Smith v Strathfield Council
[2022] NSWPICMP 505
•8 December 2022
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Smith v Strathfield Council [2022] NSWPICMP 505 |
| APPELLANT: | Brett Ronald Smith |
| RESPONDENT: | Strathfield Council |
| Appeal Panel | |
| MEMBER: | Catherine McDonald |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Douglas Andrews |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Nicholas Glozier |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 8 December 2022 |
| CATCHWORDS: | wORKERS cOMPENSATION - Psychological injury; additional relevant material; application to rely on statements going to conduct of examination; Petrovic v BC Serve No 14 Pty Ltd, State of NSW v Ali and Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd discussed; application of Permanent Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS); Ferguson v State of NSW and Parker v Select Civil Pty Ltd applied; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 1 September 2022 Brett Smith lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Clayton Smith, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 11 August 2022.
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):
· availability of additional relevant information (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against),
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
· 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 but limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
The WorkCover Medical Dispute Assessment Guidelines 2018 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 2018.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed reissued 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr Smith was employed by Strathfield Council (the Council) as a greenkeeper. He suffered a psychological injury as a result of interactions with his managers between 2014 and 2019 and a restructure in 2019. He did not return to work after 28 November 2019.
The Medical Assessor assessed 9% whole person impairment (WPI). The appeal relates only to the assessments made under two of the tables in the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) – Social and Recreational Activities and Social Functioning.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
We conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2018.
As a result of that preliminary review, we determined that it was not necessary for Mr Smith to undergo a further medical examination because the assessment made by the Medical Assessor was open to him and the MAC does not disclose an error.
Additional relevant information
Mr Smith relies on the ground of appeal in s 327(3)(b) of the 1998 Act with respect to the availability of additional relevant information. He seeks to admit statements from himself and his wife dated 28 August 2022 disputing the Medical Assessor’s assessment under four Tables of the PIRS and providing reasons why they considered it was wrong. Notably, the appeal submissions are limited to only two of the Tables.
Each of the statements disputed two factual matters recorded in the MAC – that Mr Smith drove to Port Macquarie and that he goes to social events without needing a support person, but with reduced frequency.
Each statement also seeks to describe the manner in which the examination was conducted, saying that the Medical Assessor asked leading questions and made unfair statements to which Mr Smith was not given an opportunity to clarify or respond.
In submissions prepared by his solicitor Mr Lleonart, Mr Smith said that the evidence of Mr Smith and his wife is relevant to correct a significant factual error which would result in a higher assessment under the PIRS. He said:
“In accordance with the principles in Petrovic v BC Serve No. 14 Pty Ltd (2011) NSWCA and in Phillips v Williamson (2016) NSWSC the Appellant’s further evidence is relevant in that it addresses a key basis upon which the assessor drew his conclusions in relation to the classification in question.” [sic]
The Council opposed the admission of the further statements, referring to Petrovic v BC Serve No 14 Pty Ltd[1] (Petrovic) v Robertson v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission and Beny’s Joinery[2] in which Smart AJ followed Hoeben J’s decision Petrovic. It cited the following statement by Harrison J in State of New South Wales v Ali[3] (Ali):
“First, the information contained in the later surveillance reports is neither additional nor relevant as properly understood. The expression ‘additional relevant information’ contemplates or anticipates a qualitative addition to the information otherwise previously available. It is not concerned with the information being merely quantitatively different, in the sense that there is more of the same. That is made plain by the words in parentheses, which emphasise that the additional relevant information must also qualify as information that could not reasonably have been obtained before the medical assessment appealed against. As a matter of plain language, that does not mean or refer to something that could not have been obtained simply because it came later in time. Everything that occurs later than an earlier event is by definition additional in a temporal sense. That is obviously so in the present case, in which the so-called additional relevant information consists of the investigation reports, which uncontroversially ‘could not reasonably have been obtained … before’”.
[1] [2007] NSWSC 1156.
[2] [2008] NSWSC 918.
[3] [2018] NSWSC 1783 at [32].
It is clear that the evidence about the conduct of the examination was not available and could not reasonably have been obtained before the examination. However some of the material on which Mr Smith now seeks to rely was available – being his statement going to the effects of the injury – was available. Mr Smith had the opportunity to prepare a detailed statement when the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was prepared. The statement dated 21 February 2020 in the ARD and the undated supplementary statement are very brief.
