Russo v Quality Air Equipment Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 372

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Russo v Quality Air Equipment Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 372
APPELLANT:	Luigi Russo
RESPONDENT:	Quality Air Equipment Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Andrew Porteous
DATE OF DECISION:	27 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in making a 100% deduction for a previous/pre-existing injury to the lumbar spine and right hip; Held – Appeal Panel agreed; deduction was inconsistent with the evidence and other deductions he made; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 3 February 2025 Luigi Russo (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Robin Alexander Mitchell, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
6 January 2025.
The appellant relies on the following ground of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
· 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, we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal for reasons we will set out more fully below.

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 in making a 100% deduction for a previous/pre-existing injury to…

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 Russo v Quality Air Equipment 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 372
Decision Date: 27 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a worker, Mr Russo, who contested the determination of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by Quality Air Equipment Pty Ltd. The MAC had reduced the compensation payable to Mr Russo by 100%, citing a previous injury to his lumbar spine and right hip as a contributing factor. Mr Russo argued that the deduction was erroneous and not supported by the evidence provided, thereby seeking a review of the certificate under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the deduction made by the Medical Assessor was justified and consistent with the evidence. Mr Russo contended that the Assessor had overlooked certain evidence that suggested his previous injury had not contributed significantly to his current condition, thus warranting a lower or no deduction. The company, on the other hand, defended the deduction, asserting that the Assessor's findings were based on a comprehensive review of the medical evidence.

The Appeal Panel examined the evidence and the rationale behind the Medical Assessor's decision. They found that the deduction for the previous injury was inconsistent with other deductions made by the Assessor regarding different conditions and the overall assessment of Mr Russo’s disability. The Panel concluded that the 100% deduction was not supported by the evidence and, therefore, revoked the MAC. The Appeal Panel ordered that the MAC be amended to reflect a more accurate assessment of Mr Russo’s condition.

Orders