Singh v Civic Electronics Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPICMP 137

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Singh v Civic Electronics Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPICMP 137
APPELLANT:	Tarlochan Singh
RESPONDENT:	Civic Electronics Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL:	Member Catherine McDonald Dr Richard Crane Dr Philippa Harvey-Sutton
DATE OF DECISION:	2 August 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Worker fell 2.5 metres suffering injuries to his cervical and lumbar spines; as a result of ingesting medication, he suffered consequential conditions in his upper and lower digestive tracts; worker alleged that the assessor failed to assess “sensory blunting” as radiculopathy; application of Guidelines with respect to assessment of digestive tract; requirement for signs as well as symptoms; Held- MAC confirmed.

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

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 21 April 2021 Tarlochan Singh lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Neil Berry, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 24 March 2021.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria,
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The delegate was 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, limited to the grounds on which the appeal is made.
The WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006 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 the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed 1 April 2016 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr Singh was employed by Civic Electronics Pty Ltd (Civic) to install CCTV and security cameras. On 20 March 2019 he was installing a CCTV camera. He walked along a metal roof but did not notice that one section had been replaced by plastic sheeting the same colour as the roof. He fell about 2.5 metres to the veranda floor below, suffering an injury to his cervical and lumbar spines.
Mr Singh was not admitted to hospital. His injuries were investigated and treated with injections and physiotherapy. He was referred for pain management. He suffered a consequential condition in his digestive system as a result of the medication he took.
The Medical Assessor assessed 13% whole person impairment (WPI) comprised of 5% for the cervical spine and 8% for the lumbar spine. He assessed 0% WPI in respect of each of the upper and lower digestive tracts.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original…

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 Singh v Civic Electronics 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: [2021] NSWPICMP 137
Decision Date: 2 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Singh v Civic Electronics Pty Ltd, the matter before the Member was an application for review of a decision of the Medical Assessor. The applicant, Mr. Singh, was a worker who had fallen 2.5 metres, resulting in injuries to his cervical and lumbar spines. Due to medication he had ingested, Mr. Singh also suffered consequential conditions in his upper and lower digestive tracts. The central issue was whether the assessor correctly evaluated the applicant's claim for "sensory blunting" as radiculopathy and whether the application of the relevant Guidelines concerning the assessment of digestive tract conditions was appropriate. The Member was tasked with determining if the assessor's decision was legally sound and if the necessary signs and symptoms were properly considered.

The court examined the assessor's analysis of the medical evidence and the application of the relevant Guidelines. It was crucial to determine if the assessor had correctly identified the symptoms and signs associated with the applicant's conditions. The court also considered whether the consequential digestive conditions were adequately assessed in line with the prescribed Guidelines. The Member reviewed the medical reports and the assessor's decision to ensure that the evaluation was comprehensive and that all relevant factors were taken into account.

Upon review, the Member concluded that the assessor's decision was consistent with the relevant Guidelines and that all necessary signs and symptoms were appropriately considered. The Member confirmed that the assessor had correctly assessed the applicant's conditions, including the sensory blunting as radiculopathy, and that the consequential digestive conditions were properly evaluated. The Member found that the application of the Guidelines was appropriate and that the assessor had not erred in their decision. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed.

The final orders of the Member were that the application for review be dismissed, and the original decision of the assessor be confirmed. The Member's decision provided clarity on the assessment process for the applicant's conditions and affirmed the assessor's evaluation as legally sound.

Orders