Samsung SDS Global SCL Australia Pty Ltd v Prasad
[2025] NSWPICMP 36
•16 January 2025
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Samsung SDS Global SCL Australia Pty Ltd v Prasad [2025] NSWPICMP 36 |
| APPELLANT: | SAMSUNG SDS GLOBAL SCL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
| RESPONDENT: | Sandeep Kumar Prasad |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Jacqueline Snell |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Michael Hong |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | John Lam-Po-Tang |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 16 January 2025 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - The appellant essentially submitted the Medical Assessor (MA) incorrectly assessed the respondent with class 3 moderate impairment with respect to travel and incorrectly made an adjustment of 1% whole person impairment (WPI) for the effects of treatment; the Appeal Panel accepted the MA erred in that he had incorrectly assessed the respondent with class 3 moderate impairment with respect to travel and incorrectly made an adjustment of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 31 October 2024 Samsung SDS Global SCL Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Yu Tang Shen, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 3 October 2024.
Samsung 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, 4th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Sandeep Kumar Prasad (Mr Prasad) made a claim for permanent impairment compensation resulting from psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with Samsung, with date of injury of 21 October 2022. An Application to Resolve a Dispute was lodged with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and a Rely was lodged with the Commission in response. On 9 September 2024 the Commission referred Mr Prasad’s claim to a Medical Assessor.
The Medical Assessor examined Mr Prasad on 30 September 2024 and the MAC in which the Medical Assessor assessed Mr Prasad as having sustained 23% whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from his psychological injury was issued on 3 October 2024.
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.
Neither Samsung nor Mr Prasad requested Mr Prasad undergo a further medical examination and as a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined it was not necessary for Mr Prasad to undergo a further medical examination because while the Appeal Panel is of the view the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment in the Psychiatric Impairment Ratings Scale (PIRS) category of travel and the Medical Assessor erred in his allocation of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment, the Appeal Panel did not consider either of these errors necessitated Mr Prasad undergoing further medical examination.
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.
SUBMISSIONS
Both parties provided written submissions. They are not repeated in full but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, Samsung submits:
(a) the Medical Assessor erred in his determination in the PIRS category of travel, and
(b) the Medical Assessor erred in his allocation of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment.
In reply, Mr Prasad submits:
(a) the Medical Assessor’s determination Mr Prasad’s impairment in the PIRS category of travel was moderate was open to him, within the bounds of his discretion, in accordance with his clinical judgement and consistent with the evidence, and
(b) likewise, the Medical Assessor’s allocation of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment was open to him, within the bounds of his discretion, in accordance with his clinical judgement and consistent with the evidence.
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.
Review of the MAC
The Medical Assessor assessed Mr Prasad on 30 September 2024. The Medical Assessor recorded the date of injury of 21 October 2022. The Medical Assessor provided a brief history of the psychological injury sustained by Mr Prasad arising out of or in the course of his employment with Samsung.
The Medical Assessor relevantly reported of Mr Prasad:
“He saw a psychologist since 2022. He said he has found it of some benefit, with calming himself down and equips him with skills to assist himself, but it is of temporary benefit. His father has to drive him to his psychological appointment.
He has seen a psychiatrist for treatment for one session. He has been on Axit (Mirtazapine) 30mg, which he found of some benefit in helping him sleep, and he doesn’t find it helpful for his mood or anxiety.
With treatment, he said he is unsure if he has improved.
…
He was asked if he had any other relevant information he wished to add, and he said he has been having a difficult time in his life and he wants to get better so he can return to living his life as he had been before, and he cannot look after his son or elderly parents, who now has to drive him to his appointments and shopping. He said he would like to return to being able to do these himself.
-Present treatment:
He is currently on Axit 30mg, Panadol osteo, Nurofen.
He is currently seeing his GP every fortnight or every month.
He is seeing his psychologist every month.
He is no longer seeing his psychiatrist.
There are no further plans for treatment escalation of medication changes.
He is not motivated for further escalation of treatment due to not wanting to be on any medications and finding Axit sedating.”
The Medical Assessor noted Mr Prasad said that prior to sustaining injury “he would drive to shop for groceries on a weekly basis” and “he had no issues with his driving”. The Medical Assessor noted Mr Prasad said since sustaining injury:
“… he rarely goes out alone but will go shopping when his brother comes to pick him up. He said he has not been driving by himself at all. He later said occasionally once every six months, then once every three months he may drive, but he has heightened anxiety in that state and he usually drives himself to the shop, then back home.”
