Strathfield Municipal Council v Tanner
[2025] NSWPICMP 681
•8 September 2025
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Strathfield Municipal Council v Tanner [2025] NSWPICMP 681 |
| APPELLANT: | Strathfield Municipal Council |
| RESPONDENT: | Hardy Tanner |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Parnel McAdam |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Michael Hong |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | John Lam-Po-Tang |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 8 September 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); medical appeal; assessment of psychological injury under the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS); respondent worker attempted to rely on fresh evidence lodged under cover of application to lodge additional documents; consideration of section 328(3); admission of material rejected; whether the Medical Assessor (MA) failed to consider relevant material; challenge to three of the PIRS; Held – MA failed to consider surveillance material; error in one of the PIRS; MAC revoked. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 17 April 2025, Strathfield Municipal Council (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Patrick Morris, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 24 March 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).
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr Tanner has worked for the appellant for very many years, commencing in 1988 as a mechanic and moving to a supervisor role around 30 years ago. In 2008, there was an incident involving asbestos in a roof. In 2016, a tractor on an asbestos-contaminated site rolled, becoming covered in asbestos time. Mr Tanner felt unsupported and abused by the executive manager at that time, which was the commencement of bullying and harassment directed towards him.
Eventually Mr Tanner was unable to cope and ceased work on 11 October 2022, which represents the deemed date of injury in this case. Earlier proceedings were commenced in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) claiming weekly compensation benefits and medical expenses, which were resolved by consent. Mr Tanner then commenced the present proceedings, claiming lump sum compensation.
The matter proceeded to assessment on 24 March 2025, before Patrick Morris, a Medical Assessor. The Medical Assessor provided an assessment of 22% whole person impairment. The appellant appeals against that assessment.
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 the worker should undergo a further medical examination because it was satisfied that a ground of appeal had been made out in respect of the Medical Assessor’s assessment of Mr Tanner, particularly having regard to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) of social and recreational activities. Given the issue raised including a failure to engage with relevant evidence, it was the Appeal Panel’s view that it was necessary for a further examination to take place.
Fresh evidence
Section 328(3) of the 1998 Act provides that evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to a medical assessment appealed against may not be given on an appeal by a party unless the evidence was not available to the party before the medical assessment and could not reasonably have been obtained by the party before that medical assessment.
The appellant did not seek to rely on fresh evidence.
Initially, the respondent did not seek to rely on any fresh evidence. However, on 5 August 2025, the respondent lodged an Application to Lodge Additional Documents, attaching a report of Matthew Gullotta, treating psychologist, dated 1 August 2025. The respondent submits that the report should be admitted as it details recent developments in Mr Tanner’s medical condition, in particular episodes of self-harm, as well as some negative and positive changes. The report was provided (unsolicited) to the respondent’s solicitors.
The appellant wrote to the Commission, including the respondent in the correspondence, objecting to the admission of the evidence on 6 August 2025. The appellant submits that the respondent has not explained why the report could not reasonably have been obtained prior to the medical assessment, consistent with s 328(3) of the 1998 Act. The respondent had ample opportunity from the lodgement of the Application until the medical assessment before the Medical Assessor to obtain and serve a further report, but did not do so. The appellant also refers to Procedural Direction PIC7, and the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, which they submit do not contemplate a respondent to an Appeal being able to file further evidence in response to an Appeal.
The Appeal Panel do not accept the appellant’s last point, as an exercise of construction. It is the Appeal Panel’s view that s 328(3) contemplates a respondent to an appeal seeking to admit “fresh evidence” on an appeal. However, the admission of that appeal should be as an attachment to a notice of opposition, in accordance with [18] of Procedural Direction PIC7.
In any event, the Appeal Panel accept the appellant’s submissions opposing the admission of the evidence. The respondent provides no submissions addressing the criteria in s 328(3) of the 1998 Act, that is that the material was not available to the respondent and could not reasonably have been obtained by the respondent. As the appellant points out, the respondent had opportunity to obtain an updated treating report from Mr Gullotta at any point prior to the medical assessment but did not do so.
Accordingly, the Application to Lodge Additional Documents, taken to be an application made under s 328(3) of the 1998 Act, is rejected. The material is not admitted into these appeal proceedings.
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.
Further medical examination
Medical Assessor Michael Hong of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 22 August 2025 and reported to the Appeal Panel. A copy of the re-examination report is included in the Appeal Panel’s reasons below.
