Rheem Australia Pty Ltd v Erbil

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Rheem Australia Pty Ltd v Erbil [2025] NSWPICMP 356
APPELLANT:	Rheem Australia Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Huseyin Erbil
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Tommasino Mastroianni
DATE OF DECISION:	22 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether demonstrable error or incorrect application of criteria arising from failure to consider previous injury to the lumbar spine and appellant’s independent expert’s reports in making an assessment for the purposes of section 323; Held – demonstrable error found owing to Medical Assessor’s failure to confine himself to the terms of the medical dispute referred for assessment and in failing to demonstrate that he had regard to relevant expert reports; one-tenth deduction for previous injury applied; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 2 December 2024, Rheem Australia Pty Ltd (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Robert Kuru, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 26 September 2024.
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 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 Huseyin Erbil (the respondent) filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 8 February 2024 seeking lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of an injury to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, thoracic spine and feet. The injury was identified in the Form 2 as a “personal injury” with a date of injury of 22 January 2020. The injury was described as:
“The [Applicant] sustained injury to his lower back and feet as a result of the repetitive manual labour inherent in his role, aggravated upon moving heavy objects. Whilst performing ‘suitable duties’ as a result of the back injury, the applicant suffered the onset of pain in the upper back and neck.”
Amongst the materials attached to the Application to Resolve a Dispute was a written statement dated 19 May 2022 in which the respondent described an accident at work on
16 March 2016 when he was rolling a heavy metal cylinder weighing around 80kg and it fell onto him. In the process of pushing the metal cylinder away from his face, the respondent sustained an injury to his lower back.
The respondent underwent CT scans of his lumbar spine and was treated with Voltaren and physiotherapy. The respondent returned to work and was provided with suitable duties. Whilst this was initially helpful, over time, the requirements of standing and walking became more difficult. The respondent recalled feeling back pain, pain in his right foot, limping and numbness in his left leg.
The respondent was later moved into a different role, however, this required him to bend over multiple times, which the respondent said aggravated his back. After only a couple of days of this work, the respondent’s back and right foot were in serious pain, causing him to limp.
By early 2021, the respondent’s spinal pain was so severe that he could not go to work at all. The respondent underwent an MRI scan which revealed an injury to his neck.
Following separate proceedings in the Commission, the respondent underwent a C5-7 anterior cervical decompression and fusion.
The respondent’s claim for lump sum compensation relied upon an assessment made by
Dr Charles New, dated 4 September 2023. In that report, Dr New took a history of the accident on 16 March 2016 and the development of cervical spine pain in about 2021 in the context of using a press machine.
Dr New made an assessment of the degree of permanent impairment at the lumbar spine, cervical spine and skin, without specifically articulating a date of injury.
The appellant filed a Reply to the Application to Resolve a Dispute in which it was noted that there were different / separate mechanisms of injury with regard to the lumbar spine and the cervical spine and that they should not be aggregated for the assessment of permanent impairment.
The appellant’s position was reflected in a dispute notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act dated 14 February 2024. In that notice, the insurer noted that an injury to the respondent’s lumbar spine on 15 March 2016 had been accepted under Claim number 992602222045033. On 31 January 2020, a separate claim was lodged with a deemed date of injury of “22 January 2020” noting that due to prolonged standing, repetitive lifting and operating machinery at work the respondent had sustained a bilateral feet and lumbar spine strain. A diagnosis of cervical spine degeneration was added to that claim by the respondent’s nominated treating doctor on 9 July 2021.
The dispute notice indicated that the claim for lump sum compensation had been referred to Dr Robin Diebold for independent medical examination. In a report dated 14 November 2023, Dr Diebold noted the acute injury to the lumbar spine in March 2016. He considered the cervical spine condition was caused by the nature and conditions of the respondent’s work duties with a deemed date of injury of 22 January 2020. The dispute notice stated:
“Both Dr Diebold and Dr New agree you originally sustained a lumbar spine injury on 15/03/2016. This is considered a frank injury and cannot be combined with your claim for injury due to the Nature and Conditions of your employment. Therefore, any assessment for Whole Person Impairment needs to be assessed separately.”
The insurer noted that Dr Diebold had made an assessment of 9% WPI of the lumbar spine resulting from the frank injury on 15 March 2016 which was below the 10% threshold required by s 66(1) of the 1987 Act. An offer was made to resolve the dispute with regard to the 22 January 2020 date of injury based on Dr Diebold’s assessment of 15% WPI at the cervical spine, right lower extremity and skin (scarring).
Following the commencement of the current Commission proceedings, the appellant filed an Application to Admit Late Documents attaching a supplementary report from Dr Diebold, dated 5 March 2024. In that report, it was noted that Dr Diebold had previously combined his assessment of the frank injury to the lumbar spine with the nature and conditions claim.
Dr Diebold was asked to amend this assessment if he agreed that the impairment should be separated. Dr Diebold agreed and provided separate assessments for the injury on
15 March 2016 to the lumbar spine and an injury with a deemed date of 22 January 2020 to the cervical spine, right lower extremity and skin.
The respondent also relied on late documents including a supplementary statement made by the respondent on 7 March 2024 and a supplementary report from Dr New dated
11 March 2024. In his supplementary statement, the respondent said that following the injury on 16 March 2016 he returned to work. The respondent started to experience back pain again as well as pain in the right foot and numbness in his left leg. The respondent stated:
“These symptoms were different to those I experienced in March 2016. I had not had numbness and I did not have any issues walking previously. It was just back pain. This injury however in January 2020 caused me significant pain. The level of pain was intense. Coupled with the numbness and the fact I couldn't move my leg properly; I had to go and see my doctor urgently.
As a result, I lodged a separate claim with the deemed date of injury being 22 January 2020 which is currently the claim I am being compensated under. In addition to the lower back, injuries to my right foot and cervical spine are also accepted under this claim.”
In Dr New’s supplementary report, he noted that the original injury was 16 March 2016. A separate claim with a deemed date of injury of 22 January 2020 had been lodged. Dr New amended his assessment to include 11% WPI of the lumbar spine attributable to the
22 January 2020 injury with a 10% deduction as a result of the previous injury.
On 5 April 2024, Commission Member Kathryn Camp issued a Certificate of Determination – Consent Orders remitting the matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor. The date of injury referred was “22 January 2020 (deemed) - disease”. All of the documents attached to the Application to Resolve a Dispute and Reply together with the late documents filed by both parties were to be referred to the Medical Assessor. The Certificate of Determination included a notation as follows:
“The Medical Assessor is to note and consider, for the purposes of section 323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, the previous frank injury to the lumbar spine on 15 March 2016.”