Evidence in any proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission is generally given only in a statement. When the proceedings were commenced there was a dispute between the parties, which was only resolved by a Certificate of Determination dated 12 July 2022, leading to the referral to the Medical Assessor. The existence of that dispute suggested that a more detailed statement was required than those which had been provided. Procedural Direction PIC3 provides:
“21. The timely and effective resolution of matters before the Commission requires that the statements provided by parties contain all appropriate and relevant facts, together with a sufficiently detailed history. Any statement relied on by a claimant should include, but not be limited to:
(a) work history;
(b) the circumstances of the injury;
(c) information regarding medical treatment received in respect of the injury, and
(d) a summary of any ongoing effect/s of the injury.”
Mr Smith now seeks to provide more evidence about the ongoing effects of the injury. As set out in Ali, the material is not admissible merely because it came after the assessment by the Medical Assessor.
We do not consider that the statements about the process by which the Medical Assessor undertook the examination should be admitted on the appeal for the reasons set out in the authorities cited below.
In Petrovic, Hoeben J said[4]:
“In my opinion the words ‘availability of additional relevant information’ qualify the words in parentheses in s327(3)(b) in a significant way. The information must be relevant to the task which was being performed by the AMS. That approach is supported by subs 327(2) which identifies the matters which are appealable. They are restricted to the matters referred to in s326 as to which a MAC is conclusively taken to be correct. In other words, ‘additional relevant information’ for the purposes of s327(3)(b) is information of a medical kind or which is directly related to the decision required to be made by the AMS. It does not include matters going to the process whereby the AMS makes his or her assessment. Such matters may be picked up, depending on the circumstances, by s327(3)(c) and (d) but they do not come within subs 327(3)(b).
It follows that the statutory declarations which related to the way in which the AMS carried out his examination and the way in which questions and answers were interpreted during the examination were not ‘additional relevant information’ for the purposes of subs 327(3)(b) and should not have been treated as such by the Registrar.
…
There is another consideration which I have taken into account. If the function of the Registrar under s327 is to be in reality that of a gatekeeper, then statutory declarations such as were sworn in this case should not be regarded as ‘additional relevant information’ for the purposes of s327(3)(b). If they are, it would be open to every dissatisfied party to challenge the assessment process of an AMS in the same way thereby gaining automatic access to an appeal.”
[4] At [31]-[32] and [34].
The Court of Appeal considered an appeal panel’s decision to decline to permit a worker to rely on a statement about the conduct of the examination by an Approved Medical Specialist in Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited[5] (Lukacevic). Hodgson JA said:
“A dispute by the worker as to the history set out in the certificate, or the observations made by the AMS, can readily be raised; and it could be raised honestly or dishonestly, on strong or flimsy grounds. Having regard to the matters I have set out, in my opinion it would be reasonable for an AP not to admit evidence raising such a dispute unless that evidence had substantial prima facie probative value, in terms of its particularity, plausibility and/or independent support. Otherwise, simply by raising such a dispute, going to a matter relevant to the correctness of the certificate, a worker could put the AP in a position where it had to have a further medical examination conducted by one of its members. I do not think this would be in accord with the policy of the WIM Act.”[6]
[5] [2011] NSWCA 112.
[6] At [78].
In Lukacevic, Handley JA said said that evidence of what took place at the examination was additional rather than fresh evidence. His Honour said[7]:
“The Panel’s reasons for refusing to receive the new evidence … referred to the importance of finality in litigation, that procedural fairness for the respondent would entitle it to seek a response from the AMS, and the fact that the issues raised were ‘not contemplated as part of the appeal mechanism’. In my judgment these were relevant considerations in the exercise of the Panel’s discretion, and it cannot possibly be said that its decision was irrational.”
[7] At [100].
Those judicial statements preclude the admission of the documents on which Mr Smith seeks to rely. His solicitor referred to Phillips v JW Williamson and RW Williamson t/s Williamson Bros[8] . That decision does not assist him. Schmidt J contrasted the factual dispute in Lukacevic about what took place at the examination with the availability of additional probative medical material which did not exist at the time of the examination by the Approved Medical Specialist (AMS), on which the worker sought to rely to demonstrate errors by the AMS. Her Honour allowed the worker to rely on the additional medical reports from his treating doctors.
[8] [2016] NSWSC 1681.
The statements dated 28 August 2022 will not be considered in the appeal.
EVIDENCE
We have all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and have taken them into account in making this determination.
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 made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but we have considered them.
