Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd v Price - [2025] NSWPICMP 447

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd v Price [2025] NSWPICMP 447
APPELLANT:	Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Price
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Dr Henley Harrison
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Dr Thandayan Raj
DATE OF DECISION:	24 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); Medical Assessor (MA) assessed 12% whole person impairment (WPI) for hearing loss with no deduction under section 232; Held – history obtained was not an amendment of applicant’s statement; grounds of appeal not established; MAC confirmed.

WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE APPEAL PANEL IN RELATION TO A MEDICAL DISPUTE

Matter number:	M1-W29012/24
Appellant:	Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd
Respondent:	Stephen James Price
Date of decision:	24 June 2025
Appeal Panel:
Member:	Carolyn Rimmer
Medical Assessor:	Henley Harrison
Medical Assessor:	Thandavan Raj

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 31 March 2025 Rivalea (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 Payten, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
4 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).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr Price suffered an injury, namely, a bilateral sensorineural loss of hearing resulting from exposure to loud noise in his employment with the appellant deemed to have occurred on
27 November 2015.
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 21 November 2024 in which he claimed lump sum compensation in respect of the hearing loss.
A teleconference was held on 11 February 2025 in which Member Kathryn Camp, made orders by consent, including:
"3. By 11 February 2025, by consent, the applicant is to lodge and serve an
amended…

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 Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd v Price 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 447
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd and Price, the insured party. Price claimed compensation for hearing loss sustained in the course of employment. The dispute centred on the validity and assessment of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by a Medical Assessor (MA). The MA had assessed Price's hearing loss at 12% whole person impairment (WPI), with no deduction under section 232. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was required to determine whether the grounds for appeal against the MAC were valid.

The central legal issue was whether the history obtained by the MA constituted an amendment of Price's statement, which would have rendered the MAC invalid. The court had to examine the provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to determine the validity of the MAC. The court also needed to consider whether the grounds of appeal established by Price were sufficient to warrant a review of the MAC.

The court held that the history obtained by the MA did not amount to an amendment of Price's statement, and therefore, the MAC remained valid. The court found that the history obtained was part of the process to understand the nature and extent of Price's injury, rather than an alteration of the statement. As such, the grounds of appeal were not established, and the MAC was confirmed. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the MAC confirming a 12% WPI for Price's hearing loss remained in effect. The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was to bear the costs of the appeal.

Orders