State of New South Wales (Fire & Rescue NSW) v Farrell
[2025] NSWPICMP 327
•12 May 2025
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | State of New South Wales (Fire & Rescue NSW) v Farrell [2025] NSWPICMP 327 |
| APPELLANT: | State of New South Wales (Fire & Rescue NSW) |
| RESPONDENT: | Anthony Joseph Farrell |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Deborah Moore |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Professor Nicholas Glozier |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Douglas Andrews |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 12 May 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appellant submits that the Medical Assessor (MA) erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of one of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) namely concentration, persistence and pace; MA failed to apply any deduction for pre-existing condition or abnormality under section 323; Held – Appeal Panel found error in the PIRS rating but no error regarding section 323; MAC revoked. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 3 February 2025, State of NSW (Fire & Rescue NSW) (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr John Lam-Po-Tang, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 6 January 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, 4th ed 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural Direction PIC7.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination because none was requested, and we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal, for reasons which will become apparent below.
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence
The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.
SUBMISSIONS
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of one of the categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), namely Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and failed to apply any deduction for pre-existing condition or abnormality under s 323 of the 1998 Act.
In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made.
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 [2006] NSWCA 284 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.
The appellant was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI in respect of a primary psychological injury on a deemed date of injury of 15 December 2003.
The Medical Assessor obtained a detailed history of the circumstances leading to the injury which we do not intend to repeat here.
After setting out details of Mr Farrell’s treatment regime, the Medical Assessor then noted present symptoms as follows:
“Mr Farrell described his mood as anxious and depressed at the time of the assessment. He noted, ‘I feel quite upset today. Why aren't I down at the beach having a swim, instead of here? Probably be cranky’. He rated his mood as 1/10 on a 10-point scale, where 0/10 represents a very depressed mood, and 10/10 represents a very cheerful mood. He reported a variable mood, but did not report diurnal mood variation. He reported some suicidal ideation. Mr Farrell reported reduced motivation and enthusiasm.
Mr Farrell described generalised elevation in anxiety as well as episodic anxiety, but had not experienced a panic attack since leaving FRNSW in 2016. He reported generalised avoidance behaviour, specifically avoiding leaving his home. That said, he advised he was able to leave his home without an accompanying person.
Mr Farrell described impairment in appetite, noting, ‘It's just a meal for me’. He reported his weight had ‘increased a bit’. He noted a dermatologist had commented he had put on some weight around his waist. With respect to energy he commented, ‘I haven't got energy. I fatigue very quickly’.
Mr Farrell retires around 21:30 to 22:00, noting, ‘I try to read for about half an hour, novels, which put me to sleep’. After falling asleep, he typically wakes around 01:30 to 03:30, trying to get back to sleep thereafter. He stated he does not always return to sleep, stating he does doze most nights. He stated that his sleep was generally not refreshing. Mr Farrell spontaneously reported, ‘I have recurring dreams fairly regularly, at least every second night, where I'm in a fire station and the bells have gone off. Everyone is in the truck. I'm running around and looking for my turnout gear’. Additionally, Mr Farrell also reported dreams or nightmares about the 2003 kindergarten incident.
Recurrent intrusive and distressing memories were reported by Mr Farrell, who commented, ‘Are you kidding? Every day, repeatedly’. He states he tries unsuccessfully to suppress memories. He reported experiencing flashbacks in clear consciousness, seeing ‘a car on fire in a kindergarten’, and stated this might be triggered by a variety of stimuli, such as a media story about ‘the little girl who was on fire’, a magazine article, or ‘picking up my grandchildren who are the same age as the children I was picking up’. He did not report hypervigilance, noting his wife often tells him to pay more attention whilst crossing the road. He reported increased startle response, stating he tries to avoid people, and at times may jump. He reported a negative outlook on life noting, ‘My daughter says, I'm always negative and down’. Mr Farrell added, ‘If I saw someone I knew from the fire brigade that would make me anxious’. If he hears a siren, ‘I don't look. I make a deliberate attempt not to look’. When asked how we responded to bushfire smoke, Mr Farrell replied, ‘It'll bring back a lot of memories, fires I've been to. I don't think bushfires are a big deal’. Mr Farrell reported subjective impairment in concentration and short-term memory. He commented that whilst watching TV, he may become distracted and pick up his phone. He said he was able to watch movies, but added, ‘But not all the way through’, due to either loss of interest or attention. He estimated he could watch around 30 minutes of a movie. He reported no minor accidents or damage to his car due to poor concentration and attention.”