Relevant to his evaluation of the permanent impairment sustained by Mr Prasad resulting from his psychological injury, in response to specific questioning as whether Mr Prasad’s injury had reached maximum medical improvement, the Medical Assessor responded:
“He has had extensive psychological therapy, and on axit 30mg, and not wanting to have further escalation of medication treatment. His symptoms have stabilised, and he is unlikely to improve further, and so he has reached maximum medical improvement.”
The Medical Assessor assessed Mr Prasad with 23% WPI, which relevantly included 1% WPI adjustment for the effects of treatment. Relevant to his inclusion of 1% WPI adjustment for the effects of treatment, the Medical Assessor explained the following reasons for his decision:
“He may have had mild improvement with therapy and medication, so a treatment adjustment of 1% is reasonable.”
Relevant to his determination of the PIRS category of travel, which he assessed to be Class 3, the Medical Assessor explained the following reasons for his decision:
“He occasionally drives himself to the shops every 3-6 months, but he is mostly driven by his family. As he is rarely driving by himself, and with a significant heightened level of anxiety, he has moderate impairment”.
Review of Mr Prasad’s statement
In his statement dated 9 July 2024 Mr Prasad relevantly said:
“I am able to travel to familiar places on my own, however, I tend to avoid crowds such as grocery stores in peak hours and I struggle with anxiety and avoidance disorders. I have to be pushed to go outside and sometimes I only go outside if I can have somebody with me due to anxiety.”
Mr Prasad provided no comment about his treatment.
Review of the independent medical evidence
Dr Khan
Mr Prasad was psychiatrically assessed by Dr Khan on 15 December 2023 in his capacity as independent medical examiner. Assessment was “via videoconferencing”. Dr Khan provided a report dated the same day.
Dr Khan relevantly reported the pervasive symptoms of depression and anxiety which Mr Prasad suffered impacted his functioning in a number of domains, including travel.
Dr Khan recorded Mr Prasad’s treatment history:
“Mr Prasad has followed up with his general practitioner on an average every four weeks. Dr Hement Kumar diagnosed Mr Prasad with adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood. He was referred for psychological treatment and has followed up with his psychologist on average every two to four weeks. Mr Prasad was referred for psychiatric treatment and he attended one consultation with a psychiatrist, but he preferred to focus on his psychological treatment, and he had not continued following up with his psychiatrist. He has been prescribed the anti-depressant medication mirtazapine. He has not required a psychiatric hospital admission for the subject injury.”
Dr Khan noted Mr Prasad’s medication as “Mirtazapine 15mg nocte”.
In response to specific questioning, Dr Khan said he considered Mr Prasad’s injury “is well stabilised and is unlikely to change substantially in the next year, with or without medical treatment”. Dr Khan assessed Mr Prasad with 22% WPI which included 0% WPI adjustment for the effects of treatment. Relevant to his termination of the PIRS category of travel, which he assessed to be Class 2, Dr Khan explained the following reasons for his decision:
“Mr Prasad is able to travel to familiar places on his own although he struggles with anxiety and avoidance of crowds when he leaves his home”.
In his supplementary report dated (incorrectly dated 15 December 2023) Dr Khan said he was unable to provide comment on Dr Sherman’s assessment of the PIRS category of travel in circumstances where Dr Sherman had failed to clarify whether Mr Prasad travelled with a family member when he reportedly travelled to Brisbane to attend a party.
Dr Sherman
Mr Prasad was psychiatrically assessed on 16 April 2024 by Dr Sherman in his capacity as independent medical assessor. Assessment was “by video-link”. Dr Sherman provided a report dated 2 May 2024.
Dr Sherman reported of Mr Prasad’s injury treatment and medication:
“In late 2022 after the misconduct allegation against him, he commenced seeing Dr Alfred Robillard, as a psychologist. Initially, they had fortnightly sessions and now it is monthly. He was also referred to see a psychiatrist, Dr Rastogi, who made changes to his medication.
…
He takes the anti-depressant mirtazapine periodically.
He said it has improved his sleep. His mood still fluctuates.
…
He requires treatment by his clinical psychologist and a review of his medication every six months by a psychiatrist. He has only had a few sessions with a psychologist. These were appropriate.”
