Shipley v TJX Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 579

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Shipley v TJX Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 579
APPELLANT:	Kylie Shipley
RESPONDENT:	TJX Australia Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Lam-Po Tang
DATE OF DECISION:	7 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of primary psychiatric injury; appeal against assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) class in respect of employability and deduction made pursuant to section 323 in respect of pre-existing condition; Appeal Panel found error in assessment of employability and error in failure to adopt the approach set out in clause 11.10 of the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed 1 March 2021; Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT considered and applied; worker re-examined; Held – MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 26 March 2025 Kylie Shipley (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Suneel Chamoli (Medical Assessor), who issued Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
27 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):
· 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 suffered a psychological injury in the course of her employment as a store bench manager with the TJX Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) deemed to have occurred on 20 August 2021.
The appellant commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 21 October 2024 claiming 20% whole person impairment (WPI) pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of a psychiatric and psychological disorder injury deemed to have occurred on 19 January 2023.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 5 February 2025. The Medical Assessor assessed 8% WPI…

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 Shipley v TJX Australia 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 579
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shipley, a worker, brought a case against TJX Australia Pty Ltd, his employer, concerning a dispute about his eligibility for workers' compensation after suffering a workplace injury. The matter was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. Shipley contested the decision of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) which evaluated his psychiatric injury and its impact on his employability. Specifically, Shipley argued against the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) class assigned to him and the deduction made under section 323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 due to a pre-existing condition. The court had to determine whether the MAC accurately assessed Shipley's psychiatric injury and if the Appeal Panel correctly identified errors in the original assessment.

The court examined whether the MAC correctly assessed Shipley's psychiatric injury and if the Appeal Panel's findings regarding the employability assessment and the approach to the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines were justified. The key issues were the correctness of the PIRS class and the appropriateness of the deduction related to the pre-existing condition. The court also considered whether the panel correctly applied the decision in Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT and if re-examining Shipley was necessary. The court's task was to review the MAC and decide whether the Appeal Panel's conclusions and subsequent orders were legally sound.

The Appeal Panel found that the MAC had erred in assessing Shipley's employability and in not following the correct approach outlined in the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines. The Panel concluded that the error was material and led to an incorrect assessment of Shipley's psychiatric injury. The court agreed with the Appeal Panel's findings, noting that the Panel correctly applied the decision in Matheson v Baptistcare NSW & ACT, which emphasised the importance of adopting the correct methodology in assessing psychiatric injury. The court held that the MAC was flawed and subsequently revoked it. Additionally, Shipley was re-examined to ensure a more accurate assessment.

The court revoked the MAC and ordered that Shipley be re-examined to provide a more accurate assessment of his psychiatric injury. The decision underscored the necessity of adhering to the correct guidelines and methodologies when evaluating psychiatric injuries in workers' compensation cases. The court's ruling provided relief to Shipley, who could now expect a more precise evaluation of his injury and its impact on his employability.

Orders