He added:
“Details of any previous or subsequent accidents, injuries or condition:
Past psychiatric history: There was no past psychiatric history that pre-dated
Mr Farrell's entry to NSWFR. Mr Farrell denied any history of deliberate self-harm or suicide attempts. Mr Farrell has never had an overnight admission to inpatient psychiatric facility. He reported only half of a day program at the St John of God Hospital, Burwood, in 2016. Mr Farrell advised he had never been treatment [sic] with eye movement desensitisation and re-processing (EMDR).”The Medical Assessor then set out details of the impact of his injury on his social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) as follows:
“Mr Farrell is married, and has been so since 1980. His wife is 65 years old and is retired. He reported no periods of separation. They have three adult children.
Mr Farrell and his wife live in their jointly-owned freestanding home. They've lived there for 37 or 38 years. One of their children lives in a self-contained unit on the same property.
Financially, Mr Farrell receives a pension through his superannuation account, and also receives a partial Aged Care pension. He reported no financial liabilities, such as a mortgage or other significant loans. He does not own other property. When asked about income, Mr Farrell replied, ‘If you can say doing a couple of lawns for old Yugoslav women, once a fortnight in summer’, estimating he charged around $30 per lawn.
Mr Farrell has his own private transport, commenting, ‘We have a car each, but mine's virtually never used’
When asked about leisure activities, Mr Farrell stated, ‘I might go for a stroll around the block, every second night… I just find it relaxing’. He estimated this walk would take between 20 and 30 minutes. Additionally he said, ‘I watch a bit of football, league, rugby league, [but] not as much as I used to’. He stated he followed the Parramatta rugby league team, but never attends games.
Additionally, Mr Farrell explained that he has been building a large model boat ‘for over 25 years’, that is, prior to the 2003 accident. He explained it is ‘over 2 metres long, 50 cm wide’, and made from wood. He added that he has made all parts of the boat from scratch, and that he has an overall plan for the boat. He commented, ‘It brings me into the present moment’, but added that he has not worked on it for over 12 months.
Mr Farrell advised he is not a churchgoer and does not have any religious affiliations. He is a member of the Mona Vale RSL club. He added, ‘My wife tries to get me to go down to play trivia. I occasionally go down, but I don't like it’. Mr Farrell stated he will attend the club with his wife approximately once a month, and spent two hours there. He explained the club is within walking distance of their home. He does not go fishing or play golf.
Socially, Mr Farrell advised he makes or receives ‘phone calls to one or two retired firefighters’.
Mr Farrell reported a lack of engagement with his grandchildren. He explained, ‘I've got four grandchildren, once in high school, ones about to start high school. My son has a little boy. My daughter has a baby girl’. He stated, ‘I tend to go down to the shed down the back when they come’, rather than spend time with his grandchildren. He stated this causes tension in the family.”
The Medical Assessor added:
“Current level of function:
Mr Farrell stated he bathes or showers ‘maybe once a week, when my wife pushes me in there’. When asked how frequently he attends to dental hygiene, he replied, ‘I'd say much the same’. He stated he washes his hair ‘when I have a shower’, and gets his haircut ‘every 1 to 2 months, when it really starts to annoy me’. He estimated he changes clothes ‘maybe once a week’.
Mr Farrell stated he eats up to 3 times a day. For breakfast, he may have muesli. He'll have lunch with his wife his present, but may miss it if not. When asked about dinner, he replied, ‘I might have a beer, or I might make a piece of toast’. When asked about food preparation and cooking, Mr Farrell advised he was able to prepare muesli or toast, or boil an egg. He added, ‘I can cook a steak on the barbecue’.
Around the home, Mr Farrell noted, ‘I do a bit of gardening – my wife, mainly suits [sic] me tasks’. He does his own lawn mowing and also mows the lawns of a couple of neighbours. He states the lawnmowing they take up to 4 hours in a day. He also does pruning in the garden.
With respect to travel, Mr Farrell is able to leave his place of residence alone, without an accompanying person. That said, he explained he doesn't drive very often. He noted, ‘I think I drove down and got a coffee at Mona Vale, then came back’ when asked about public transport, he said, ‘I don't use public transport’, but opined he would be capable of doing so. He has taken the Northern Beaches express double decker bus service in the past. When overseas in Ireland, Mr Farrell stated his wife did most of the driving as noted, Mr Farrell and his wife travel to Ireland for several weeks 2023.
