Spokes v Mark Anthony Bristow Painting Services - [2025] NSWPICMP 689

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Spokes v Mark Anthony Bristow Painting Services [2025] NSWPICMP 689
APPELLANT:	Craig Spokes
RESPONDENT:	Mark Anthony Bristow Painting Services
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Mitchell Strachan
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Tommasino Mastroianni
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Drew Dixon
DATE OF DECISION:	9 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal from assessment of Medical Assessor; deterioration; availability of additional relevant information; Riverina Wines Pty Ltd v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales; extent of jurisdiction of Appeal Panel with respect to appeal; O’Callaghan v Energy World Corporation Ltd, and Skates v Hill Industries Ltd considered and applied; Held – deterioration established; MAC revoked; new MAC issued limited to extent of medical dispute initially referred.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 21 March 2025, Craig Spokes, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Ian Meakin, an Approved Medical Assessor (as they were known in the former Workers Compensation Commission), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 27 August 2019.
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) deterioration of the worker’s condition that results in an increase in the degree of permanent impairment, and
(b) 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 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 was employed by the respondent as a painter. On 29 May 2017 he fell from a scaffold structure from a height and sustained various injuries. The Application to Resolve a dispute dated 18 July 2019 describes injury to the right shoulder, left knee, right knee, left hip, left leg and lumbar spine.
By way of correspondence dated 18 April 2019 the appellant made a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to…

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 Spokes v Mark Anthony Bristow Painting Services 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 689
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spokes v Mark Anthony Bristow Painting Services involved the claimant, Spokes, seeking a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued in relation to a workplace injury. The dispute arose under the provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The respondent, Mark Anthony Bristow Painting Services, contested the claimant’s appeal against the assessment made by a Medical Assessor. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was whether the claimant had demonstrated a deterioration in their medical condition that warranted a revision of the MAC. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of its jurisdiction in reviewing the Medical Assessor’s decision and whether additional relevant information could be considered in the appeal.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties, focusing on the statutory framework and relevant case law. It examined whether the deterioration in the claimant's condition was sufficiently established and if there was any additional information that could influence the assessment. The court referred to the decision in Riverina Wines Pty Ltd v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales to understand the scope of its jurisdiction in reviewing the MAC. Furthermore, it considered the principles outlined in O’Callaghan v Energy World Corporation Ltd and Skates v Hill Industries Ltd, which addressed the conditions under which an appeal panel could intervene in a Medical Assessor’s decision. Based on the evidence and legal principles, the court found that the claimant had indeed shown a deterioration in their condition. Consequently, the original MAC was revoked, and a new one was issued limited to the extent of the medical dispute initially referred.

The court's decision was grounded in the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, ensuring that the claimant’s appeal was evaluated fairly and within the legal framework. The court’s ruling allowed for the incorporation of new information and a reassessment of the claimant’s condition, reflecting a balanced approach to the statutory objectives of the Workers Compensation Act. The final orders included the revocation of the original MAC and the issuance of a new certificate that accurately reflected the claimant’s current medical status, thereby providing the necessary compensation and medical assessment for the workplace injury sustained.

Orders