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 the Appeal Panel had before it sufficient information on which to resolve the appeal.

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.

Medical Assessment Certificate

The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.
In the MAC, the Medical Assessor took a history of injury to the respondent’s lower back while moving and 80kg metal cylinder in March 2016. The Medical Assessor then recorded a history of the respondent developing pain in his neck radiating down his shoulders and arms to the middle finger whilst operating a machine on light duties, following which the respondent proceeded to surgery. The Medical Assessor summarised the injuries as follows:
“Mr Erbil sustained an injury to his lower back manipulating a heavy metal cylinder at work. Whilst on restricted duties, he developed pain in his neck radiating into his arms with imaging demonstrating underlying degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine.”
The Medical Assessor made an assessment of 5% WPI of the lumbar spine and 28% WPI of the cervical spine. The scarring was assessed at 0% WPI.
Under the heading, “Deduction (if any) for the Proportion of the Impairment that is due to Previous Injury or Pre-Existing Condition or Abnormality”, the Medical Assessor identified cervical spondylosis as the only pre-existing condition or abnormality. The Medical Assessor said that imaging of the neck demonstrated a constitutional condition at the cervical spine. In the absence of the pre-existing condition there would be limited, if any, impairment assessable for the cervical spine. A one third deduction for pre-existing condition or abnormality at the cervical spine was made pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.
No deduction was made in respect of the lumbar spine for the purposes of s 323 of the 1998 Act. The assessments at the lumbar spine and cervical spine were combined to form a total assessment of 23% WPI.