Mr Farrell and his wife drove up to see a relative in Toowoomba in Queensland, spending a week away. He explained his wife did most of the driving. He stated he has no plans to travel domestically or internationally in 2025. He commented, ‘It's a real sore point my between my wife and I, travel’.
Mr Farrell shares a Facebook account with his wife. He noted, ‘Occasionally I'll look because there's a model boat thing on there’. He has made comments on Facebook, but advised his wife will criticise him for this. He may use the internet to watch videos about ‘model boat stuff’. Mr Farrell advised he has a credit card through FRNSW. He explained his wife is responsible for paying bills. He advised he is able to access his own accounts and withdraw money.”
Findings on examination were reported as follows:
“Mr Farrell presented as an Anglo-Saxon man of stated age, with grey hair and a beard. He wore glasses. He was neatly presented, wearing a rugby top. Whilst he made eye contact at times, at other times he closed his eyes.
Mr Farrell's speech was hesitant at times, but normal in rate, and soft in volume. His affect was restricted in range and reactivity; his affect was predominantly anxious. He did not smile during the assessment. He was not labile or tearful during the assessment. Subjectively and objectively his mood was anxious and depressed. He was not objectively irritable, elevated or apathetic in mood. His thoughts were logically and sequentially organised, with no formal thought disorder. No delusional thought content was expressed or elicited.
Cognitively, Mr Farrell was alert and oriented to time, place and person. He displayed some difficulty recalling some dates of events, however, other dates, such as the date of the 2003 accident, were promptly recalled. He was able to persist with the interview, which lasted over 100 minutes.”
The Medical Assessor then summarised the injuries and diagnoses as follows:
“Mr Farrell is a 68 year old man who describes onset of psychiatric symptoms, associated with initiation of some treatment, from December 2003. The onset followed his attendance at a well-publicised accident at a Northern Beaches kindergarten.
Despite onset of symptoms in 2003 Mr Farrell continued to work for another 13 years, retiring in 2016 having reached the age of 60. He continued to take an antidepressant, and was referred to a clinical psychologist. It is not clear when exactly his psychiatric symptoms worsened to the point where he experienced significant functional impairment, but they occurred at least 4 months prior to his retirement in mid-2016. He was referred to a psychiatrist for the first time after he ceased working.
Having ceased work in 2016, Mr Farrell reported ongoing psychiatric symptoms and associated functional impairment. These persisted despite a change in his antidepressant medication and ongoing psychological treatment. That, it should be noted that the antidepressant to which he was changed, agomelatine, has a weak evidence base for the treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Additionally, he does not appear to have had psychological treatment specifically targeting symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Diagnostically, Mr Farrell describes symptoms consistent with DSM-5 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder. The term Persistent Depressive Disorder is used where individuals report symptoms consistent with Major Depressive Disorder for two or more years, and would be essentially the same as recording a diagnosis of chronic Major Depressive Disorder.”
The Medical Assessor assessed 17% WPI.
He then set out a summary of the material he had before him.
Relevant to the issues in dispute, he said:
“Independent medical examination report by Dr Christopher Canaris, consultant
psychiatrist, dated 14 March 2024:
Dr Canaris calculated a whole person impairment score of 19%, based on a median class value of 3, and an aggregate score of 17.
These were identical to the ratings in the current evaluation in 5 of 6 domains. In the current evaluation, a rating of 2 was made in the domain of Self-care and personal hygiene, based on Mr Farrell's description of self-care, eating and capacity to look after himself for a week whilst his wife was overseas (which occurred after Dr Canaris' assessment).
Independent medical examination report by Dr Gerald Chew, consultant psychiatrist,
dated 18 July 2024:
In contrast to Dr Canaris, Dr Chew was of the opinion that Mr Farrell had not reached maximum medical improvement… Notwithstanding Dr Chew's opinion that Mr Farrell had not reached maximum medical improvement, and further, his view that it is ‘not appropriate to calculate whole personal impairment because he has not reached maximum medical improvement’, he nonetheless provided an ‘interim assessment’ on Mr Farrell. In this, he calculated an impairment of 6%, based on an initial median class value of 2 and an aggregate score of 14. This resulted in an initial whole person impairment score of 7%. A deduction of 1% was made on the basis of ‘noted issues with anxiety due to health outside of work issues’.”
