Savva v R & L Sparkes Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 446

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Savva v R & L Sparkes Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 446
APPELLANT:	Savva
RESPONDENT:	R & L Sparkes Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Dr Alan Home
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Dr James Bodel
DATE OF DECISION:	24 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether the Medical Assessor (MA) had the appropriate qualifications and conducted a complete lumbar spine assessment; Held – MA was qualified, but MAC did not confirm assessment of all criteria for radiculopathy; appellant re-examined; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.

WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION

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

Matter number:	M1-W25159/24
Appellant:	Leondios Savva
Respondent:	R & L Sparkes Pty Limited
Date of decision:	24 June 2025
Appeal Panel:
Member:	Marshal Douglas
Medical Assessor:	Alan Home
Medical Assessor:	James Bodel

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 12 December 2024 Leondios Savva, 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 15 November 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 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

The appellant commenced employment in February 2019 with R & L Sparkes Pty Limited (the respondent), working as a fulltime boiler maker. He suffered an injury to his right shoulder and lumbar spine due to the activities he performed until October 2019 in his employment. Due to relying on his left shoulder, as a consequence of not being able to use his right shoulder due to the injury to it, he developed left shoulder pain.
The appellant’s lawyers organised for him to be examined by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Sheikh Habib on 14…

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 Savva v R & L Sparkes 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 446
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Savva v R & L Sparkes Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning the validity of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appellant, Mr Savva, challenged the MAC provided by the Medical Assessor (MA) who evaluated his claim for a workplace injury. The primary concern was whether the MA had the requisite qualifications and whether the assessment included a comprehensive evaluation of all criteria for radiculopathy. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues in the case centred on the qualifications of the MA and the completeness of the lumbar spine assessment. Mr Savva argued that the MA was not adequately qualified to issue a MAC, and that the assessment did not sufficiently cover all criteria for diagnosing radiculopathy. The respondent, R & L Sparkes Pty Ltd, defended the MA's qualifications and the adequacy of the assessment. The court had to determine whether the MA met the statutory requirements and whether the MAC accurately reflected a thorough examination of the criteria relevant to Mr Savva's condition.

The court found that the MA was indeed qualified to issue a MAC, as required by the Act. However, the court determined that the MAC did not confirm that the MA had assessed all criteria for radiculopathy. This omission was significant because a comprehensive assessment was necessary to properly evaluate the appellant's condition and substantiate the MAC. As a result, the court ordered a re-examination of Mr Savva by another MA. The initial MAC was revoked, and a new certificate was to be issued following the re-examination.

In conclusion, the court's decision centred on the necessity of a complete and qualified assessment to issue a valid MAC. The revocation of the initial certificate and the order for a new assessment ensured that Mr Savva's condition would be evaluated more thoroughly, adhering to the statutory requirements and providing a fair outcome.

Orders