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 by failing to address a pre-existing injury to the lumbar spine for the purposes of s 323 of the 1998 Act.
The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor failed to have regard to the notation recorded in the Certificate of Determination issued by Member Camp on 5 April 2024 referring to a previous frank injury to the lumbar spine on 15 March 2016 as well as relevant evidence including, the reports of the appellant’s expert Dr Diebold, dated
14 November 2023 and 5 March 2024.
The appellant noted that the only history in relation to the lumbar spine recorded by the Medical Assessor related to the frank injury in March 2016. There was no history recorded of the condition at the lumbar spine being aggravated due to the nature and conditions of the respondent’s employment. The Medical Assessor thus appeared to attribute all of the impairment at the lumbar spine to the frank incident rather than the injury due to the nature and conditions of the respondent’s employment. This was said to be consistent with the approach taken by the respondent’s expert, Dr Diebold.
The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor erred in failing to make a deduction under s 323 or alternatively in failing to give proper reasons as to why he did not make such a deduction. Alternatively, the assessment was based upon incorrect criteria.
The appellant did not otherwise take issue with the assessments of permanent impairment.
In opposing the appeal, the respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was entitled to proceed on the basis that the incident in March 2016 formed part of the injury he was required to assess. There was no evidence that the respondent had lumbar symptoms prior to the commencement of his employment by the appellant. The Medical Assessor's finding that the impairment at the lumbar spine was in no degree the result of a pre-existing injury or condition was one he was entitled to reach on the material before him.
The respondent submitted that Dr Diebold’s own evidence was that the events in March 2016 consisted in the aggravation of a disease. Nowhere did Dr Diebold suggest the event had caused fresh, discreet pathology.

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 Appeal Panel agrees that the Medical Assessment Certificate is affected by demonstrable error owing to the Medical Assessor’s failure to confine himself to the terms of the medical dispute referred for assessment and in failing demonstrate that he had regard to reports of Dr Diebold.
Although it is apparent that Dr New initially combined an assessment of impairment resulting from the event on 15 March 2016 with the impairment resulting from the injury due to the nature and conditions of the respondent’s employment, the materials exchanged between the parties and before the Medical Assessor made clear that the parties ultimately accepted that there were in fact two separate injuries caused by different mechanisms.
The event on 15 March 2016 involved an acute or “frank” personal injury to the respondent’s lumbar spine. Following his return to work, the nature and conditions of the respondent’s employment caused a second injury in the nature of an aggravation of a disease of gradual process to the respondent’s lumbar spine and cervical spine. Pursuant to s 16 of the 1987 Act a “deemed” date of injury, being 22 January 2020 applied to the second injury.
The dispute referred to the Medical Assessor only concerned the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury deemed to have occurred on 22 January 2020. This is apparent from the Consent Orders and was also consistent with Dr New’s amended assessment.
While not binding on the Medical Assessor, the Consent Orders noted, consistently with the nature of the medical dispute, that the Medical Assessor ought to have regard to the
15 March 2016 injury for the purposes of considering whether there should be a deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act. Dr New had made a 1/10 deduction for the 2016 injury in his amended assessment. Dr Diebold had considered that all of the impairment at the respondent’s lumbar spine resulted from the 2016 injury and made a 100% deduction.
Although the Medical Assessment Certificate correctly noted the date of the injury to be assessed as 22 January 2020 (deemed), the history recorded in respect of the lumbar spine related only to the 2016 injury. The Medical Assessment Certificate failed to record any history of the injury to the lumbar spine in the nature of an aggravation caused by the nature and conditions of the respondent’s heavy and repetitive work, which was the injury the Medical Assessor was tasked with assessing.
A failure to have regard to the injury to the respondent’s lumbar spine caused by the nature and conditions of the respondent’s employment is also suggested by the Medical Assessor’s approach to s 323 of the 1998 Act. Had the Medical Assessor correctly assessed the injury deemed to have occurred on 22 January 2020, he was obliged in the circumstances of this case to consider whether any part of the impairment was caused by the accepted earlier injury to the lumbar spine on 15 March 2016. The MAC was silent in this regard.
The Medical Assessment Certificate was also silent with regard to the assessments of
Dr Diebold which were relevant to the Medical Assessor’s task.
In the circumstances, the Appeal Panel is satisfied that the Medical Assessment Certificate is affected by demonstrable error in the nature of a failure to have regard to a relevant consideration or evidence.
Having found error, the Appeal Panel has considered for itself the degree of permanent impairment at the respondent’s lumbar spine resulting from the injury deemed to have occurred on 22 January 2020.
The Appeal Panel notes that the respondent underwent a CT scan of the lumbosacral spine and X-ray of the lumbosacral spine following the first injury on 16 March 2016. At L4/5 and L5/S1 the report of the CT scan recorded:
“There is preservation of disc height. Mild to moderate end-plate sclerosis is present. Small generalised disc bulges coupled with mild ligamentum flavum hypertrophy produce some narrowing of the neural foramina although the nerve roots exit normally. The facet joints appear normal. The spinous and transverse processes appear normal.”
The X-ray was reported to show degenerative endplate changes but no other abnormality of note.
An MRI of the lumbar spine performed on 14 March 2020 was reported to show minor multilevel degenerative changes without any frank nerve root impingement at any level. There was a small posterocentral protrusion causing ventral thecal sac indentation and borderline abutment of the traversing S1 nerve root at L5/S1.