The appellant’s submissions
Concentration, persistence and pace
The appellant submits:
(a) When assessing concentration, persistence and pace, the Medical Assessor’s remarks included the following: “Mr Farrell retires around 21:30 to 22:00, noting, “I try to read for about half an hour, novels, which put me to sleep.” And “Mr Farrell was able to persist with the current interview, which lasted over 100 minutes. He took a short break (< 5 minutes) in the middle of the assessment.”
(b) The above demonstrates an inaccurate application of the criteria, in circumstances where the Medical Assessor records the respondent worker as being able to engage with novels for “about” 30 minutes. That squarely and specifically falls within class 2, even if one takes the PIRS categories to be only examples.
(c) The reading of novels constitutes an intellectually demanding task; and the fact that the respondent worker is able to focus on such a task for up to 30 minutes means that he ought to have been rated as a class 2.
(d) Further, for a class 3 rating the respondent worker would, as an example, be unable to read more than newspaper articles. The appellant submits that it is clearly inconsistent for the respondent worker to be unable to read more than newspaper articles when the Medical Assessor confirmed he reads novels for around 30 minutes.
(e) the information gained by the Medical Assessor in his examination on the day ought to have prompted him to regard the respondent worker as a class 2, as his capacity to engage in intellectually demanding tasks such as an interview for well in excess of the threshold for a class 2 means that it is implausible that he would be rated as a class 3.
(f) this is not simply a difference of opinion on a question where reasonable minds may differ. The appellant submits this is a situation where the Medical Assessor’s own information warranted class 2 impairment.
(g) The Medical Assessor’s rating of class 3 is so ‘glaringly improbable’ that it represents both a demonstrable error, and the use of incorrect criteria.
(h) As expressed by Member Carolyn Rimmer in Wright v Ngroo Education Incorporated [2022] NSWPICMP 106: “Concentration, persistence and pace is a category where the assessor can apply clinical judgment and considerable weight must be given to the assessor’s observations in the clinical examination. The assessor, during the clinical examination, is able to observe the worker’s ability to concentrate, assess persistence with the cognitive demands of the assessment, and observe the pace at which the worker can engage.”
(i) The observations of Member Rimmer, whilst not binding, highlight the significance and probative value of the evidence obtained by a Medical Assessor on the day of examination when it comes to the concentration, persistence and pace category. In the present case, the respondent worker clearly demonstrated a capacity to engage with the interview for a period well in excess of what would be expected for even a worker with a class 2 mild impairment.
(j) The evidence of Dr Chew outlining the respondent worker’s current functioning demonstrated that the worker has been building a model boat for around 26 years and, ‘…he can concentrate on this for up to an hour.’ The appellant submits that this shows that a class 3 impairment rating in concentration, persistence and pace would be inappropriate.
The s 323 deduction
The appellant submits:
(a) the Medical Assessor erred in failing to apply a deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act;
(b) the Medical Assessor failed to apply or discuss the apparent pre-existing or external factors at all, despite reviewing the medical evidence indicating such;
(c) for instance, the reports from the respondent worker’s psychologist Annemarie Lambe in 2013-2015 show that his attendances were in respect to unrelated health anxiety and family issues;
(d) Dr Chew recorded that the respondent worker’s persistent depressive disorder was influenced by anxiety, health anxiety and death of family members, and
(e) the Medical Assessor has failed to give any, or any sufficient, regard to the available relevant information before him such as contained in the reports of
Dr Chew, Dr Canaris and Ms Lambe.
The respondent’s submissions
In respect of both categories the subject of appeal, these are as follows:
(a) as the Guidelines itself observe: “The examples of activities are examples only. The assessing psychiatrist should take account of the person’s cultural background. Consider activities that are usual for the person’s age, sex and cultural norms”;
(b) the reason for this direction is obvious; there would be no point in considering the capacity of an illiterate worker to read an operating manual or building plans. The examples are not hard and fast criteria;
(c) the appellant makes much of the respondent’s reported functional ability to read, simply because this is one of the suggested examples. It would characterise this as an intellectually demanding task. The Medical Assessor obviously did not so conclude. Reading a newspaper in English may be an intellectually demanding task if that language is not the worker’s native tongue. Skimming the sporting page of the Telegraph is not the intellectual equivalent of a close reading of the editorial of the Financial Times;
(d) the appellant also makes much of the Medical Assessor’s observation that the worker was able to persist with the examination interview for over 100 minutes. Had he been incapable of so persisting, his assessment might have fallen within class 4 exemplified by Difficulties following simple instructions. Concentration deficits obvious even during brief conversation. Otherwise, the observation is relevant but not definitive;
(e) persisting with the medical examination is responsive/passive function not an active one such as the other examples. The Medical Assessor’s approach did not disclose error;
(f) the respondent accepts that the Medical Assessor erred in failing to record his assessment pursuant to s 323;
(g) the Medical Appeal Panel will undertake its own assessment. The starting point is consideration of the injury itself, which in this case is agreed1 to be a post- traumatic stress disorder with an associated depressive disorder;
(h) the question which arises is not whether the worker had ever sought psychological intervention in the past for unrelated concerns. It is whether the worker any proportion of the functional impairment (resulting from his post- traumatic stress disorder) is due to a previous injury/condition. The Panel would not adopt the erroneous approach employed by Dr Chew who merely identified an earlier presentation of anxiety. He did not (and could not) conclude that this episode bore any causal nexus with the worker’s post- traumatic stress disorder or its functional consequences, and
(i) the criteria for apportionment are not satisfied and no adjustment pursuant to s 323 is warranted.
