Shahin v Plaspro Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 656

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Shahin v Plaspro Enterprises Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 656
APPELLANT:	Shariff Shahin
RESPONDENT:	Plaspro Enterprises Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
DATE OF DECISION:	29 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; determination by member that appellant had sustained both primary and secondary psychological injury; Medical Assessor assessed whole person impairment (WPI) of 19% of which primary psychological injury accounted for 60%; appellant’s WPI was adjusted to 11%; appellant appealed on basis that assessment made on basis of incorrect criteria and Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) contained demonstrable error; Held – Appeal Panel found error and appellant examined by Panel member; MAC revoked; Mercy Connect v Kiely, Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak, Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT, and El Masri v Woolworths Ltd considered.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 19 March 2025, Shariff Shahin lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Ronald Gill, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 26 February 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):
(a) the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
(b) 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

On 23 November 2021, the appellant sustained an injury to his left forearm and wrist when his hand became jammed in a machine.
The appellant also sustained a primary psychological injury.
The respondent did not dispute that the appellant had sustained a primary psychological injury. However, it maintained that the appellant was also suffering from a secondary psychological injury. It therefore disputed the appellant’s claim for permanent impairment compensation on the basis that the extent of his permanent impairment fell below the threshold prescribed by s 65A(3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987…

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 Shahin v Plaspro Enterprises 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 656
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shahin brought a claim against Plaspro Enterprises for workers’ compensation in respect of injuries sustained in the course of employment. The claim was heard by a member of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission who found that Shahin had sustained both primary and secondary psychological injury. The Medical Assessor assigned a whole person impairment (WPI) of 19% to Shahin, with 60% of that attributed to the primary psychological injury. Shahin’s WPI was adjusted to 11% in accordance with the applicable legislation. Shahin appealed against the assessment, arguing that it was based on incorrect criteria and that the Medical Assessment Certificate contained errors. The appeal was heard by an Appeal Panel.

The Appeal Panel determined that the Medical Assessor had erred in their assessment by using incorrect criteria and that the Medical Assessment Certificate contained a demonstrable error. The Panel revoked the certificate and ordered a new assessment by a different medical practitioner. The Panel relied on precedents such as Mercy Connect v Kiely, Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak, Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT, and El Masri v Woolworths Ltd to support their decision. The Panel found that the correct approach was to consider the relevant legislation and the evidence presented to the original decision-maker, and to make a new determination based on that evidence.

Shahin was examined by a member of the Appeal Panel who determined that his WPI should be assessed at 25%. The Panel also found that the original decision-maker had erred in adjusting Shahin’s WPI to 11% and ordered that the adjustment be reconsidered in light of the new WPI assessment. The Panel made orders for the original decision to be set aside and for the matter to be remitted to the original decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with the Panel’s directions.

Orders