2023] NSWPICMP 447

13 September 2023