Dr Sherman assessed Mr Prasad with 7% WPI, which included no allocation for the effects of treatment. Relevant to his determination of the PIRS category of travel, which he assessed to be Class 1, Dr Sherman explained the following reasons for his decision:
“No impairment. He attended a 21st birthday party of his friend’s son in Brisbane and travelled by plane”.
While there is no mention of Mr Prasad attending this event in Dr Sherman’s recent substantive reporting, it may be Dr Sherman has recorded this history in his previous substantive reporting, which does not appear to be before the Commission.
Review of the treating medical evidence
Mr Prasad has come under the general medical care of Dr Kumar who practises out of Blacktown Medical Centre. It is variously reported Mr Prasad attends on his general practitioner approximately once a fortnight/once a month.
Mr Prasad has come under the psychological care of Mr Derobillard, presenting with heightened anxiety over allegations of misconduct at work. In May 2023 Mr Derobillard reported while Mr Prasad was treated with cognitive behaviour therapy, problem solving and interpersonal psychotherapy with some progress, Mr Prasad continued to have very low mood. In response to a questionnaire forwarded to Mr Derobillard by Pinnacle Rehab, also in May 2023, Mr Derobillard indicated Mr Prasad had no issues with driving and/or transport. Likewise, it is variously reported Mr Prasad attends on his psychologist once a fortnight/once a month.
Mr Prasad has been under the psychiatric care of Dr Rastogi, presenting depressed and anxious as a result of allegations of misconduct at work. In October 2023 Dr Rastogi reported Mr Prasad was prescribed “Mirtazapine 15mg at night and receiving counselling” and recommended an increase in dosage to 30mg. Mr Prasad reportedly only consulted with his psychiatrist on one occasion.
Legal considerations
Guidelines
Chapter 1 of the Guidelines is introductory in nature and Chapter 1.32 relevantly provides for adjustment for the effects of treatment:
“Where the effective long-term treatment of an illness or injury results in apparent substantial or total elimination of the claimant’s permanent impairment, but the claimant is likely to revert to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn, the assessor my increase the percentage of WPI by 1%, 2% or 3%. This percentage should be combined with any other impairment percentage, using the Combined Values Chart…”
Chapter 11 of the Guidelines relevantly lays out the method for assessing psychiatric impairment.
Chapter 11.8 contemplates the effects of treatment and provides:
“Consider the effects of medication, treatment and rehabilitation to date. Is the condition stable? Is treatment likely to change? Are symptoms likely to improve? If the injured worker declines treatment, this should not affect the estimate of permanent impairment. The psychiatrist may make a comment in the report about the likely effect of treatment or the reasons for refusal of treatment.”
Chapter 11.11 is relevant to PIRS and provides for behaviour consequences of psychiatric disorder to be assessed on six scales, each of which evaluates an area of functional impairment, and relevantly includes travel.
Chapter 11.12 provides for impairment in each area of functional impairment to be rated using class descriptors, with classes ranging from 1-5 according to severity. Examples of activities referred to in the referenced Table 11.1-6 are noted to be “examples only”. Chapter 11.12 also provides that the assessing psychiatrist should take account of the injured worker’s cultural background and consider activities that are usual for their age, sex and cultural norms.
Table 11.3 provides for the PIRS relevant to travel:
(a) Class 1 “no deficit or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: Can travel to new environments without supervision.”
(b) Class 2 “Mild impairment: Can travel without support person, but only in a familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour.”
(c) Class 3 “Moderate impairment: Cannot travel away from own residence without support person. Problems may be due to excessive anxiety or cognitive impairment.”
Authorities
At this point it is useful to note some authority we consider to be central to complaint made by Samsung relevant to the Medical Assessor’s determination in the PIRS category of travel and the Medical Assessor’s allocation of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment.
In Ferguson v State of New South Wales[1] the court cited with approval NSW Police Force v Daniel Wark.[2] In Ferguson the referred to Wark and noted that the Appeal Panel had directed itself that in questions of classification under the PIRS:
“‘… the pre-eminence of the clinical observations cannot be underrated. The judgment as to the significant or otherwise of the matters raised in the consultation is very much a matter for assessment by the clinician with the responsibility of conducting his/her enquiries with the applicant face to face’.
The Appeal Panel accepted that intervention was only justified: if the categorisation was glaringly improbable; if it could be demonstrated that the Approved Medical Specialist was unaware of significant factual matters, if a clear misunderstanding could be demonstrated; of if an unsupportable reasoning process could be made out. I understood that all of these matters were regarded by the Appeal Panel as interpretations of the statutory grounds of applying incorrect criteria or demonstrable error. One takes from this that the Appeal Panel understood that more than a mere difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ is required to establish error in the statutory sense”.