In the submissions prepared by his solicitor, Mr Smith submitted that the Medical Assessor erred in his assessments under two of the PIRS Tables. With respect to Social and Recreational Activities, Mr Smith said it was apparent that the Medical Assessor did not have his wife’s statement dated 21 July 2021 because he did not refer to it in the MAC. The statement sought to explain Mr Smith’s attendance at a football game on 9 July 2022 which was described in surveillance evidence. He said it showed that he was agitated throughout the game.
Mr Smith also said that the Medical Assessor’s failure to conduct a proper examination meant that he did not have regard to the amount of time that he spends indoors and his disengagement from his former friends. While he does walk to the shops and occasionally goes to bowls, he does so only with his wife. Mr Smith said that he does not willingly participate and does so only because of the encouragement of his doctor and his wife. He said that the evidence “overwhelmingly” placed him in Class 3 for Social and Recreational Activities. He said that there was an obvious miscategorisation as described in Ferguson v State of New South Wales[9] (Ferguson).
[9] [2017] NSWSC 887.
With respect to Social Functioning, Mr Smith said that the Medical Assessor acknowledged that his relationship with his wife is supportive though impacted in the physical sense and that he has ceased contact with former friends. He said that while some family relationships are intact others are under more significant strain, supported by the Medical Assessor’s reference to him never looking after his grandchildren. He said that these facts were consistent with assessment in Class 3 because the wider relationships were significantly strained
In reply, the Council noted the history taken by the Medical Assessor with respect to Mr Smith’s daily activities and his mood. It said that the assessment made for Social and Recreational Activities was open to the Medical Assessor based on his history and examination. The Council said that the history obtained did not support assessment in Class 3 for social functioning, noting the examples in the PIRS Table for assessment in that class.
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.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan[10] the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
[10] [2006] NSWCA 284.
Application of the PIRS
In Ferguson Campbell J said:
“The Appeal Panel accepted that intervention was only justified: if the categorisation 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 [2015] NSWSC 633. 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’…”[11]
[11] At [24].
Harrison AsJ cited Ferguson in Parker v Select Civil Pty Ltd[12] (Parker) and said[13]:
“To find an error in the statutory sense, the Appeal Panel’s task was to determine whether the AMS had incorrectly applied the relevant Guidelines including the PIRS Guidelines issued by WorkCover. Even though the descriptors in Class 3 are examples not intended to be exclusive and are subject to variables outlined earlier, the AMS applied Class 3. The Appeal Panel determined that the AMS had erred in assessing Class 3 because the proper application of the Class 2 mild impairment is the more appropriate one on the history taken by the AMS and the available evidence.
The AMS took the history from Mr Parker and conducted a medical assessment, the significance or otherwise of matters raised in the consultation is very much a matter for his assessment. It is my view that whether the findings fell into Class 2 or Class 3 is a difference of opinion about which reasonable minds may differ. Whether Class 2 in the Appeal Panel’s opinion is more appropriate does not suggest that the AMS applied incorrect criteria contained in Class 3 of the PIRS. Nor does the AMS’s reasons disclose a demonstrable error. The material before the AMS, and his findings supports his determination that Mr Parker has a Class 3 rating assessment for impairment for self-care and hygiene, that is to say, a moderate impairment of self-care and hygiene…”
Social and Recreational Activities
[12] [2018] NSWSC 140.
[13] At [70]-[71].
The Medical Assessor set out his diagnosis, relying in part on Mr Smith’s loss of pleasure in activities:
“Mr Smith’s condition meets DSM-5 criteria for a persistent depressive disorder. He reported depressed mood and loss of pleasure in previously enjoyed activities for most of the day for more days than not for at least two years. He described insomnia, low energy, low self-esteem, poor concentration, and depressive thoughts. He has never been without the symptoms described above for more than two months at a time, accounting for fluctuations in his condition.”
The Medical Assessor assessed Mr Smith in Class 2 for Social and Recreational Activities saying:
“Mr Smith occasionally goes out social events without needing a support person but with reduced frequency to his preinjury social schedule. He belongs to the bowling club and attends occasionally. He has attended bowling 4 times this year. He said he can stay after bowling for a beer. He has been to the football once this year. This was confirmed in surveillance footage. He occasionally attends family functions. He walks daily. He attended a family camping trip in February 2022. He is more uneasy and lacks confidence in social settings compared to before the injury.”