Neurosurgeon, Dr Peter Khong noted in a report dated 22 April 2020 that the respondent was experiencing intermittent back pain with radiation down both legs. Dr Khong recorded that the respondent originally sustained a lifting/twisting injury in 2016 but had re-aggravated this multiple times whilst working.
The respondent was seen by Dr Bhisham Singh on 7 July 2020. Dr Singh noted the injury in March 2016 but expressed the opinion that 20 years of working in the manufacturing of hot water cylinders was responsible for the respondent’s current condition. Dr Singh said clinical examination was positive for extension catch, limitation of forward movement and positive for nerve root tension signs in both legs. There was decreased sensation in the right L5 and S1 dermatomes. Dr Singh expressed the view that the respondent’s symptoms were due to dynamic instability and not adequately evident on MRI.
On 9 September 2020, Dr Singh reported that an injection at L4/5 had given the respondent some relief. On 27 October 2020, Dr Singh reported that the respondent’s standing and sitting tolerances had worsened and he had leg pain. The respondent was referred for further imaging.
A whole-body bone/SPECT and CT scan was performed on 14 December 2020 and was reported to show:
“SPECT/CT images of lumbosacral spine demonstrates loss of lumbar lordosis, consistent with muscular spasm in lumbar spine. There is mildly active anterior marginal osteophytic formation at superior endplate of L4 vertebra. Low dose CT demonstrate mild posterior disc bulge at L4/L5 and L5/S1 intervertebral level. Other disc levels appear unremarkable on SPECT/CT views. There is minimally active facet arthritis at L4/L5 and L5/S1 facet joints bilaterally with corresponding low dose CT mild facet joint changes at L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels. Other facet joints appear unremarkable on SPECT/CT views.”
On 5 January 2021, Dr Singh referred the respondent to pain specialist, Dr Alistair Ramachandran with respect to his lower back pain.
The respondent was seen by another neurosurgeon A/Prof Ali Ghahreman on
1 September 2021. A/Prof Ghahreman noted that on examination straight leg raise was not limited. Power and reflexes were normal in the lower limbs. The radiological evidence showed some spondylosis, in particular at L5/S1, and some mild non-compressive left L5/S1 foraminal stenosis. Some discovertebral desiccation with mild foraminal stenosis was seen at L4/5 and L3/4. A/Prof Ghahreman did not recommend surgery as there was no clear operative target for the respondent’s pain in the lumbar region.
The respondent underwent a further X-ray and MRI of the lumbar spine on 20 May 2022. This was reported to show mild disc bulging/protrusion facet joint arthropathy without significant neural impingement.
The respondent underwent nerve conduction studies on 19 August 2022 which were reported to show neurophysiological evidence of mild left L5 radiculopathy.
A further MRI of the lumbosacral spine performed on 31 March 2023 was reported to show multilevel spondylitic change perhaps causing a minor degree of central bunching of nerve roots at L3/4. There was said to be no definitive neural impingement.
The Appeal Panel notes that neither party has submitted that there was any error involved in the Medical Assessor’s determination that the respondent’s lumbar spine fell into DRE Lumbar Category II on the basis of a reduced range of motion with dysmetria. The Medical Assessor noted that his assessment differed from the assessment of Dr New, who found evidence of radiculopathy and assessed the lumbar spine as DRE Lumbar Category III. The Medical Assessor said there was no evidence of radiculopathy at the time of his assessment. The Medical Assessor said the imaging findings also did not support a diagnosis of radiculopathy.
It should be noted that Dr Diebold also found evidence of radiculopathy at the time of his assessment. Dr Diebold said there was radiculopathy on the basis of a L5 dermatomal deficit and abnormality or nerve conduction studies. Dr Diebold also assessed the lumbar spine as falling within DRE Lumbar Category III.
Having considered the radiological and other medical evidence for itself, the Appeal Panel is not satisfied there is any error in the Medical Assessor’s determination that the respondent’s lumbar spine fell into DRE Lumbar Category II on the day of his assessment.
The sole issue remaining is the appropriate deduction, if any, for the 15 March 2016 injury.
Section 323 of the 1998 Act provides:
“323 Deduction for previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality
(1) In assessing the degree of permanent impairment resulting from an injury, there is to be a deduction for any proportion of the impairment that is due to any previous injury (whether or not it is an injury for which compensation has been paid or is payable under Division 4 of Part 3 of the 1987 Act) or that is due to any pre-existing condition or abnormality.