[1] [2017] NSWSC 140 (Ferguson).
[2] [2012] NSWCCMA 36.
The task of the Medical Assessor was described by the court in State of New South Wales v Kaur:[3]
“In Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43; 252 CLR 480, the High Court of Australia dealt with the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a medical panel under cognate Victorian legislation. The legislation is not entirely the same, but it is broadly similar in purpose. Allowing for some differences, the High Court said at page 498 [47]:
‘The material supplied to a medical panel may include the opinions of other medical practitioners, and submissions to the Medical Panel may seek to persuade the Medical Panel to adopt reasoning or conclusions expressed in those opinions. The Medical Panel may choose in a particular case to place weight on the medical opinion supplied to it in forming and giving its own opinion. It goes too far, however, to conceive of the functions of the panel as being either to decide a dispute or to make up its mind by reference to completing contentions or competing medical opinions. The function of a medical panel is neither arbitral or adjudicative: It is neither to choose between competing arguments nor to opine on the correctness of other opinions on that medical question. The function is in every case to perform and to give its own opinion on the medical question referred to it by applying its own medical experience and its own medical expertise.’
Not all of this, as I have said, is apposite in the context of the New South Wales legislation. In particular it is obvious that approved medical specialists are required to decide disputes referred to them by the process of medical assessment. Even so, it is not necessary that approved medical specialists should sit as decision makers choosing between the competing medical opinions put forward by the parties. Essentially, the function is the same as that described by the High Court in Wingfoot Australia. That is to say, their function is in every case to form and give his or her own opinion on the medical question referred by applying his or her own medical experience and his or her own medical expertise…”
[3] [2016] NSWSC 346.
Justification of intervention by an Appeal Panel such as ours was also discussed by the court in Ferguson:
“The Appeal Panel accepted that intervention was only justified: if the categorization was glaringly improbable; if it could be demonstrated that the AMS was unaware of significant factual matters; if a clear misunderstanding could be demonstrated; or if an unsupportable reasoning process could be made out. I understood that all of these matters were regarded by the Appeal Panel as interpretations of the statutory grounds of applying incorrect criteria or demonstrable error. One takes from this that the Appeal Panel understood that more than a mere difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ is required to establish error in the statutory sense.
The Appeal Panel also, with respect, correctly recorded that in accordance with Chapter 11.12 of the Guides ‘the assessment is to be made upon the behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder, and that each category within the PIRS evaluates a particular area of functional impairment’: Appeal Panel reasons at [37]. The descriptors, or examples, describing each class of impairment in the various categories are ’examples only’: see Jenkins v ambulance Service of New South Wales[4]. The Appeal Panel said, ‘they provide a guide which can be consulted as a general indicator of the level of behaviour that might generally be expected’: Appeal Panel reasons at [37].”
[4] [2015] NSWSC 33.
The matter of Ferguson was cited with approval by the court in Parker v Select Civil Pty Limited.[5]
[5] [2018] NSWSC 140.
The approach required to be taken when applying Chapter 1.32 of the Guidelines and making an adjustment to the permanent impairment assessment for the effects of treatment was clarified in Zoric v Secretary, Department of Education & Ors.[6] The court said Chapter 1.32 could be understood to involve, and require findings about the following steps:
(a) firstly, whether there has been effective long-term treatment of an illness or injury;
(b) secondly, whether that treatment results in apparent substantial or total elimination of the injured worker’s impairment, and
(c) thirdly, whether the injured worker is likely to revert to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn.
The court said, “upon satisfaction of each step, the medical assessor may increase the percentage of WPI” and explained:
“… what is required by cl 1.32 … is a comparative exercise between the plaintiff’s original degree of impairment before the ‘effective’ treatment and the plaintiff’s degree of impairment following that treatment: it is only by undertaking that comparison at those times can a medical assessor (or in the present case the Appeal Panel) determine whether the treatment ‘results in apparent substantial … elimination’ of the plaintiff’s permanent impairment.”
[6] [2024] NSWSC 131 (Zoric)
In determining Samsung’s appeal, we are mindful that in Campbelltown City Council v Vegan[7] the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. While where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based and where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
[7] [2006] NSWCA 284.