The Medical Assessor took a very detailed history of Mr Smith’s activities, including going to the football game on 9 July 2022. He said:
“He said he went to a football game for the first time this year on 9 July. He said in the past he used to go to ten games per year. He said he bought a ticket out of loyalty to his club. He said the man seen with him in the surveillance footage is a longtime fan and regular attendee but not a friend. Mr Smith told me he sees the football as a safety zone because the same people sit in the same places and he feels comfortable. He said he used to be very passionate about football and enjoyed going. He said he has been a member of the club for 25 years.”
That passage shows that the Medical Assessor engaged with the evidence in the file and with the history provided by Mr Smith.
Mr Smith doubted that the Medical Assessor was provided with or had regard to his wife’s statement dated 21 July 2022 about going to the football game. We have the brief provided to the Medical Assessor and the statement dated 21 July 2022 prepared in response to the surveillance evidence was included. That is also clear from the referral to the Medical Assessor. The presumption of regularity applied to the Medical Assessor as an administrative decision maker[14] so that it is generally to be presumed that the Medical Assessor has done everything necessary in order to make his decision including considering all of the material in the file.
[14] Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 175 at [39].
There is no basis to assume that he did not read the statement dated 21 July 2022. The statement does not, in fact, add much and is a commentary on the investigator’s report. The Medical Assessor accepted that Mr Smith had attended only one game of football and that in the past he would have attended more. The Medical Assessor’s reasons show that he took that into account in his assessment in Class 2.
The submissions prepared for Mr Smith noted that Dr Takyar had a different history and assessed him in Class 3 for Social and Recreational Activities. Dr Takyar last saw Mr Smith nearly 11 months before the assessment by the Medical Assessor. At that time he had not joined the bowls club.
The Medical Assessor was required to make his own assessment and is not required to choose between the assessments made by the psychiatrists qualified for the parties – see State of New South Wales v Kaur[15]. The standard MAC form directs the Medical Assessor to comment briefly on other reports and say why his opinion differs. He said:
“Dr Ash Takyar in his report dated 25 June 2020 noted a diagnosis of DSM 5 major depressive disorder and a comorbid generalised anxiety disorder. Further report by Dr Takyar dated 30 September 2021 assessed whole person impairment at 19%. Whereas Dr Takyar has rated social and recreational activities as a class 3 moderate impairment reflecting Mr Smith’s function in June 2020 he has since increased his social and recreational activities, consistent with a class 2 mild impairment rating.”
[15] [2016] NSWSC 346.
The Medical Assessor noted that Dr Neale saw Mr Smith and reported on two occasions for the Council. In her first report dated 2 February 2022, she assessed Mr Smith in Class 3 for Social and Recreational Activities. The Medical Assessor noted that after reviewing more contemporaneous evidence, Dr Neale made an assessment in Class 2, which was consistent with his rating.
In her second report dated 9 June 2022, having been asked to review notes from Mr Smith’s psychologist, Dr Neale said:
“Under the category of Social and Recreational Activities, I originally assigned a class 3. However, I do note from the psychological records that Mr Smith has experienced an improvement in this area. On 16 December 2021, he reports planning to meet friends on the weekend, having met people at bowling and socialised with beer afterwards. On 19 January 2022, he reported that he had seen a friend. On 2 February 2022, he reported going to lawn bowls and enjoying them, planning to return and acknowledging that he felt anxious prior to going, and on 22 February 2022, he described a family camping trip stating that he enjoyed the vacation, had experienced some anxiety, and had some time to relax. It is my opinion that this information suggests a class 2 in the category of Social and Recreational Activities as he is engaging in these activities though experiences some ongoing anxiety.”
The notes from Mr Smith’s general practitioner and psychologist in the Reply substantially post-date those in the ARD. We have reviewed the notes from his psychologist which confirm the statements in Dr Neale’s report. They reveal an improvement in areas related to Social and Recreational Activities, particularly in late 2021 with the easing of COVID lockdowns. For example, on 11 November 2021 his psychologist recorded:
“Going up to Byron Bay Area - end of week. Will meet partner and family up there. Said he has been alone at home for a week approx. Trying to keep busy with house, painting/sanding furniture, sometimes feeling lonely though. Said he will stay at Byron Bay approx. 5 days - said he doesn't want to leave dogs alone at house, feeling anxious. Said he also feels excited about going to trip, concerned about how he will cope.
…
Said he went out with friend. Friend asked him to meet him at the city. Some issues communicating with others he didn't know, instead he felt more comfortable talking to an old work friend - had a 15-20min chat. Felt less comfortable with females that he didn't know. Said some discomfort around talking to strangers. Said he had alcohol that night, and had some discomfort.