(2) If the extent of a deduction under this section (or a part of it) will be difficult or costly to determine (because, for example, of the absence of medical evidence), it is to be assumed (for the purpose of avoiding disputation) that the deduction (or the relevant part of it) is 10% of the impairment, unless this assumption is at odds with the available evidence.
Note—
So if the degree of permanent impairment is assessed as 30% and subsection (2) operates to require a 10% reduction in that impairment to be assumed, the degree of permanent impairment is reduced from 30% to 27% (a reduction of 10%).”
The approach to be taken in assessing the s 323 deduction was considered by the Supreme Court in Cole v Wenaline[1] where Schmidt J said:
“The section is directed to a situation where there is a pre-existing injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality. For a deduction to be made from what has been assessed to have been the level of impairment which resulted from the later injury in question, a conclusion is required, on the evidence, that the pre-existing injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality caused or contributed to that impairment.
Section 323 does not permit that assessment to be made on the basis of an assumption or hypothesis, that once a particular injury has occurred, it will always, ‘irrespective of outcome’, contribute to the impairment flowing from any subsequent injury. The assessment must have regard to the evidence as to the actual consequences of the earlier injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality. The extent that the later impairment was due to the earlier injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality must be determined. The only exception is that provided for in s 323(2), where the required deduction ‘will be difficult or costly to determine (because, for example, of the absence of medical evidence)’. In that case, an assumption is provided for, namely that the deduction ‘is 10% of the impairment'. Even then, that assumption is displaced, if it is at odds with the available evidence.
... as was discussed in the authorities, an earlier injury which was asymptomatic, may or may not contribute to the impairment which results from a second injury. That is a matter of fact to be assessed on the evidence led in each case.
…What must be determined on the evidence is whether any proportion of the permanent impairment present after the second injury was due to the earlier injury.”
[1] (2010) NSWSC 78.
In Elcheikh v Diamond Formwork (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq),[2] her Honour confirmed:
“As discussed in Cole v Wenaline Pty Limited at [30], in the case of a workplace injury caused by an exacerbation or acceleration of a pre-existing condition, what must be determined by a medical specialist under s 323 is:
•       Firstly, what the extent of the resulting impairment is.
•       Secondly, whether the pre-existing condition contributed to the impairment.
•       Thirdly, if it did, what proportion of the impairment was due to the pre-existing condition.”
[2] [2013] NSWSC 365.
The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the injury on 15 March 2016 contributed to the impairment at the respondent’s lumbar spine. There was an acute onset of back pain and the CT scan performed on 16 March 2016 shortly after the injury showed minor degenerative changes. The respondent’s symptoms improved with Voltaren and physiotherapy sufficiently to allow a return to work on suitable duties, although the respondent never returned to his pre-injury duties
The respondent’s evidence was that his condition deteriorated following his return to work with an onset of new and more debilitating symptoms including leg and foot symptoms such as pain and numbness. The MRIs dated 14 March 2020 and 20 May 2022 also show a progression of the spondylosis and disc disease at the respondent’s lumbar spine.
The Appeal Panel considers that the extent of a deduction under s 323 is difficult to determine. In the Appeal Panel’s view, a 1/10^th deduction is not at odds with the available evidence and should be applied consistently with s 323(2) of the 1998 Act.
Taking the Medical Assessor’s assessment of 5% WPI for the lumbar spine, a 1/10^th deduction is 0.5% WPI. This leaves 4.5% WPI (5 - 0.5) which rounds off to 5% WPI.
The Medical Assessor’s assessments of the cervical spine and scarring/ TEMSKI are undisturbed.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
5 November 2024 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION

APPEAL PANEL

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W1041/24
Applicant:	Huseyin Erbil
Respondent:	Rheem Australia 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 Robert Kuru 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 NSW workers compensation guidelines	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)
Cervical spine	22/1/2020 (deemed)	P 27 p 4.27 P 28 p 4.34 P 29 p 4.37 P 29 p 4.2	28	1/3	19
Lumbar spine	22/1/2020 (deemed)	P 384 T 15-3	5	1/10	5
Scarring (TEMSKI)	22/1/2020 (deemed)	P 74 T 14.1	0	0	0
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					23%

[2025] NSWPICMP 356

22 May 2025