Discussion
PIRS category of Travel
Complaint is made by Samsung that the Medical Assessor incorrectly determined Mr Prasad in Class 3 moderate impairment. The Appeal Panel accepts the Medical Assessor erred in determination of Class 3 moderate impairment relevant to the PIRS category of travel rather than Class 2 mild impairment.
In his statement Mr Prasad said he was able to travel by himself to familiar places but said he tended to avoid crowded places due to his anxiety. Mr Prasad’s reporting to Dr Khan is in identical terms. Mr Prasad reportedly told the Medical Assessor he had “no issues with his driving”, this opinion being shared by his treating psychologist. Mr Prasad reportedly told the Medical Assessor he drove alone on rare occasion to the shops and back, albeit in a state of heightened anxiety.
Against this backdrop, the Appeal Panel determines the correct PIRS category of travel is Class 2 mild impairment in that the evidence demonstrates Mr Prasad “can travel without support person, but only in a familiar area such as the local shops, visiting a neighbour”, being the example provided in Table 11.3 of the Guidelines. Although Dr Sherman determined Mr Prasad in Class 1, with reasoning “no impairment. He attended a 21st birthday party of his friend’s son in Brisbane and travelled by plane” there appears to be no mention of this interstate travel event elsewhere in the evidence before the Commission, including in the history taken by Dr Sherman during his psychiatric assessment of Mr Prasad. In such circumstances the Appeal Panel does not find Dr Sherman’s opinion persuasive.
Adjustment of %WPI for the effects of treatment
Complaint is also made by Samsung that the Medical Assessor erred in his adjustment of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment. The Appeal Panel accepts the Medical Assessor erred in his adjustment of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment.
In his statement Mr Prasad made no comment about the treatment he has received for his injury. While Mr Prasad consulted with his general practitioner and his psychologist on a regular basis and takes an antidepressant medication, which is sedative in effect, he only consulted with a psychiatrist on one occasion. Mr Prasad reportedly told the Medical Assessor his psychological sessions are of some benefit “but it is only temporary benefit”. Mr Prasad reportedly told the Medical Assessor while his medication is “of some benefit in helping him sleep” it is not “helpful for his mood or anxiety”. Mr Prasad reportedly told the Medical Assessor he unsure he has improved with medical treatment. Neither Dr Khan nor Dr Sherman who psychiatrically assessed Mr Prasad in their capacity as independent medical examiners considered an adjustment of %WPI for effects of treatment to be appropriate.
Against this backdrop, the Appeal Panel is of the view the Medical Assessor’s explanation for his inclusion of 1% WPI adjustment for the effects of treatment “he may have had mild improvement with therapy and medication, so a treatment adjustment of 1% is reasonable” falls well short of satisfying the three required steps referred to by the court in Zoric. The evidence does not demonstrate Mr Prasad has enjoyed effective long-term treatment for his injury, the evidence does not demonstrate Mr Prasad’s treatment results in apparent substantial or total elimination of his impairment, and neither does the evidence demonstrate Mr Prasad is likely to revert to his original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn.
CONCLUSION
The Appeal Panel is of the view the Medical Assessor was in error in (a) assessing Mr Prasad in Class 3 relevant to the PIRS category of travel rather than in Class 2, and (b) allocating 1% WPI for the effects of treatment in circumstances where the evidence fails to satisfy the three “steps” referred in Zoric in that the evidence does not establish (a) there has been effective long treatment of Mr Prasad, (b) Mr Prasad’s treatment results in apparent substantial or total elimination of Mr Prasad’s impairment, and (c) Mr Prasad is likely to revert to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 3 October 2024 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
The initial PIRS rating from the Medical Assessor’s assessment are 2,3,3,3,3,4, providing a median class of 3 and aggregate score of 18 resulting in 22% WPI, which with allocation of 1% WPI for the effects of treatment results in 23% WPI. The modified PIRS rating, which includes the Appeal Panel’s determination regarding Mr Prasad’s travel with reference to Class 2 “mild impairment” are 2,2,3,3,3,4 providing a median class of 3 and an aggregate score of 17 resulting in 19% WPI. There is no allocation of percentage WPI for the effects of treatment.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002
Matter number: | W25120/24 |
Applicant: | SAMSUNG SDS GLOBAL SCL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
Respondent: | Sandeep Kumar Prasad |
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 Yu Tang Shen 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) |
| psychological injury | 21 October 2022 | Chapter 11 pages 53-60 | Chapters 1, and 14 | 19% | nil | 19% |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 19% | |||||
0
7
0