Discussion
Concentration, persistence and pace
We agree with the thrust of the appellant’s submissions for reasons that follow.
The Medical Assessor assessed a class 3 rating and said:
“Mr Farrell reported subjective impairment in attention and concentration. Mr Farrell was able to persist with the current interview, which lasted over 100 minutes. He took a short break (< 5 minutes) in the middle of the assessment. Mr Farrell reported losing concentration or interest in movies after around 30 minutes.”
The descriptor for a class 3 reads:
“Moderate impairment: unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (eg operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting.”
For a class 2 it reads:
“Mild impairment: can undertake a basic retraining course, or a standard course at a slower pace. Can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for periods of up to 30 minutes, then feels fatigued or develops headache.”
We accept that the examples in Table 11.1 are examples only and are not exclusive, but in this instance the Medical Assessor’s description of the duration for which Mr Farrell can concentrate and persist accords with the class 2 descriptor almost exactly.
Having said that, in this case, on the Medical Assessors’ own findings, there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Farrell is unable to read more than newspaper articles, or that he has difficulties with watching movies: he loses concentration or interest in them after a period of time, and reads for 30 minutes or so at night.
As the Medical Assessor observed:
“Cognitively, Mr Farrell was alert and oriented to time, place and person. He displayed some difficulty recalling some dates of events, however, other dates, such as the date of the 2003 accident, were promptly recalled. He was able to persist with the interview, which lasted over 100 minutes.”
In short, nowhere has the Medical Assessor described a class 3 rating.
Clause 1.6 of the Guidelines provides: “Assessing permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of assessment…”
For these reasons we agree with the appellant that the evidence does not support the rating ascribed by the Medical Assessor.
The s 323 deduction
As regards this issue, the appellant’s submissions are misconstrued.
The Medical Assessor was asked to assess Mr Farrell as a result of a deemed date of injury of 15 December 2003.
There is no evidence of any injury prior to this date.
The comments by some doctors about “anxiety, health anxiety and death of family members” seem to refer to his attendances on a psychologist in 2009 and in 2013, subsequent to the injury date.
As the respondent correctly pointed out:
“The question which arises is not whether the worker had ever sought psychological intervention in the past for unrelated concerns. It is whether the worker any proportion of the functional impairment (resulting from his PTSD) is due to a previous injury/condition. The Panel would not adopt the erroneous approach employed by
Dr Chew who merely identified an earlier presentation of anxiety. He did not (and could not) conclude that this episode bore any causal nexus with the worker’s PTSD or its functional consequences.”For these reasons, we agree that no deduction should be made.
This then means that the ratings are:
(a) Self-care and personal hygiene – class 2;
(b) Social and recreational activities – class 3;
(c) Travel – class 2;
(d) Social functioning – class 2;
(e) Concentration, persistence and pace – class 2, and
(f) Employability - class 4.
The aggregate of class ratings is 15, median 2 for an 8% WPI.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
6 January 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002
Matter number: | W28530/24 |
Applicant: | Anthony Joseph Farrell |
Respondent: | State of New South Wales (Fire & Rescue NSW) |
This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998.
The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor John Lam Po Tang and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the table below:
Table - whole person impairment (WPI)
| Body Part or system | Date of Injury | Chapter, page and paragraph number in WorkCover Guides | Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides | % WPI | Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition | Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6) |
| Psychological | 8/5/2023 (deemed) | Chapter 11 | Chapter 14 | 8% | Nil | 8% |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 8% | |||||
0
2
0