Ramlu v Regal Health Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 730

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Ramlu v Regal Health Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 730
APPELLANT:	Shaleena Ramlu
RESPONDENT:	Regal Health Pty Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Chris Oates
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
DATE OF DECISION:	22 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal by claimant against lumbar DRE I assessment; whether asymmetric range of motion shown; whether failure to record investigations an error; Held – claimant relied on misapprehension as to the methodology of measuring range of motion in lumbar spine; Table 15.3 of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5) considered and reproduced; claimant relied on incorrect expert opinion; Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak considered and applied; failure to record investigations in MAC inconsequential; MAC revoked to correct obvious mathematical error.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 7 April 2025 the appellant Shaleena Ramlu lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Rob Kuru, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 10 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
· 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). “WPI” is reference to whole person impairment. “Baseline WPI” is a reference to the total WPI assessed before deduction for the effect of pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 24 January 2025 this matter was referred for a WPI assessment of injuries to the left lower extremity (knee) and lumbar spine (consequential condition) which occurred on
17 August 2020.
Ms Ramlu was employed as an Age and Disability Support Worker and on the date of injury she fell whilst opening a gate above some stairs, striking her knee…

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 Ramlu v Regal Health Pty 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 730
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ramlu v Regal Health Pty Ltd, the claimant sought to appeal a decision regarding a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The claimant argued that there was an asymmetric range of motion in the lumbar spine that was not recorded, and that the failure to record investigations in the MAC was an error. The dispute centred on the accuracy and completeness of the MAC, which was issued following an assessment of the claimant’s lumbar spine.

The court was tasked with determining whether the claimant's reliance on the methodology of measuring range of motion in the lumbar spine was correct and whether the failure to record investigations in the MAC was a material error. This involved an analysis of the evidence provided by the claimant, including expert opinions and the application of relevant guidelines, such as Table 15.3 from the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition (AMA 5). The court also considered whether the claimant had a misapprehension about the assessment process and whether this influenced the outcome of the MAC.

The court found that the claimant's appeal was based on a misapprehension regarding the methodology for measuring range of motion in the lumbar spine. It was determined that the claimant had relied on incorrect expert opinion, and that the failure to record investigations was inconsequential. The court applied principles from the case of Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak to support its decision. Additionally, the MAC contained an obvious mathematical error, which led to the revocation of the certificate to correct this error. The claimant's reliance on a misapprehension and incorrect expert opinion rendered the appeal unsuccessful.

The court's final order was to revoke the MAC to correct the mathematical error, and to dismiss the claimant's appeal. The claimant's arguments regarding the range of motion and the failure to record investigations were not upheld, and the court found that the claimant's reliance on incorrect expert opinion was a significant factor in the outcome. This decision highlights the importance of accurate and complete assessments in the context of workers' compensation claims.

Orders