Ram v National Workforce Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 373

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Ram v National Workforce Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 373
APPELLANT:	Uttra Ram
RESPONDENT:	National Workforce Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Tommasino Mastroianni
DATE OF DECISION:	28 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); Medical Assessor (MA) assessed 0% whole person impairment (WPI) of the cervical spine and 7% WPI of the left upper extremity; applicant appealed assessment of the left upper extremity on the basis that the Medical Assessor (MA) relied on adopted findings that were obtained in an examination under anesthesia nine years prior without an adequate explanation; Appeal Panel satisfied that the MA made a demonstrable error; worker re-examined in a joint re-examination and assessed as having 2% WPI of the left upper extremity; Held – MAC revoked and new certificate issued.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 6 February 2025 Uttra Ram (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Rob Kuru (Medical Assessor), who issued Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 9 January 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, 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

The appellant suffered an injury on 27 March 2012 to her cervical spine and left upper extremity in her employment as a process worker with National Workforce Pty Ltd (the respondent) when she was attempting to clear a machine.
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 injury to her cervical spine and left upper extremity.
In a Certificate of Determination – Consent Orders dated 21 October 2024, Member Gaius Whiffin made orders including the following:

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 Ram v National Workforce Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ram v National Workforce Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 373
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 373
Decision Date: 28 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Ram, sought review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The certificate, produced by the Medical Assessor (MA), attributed 0% whole person impairment (WPI) to the cervical spine and 7% WPI to the left upper extremity. The applicant contested the assessment of the left upper extremity, arguing that the MA had unjustifiably relied on findings from an examination under anesthesia conducted nine years prior without providing an adequate explanation for doing so. This dispute came before the court for resolution.

The legal issues before the court were whether the MA had erred in their assessment and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the MA's reliance on outdated findings constituted a demonstrable error and if the MAC should be revoked in light of the new evidence.

The court found that the MA had indeed made a demonstrable error by relying on the outdated examination under anesthesia without providing adequate justification. This error was significant enough to warrant a review of the MAC. Following a joint re-examination, the applicant was assessed with a 2% WPI of the left upper extremity, leading the Appeal Panel to revoke the original MAC and issue a new certificate reflecting the updated assessment. This decision was based on the principle that the MA must provide a reasoned basis for their findings, and where such reasoning is lacking, the assessment may be flawed.

The final orders of the court were to revoke the original MAC and issue a new certificate attributing 2% WPI to the left upper extremity. The court emphasised the importance of the MA providing adequate justification for their findings to avoid future disputes and ensure accurate assessments.

Orders