Said he has planned to go out with this friend before Christmas. Said he is good friends with him, texting/calling often
His birthday and mother's birthday in Dec, Christmas. Feeling a bit nervous about Christmas - concerned about keeping other's happy. Said he does most of organising. Said elder brother has disability - assists more. Feels his brother can be lazy
Daughter 7.5 months pregnant. Said he is very excited about having first granddaughter - due January, said his grandson is more affectionate.”
At the following consultation on 22 November, Mr Smith told his psychologist that he felt anxious while away but “said he was glad he went on trip, proud of self”. On 1 December 2021, Mr Smith said that he had driven to Cronulla, though found it stressful. On 16 December 2021, the psychologist recorded:
“Went to visit wife for couple days at coast, nervous and wanting to go home.
Said he was very nervous going to lawn balls. Said his neighbour and his wife encouraged him to attend. Met some guys, socialised with a beer after. Had doubts afterward - 'do they like me?'. Wants to continue to attend. Said he may attend 1x weekly.”
On 19 January 2021 Mr Smith said his mood had improved when his daughter had a baby. He was “wanting to engage in activities i.e. go to dinner, go on a trip.”
On 2 February 2022 Mr Smith told his psychologist that he had been to bowls the day before and enjoyed it though felt nervous beforehand. On 22 February the psychologist noted that Mr Smith could not see any future in driving long distances and recorded:
“Went away with family on camping trip. Reported majority of trip was enjoyable. When other family went home early, felt upset.
Away 9 days overall.”
The notes end in early March 2022. At the last consultation he said that he had driven to Bunnings and felt calm while doing so and that his partner was still away.
Those notes support the Medical Assessor’s statement that Mr Smith’s condition has improved since the date of Dr Takyar’s report.
The Medical Assessor was required to assess Mr Smith as he presented on the day of the examination. He took a detailed history and made an assessment which is consistent with the notes taken by Mr Smith’s psychologist in the preceding few months. The assessment in Class 2 for Social and Recreational Activities was not glaringly improbable. It was open to the Medical Assessor in the exercise of his clinical judgement and he provided appropriate reasons in support of it.
Social Functioning
The Medical Assessor assessed Mr Smith in Class 2 for Social Functioning, saying:
“Mr Smith’s libido is reduced and his sex life is affected. He feels guilty about the impact of his injury on his wife. He has lost friendships from former colleagues and reduced his contact with friends. Nonetheless he has enduring and supportive relationships with his family and his wife’s family, and they are in regular contact.”
Notably Dr Takyar and Dr Neale also assessed Mr Smith in Class 2 for Social Functioning. Despite that, Mr Smith argued that he should be assessed in Class 3.
In Jenkins v Ambulance Service of NSW[16] Garling J said:
“I am satisfied that the descriptions of the activities which give rise to a conclusion by an AMS of the extent of a disability of an individual by reference to each table in the PIRS, are simply, in my view, examples of activities which would indicate an assessable level of disability. Those examples, on their face, are not necessary to be found in each case, but may, in any particular case, be sufficient to support a conclusion as to the level of disability.”
[16] [2015] NSWSC 633 at [65].
The examples in the PIRS for Class 2 – mild impairment - are:
“Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.”
The examples in the PIRS for Class 3 – moderate impairment - are:
“Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children.”
There is no evidence of severe strain of this nature in Mr Smith’s relationships. The only factor which Mr Smith’s submissions point to as warranting assessment in Class 3 is that he does not look after his grandchildren. The history recorded by the Medical Assessor was:
“He said he sees his daughter … every 2 to 3 weeks and his daughter … once a month. He said his wife drives him there. He said he never looks after his grandchildren. He said he can go to the park with the grandchildren.”
The Medical Assessor recorded that Mr Smith’s daughters live in other parts of Sydney. The statement that he never looks after his grandchildren is unexplained. There could be many reasons why that is so, including geographical reasons. It does not, of itself, suggest that the relationship with his daughters or grandchildren is strained. There is no similar history to any other doctor in the file and nothing in Mr Smith’s brief statements in the ARD about his relationship with his grandchildren. The notes from the psychologist extracted above suggest a good relationship.
The submission that Mr Smith should be assessed in Class 3 for Social Functioning is at odds with the evidence. We do not agree that the Medical Assessor made an error in his assessment.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 11 August 2022 should be confirmed.
0
10
0