Medical Assessment Certificate
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 have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant raises four grounds of appeal:
(a) the Medical Assessor failed to properly address the evidence in the proceedings of Mr Tanner’s level of activity, particularly the surveillance evidence and the report of Dr Nagesh;
(b) the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment of impairment in the PIRS of self‑care and personal hygiene;
(c) the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment of impairment in the PIRS of social and recreational activities, and
(d) the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment of impairment in the PIRS of employability.
The appellant’s more specific submissions will be discussed below.
In reply, the respondent submits that the investigator’s report is a subjective description of Mr Tanner. The surveillance itself was a total of 8 minutes and 30 seconds. The Medical Assessor appropriately considered the surveillance material and the report of Dr Nagesh. The respondent then addresses each of the PIRS challenged by the appellant, submitting that the grounds are little more than a disagreement about the level of impairment.
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. Although particularised as four grounds of appeal, the appeal really concerns two issues; an alleged failure to consider relevant material, and errors in respect of the assessment in accordance with the PIRS. Accordingly, the Appeal Panel’s consideration of the matter is limited to those issues (per Basten JA in Queanbeyan Racing Club Ltd v Burton [2021] NSWCA 304 at [26]):
“Secondly, s 328(2) requires that the review ‘is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.’ Because the gateway function of the Registrar is satisfied if ‘at least one of the grounds’ has been made out, it appears that the Appeal Panel is not limited to the ground held by the Registrar to have been made out, but may consider all grounds of appeal raised in the appellant’s application. On the other hand, it is clear that the Appeal Panel is not permitted to look for errors which are not part of 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 first issue raised by the appellant is a failure to address relevant material ground. The Appeal Panel will deal with that issue first, and then consider the challenge made to the assessment under the PIRS.
Failure to address the material in the proceedings
This ground is unusually presented. It is not argued as a failure to consider a relevant consideration, but rather a failure to “engage” with the evidence. In some ways the way the appellant presents the submissions on this point show a misunderstanding of the role of the Medical Assessor in the assessment of impairment.
The proceedings in the present matter concern a claim for lump sum compensation. Both parties have relied on expert assessments; the respondent worker, on Dr Smith, who assessed 26% whole person impairment, and the appellant, on Dr Nagesh, who assessed 7% whole person impairment. These disparate assessments create a medical dispute. It is the role of the Medical Assessor to determine that dispute.
Other medico-legal opinions provided in a dispute constitute relevant evidence, but the assessment of impairment is a matter for the Medical Assessor on the day of examination. This was made clear by Campbell J in State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) v Kaur [2016] NSWSC 346 (Kaur), applying Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43 to the specific statutory scheme. At [26] he opined:
“Not all of this, as I have said, is apposite in the context of the New South Wales legislation. In particular it is obvious that approved medical specialists are required to decide disputes referred to them by the process of medical assessment. Even so, it is not necessary that approved medical specialists should sit as decision makers choosing between the competing medical opinions put forward by the parties. Essentially, the function is the same as that described by the High Court in Wingfoot Australia. That is to say, their function is in every case to form and give his or her own opinion on the medical question referred by applying his or her own medical experience and his or her own medical expertise.”
The appellant makes a series of “observations” about the MAC, in the context of the opinion of Dr Nagesh as well as the surveillance material. The final of those observations is that the Medical Assessor did not “address or engage with” Dr Nagesh’s rationale for assessing lower impairment in a number of the PIRS. It is not the Medical Assessor’s role, nor a requirement of the medical assessment process, that other medico-legal opinions must be “addressed” or “engaged with.” Per Kaur and Wingfoot, it is the function of a Medical Assessor to reach his or her own opinion.
On the other hand, the surveillance material is relevant evidence that has been placed before the Medical Assessor. The weight that can be placed on a series of still photographs is limited. Nevertheless, the Medical Assessor makes not comment on the report or, apparently, put it to the worker.
It should however be noted that the surveillance material, contrary to the appellant’s submissions, it is not “objective evidence.” The author reaches a conclusion including comments at the end of the report that “the Claimant continues to lead a reasonably active lifestyle often venturing from his residence to undertake domestic activities as well as attend restaurants.”
Nonetheless it is the Appeal Panel’s view that in the absence of any reference to the material, it must be inferred that the Medical Assessor did not properly consider it. Whilst the Appeal Panel are sympathetic to the respondent worker’s submissions about the weight that can be placed on the material, which, as the respondent submits, constitutes somewhere over 8 minutes of visibility of Mr Tanner, it constitutes relevant evidence that was placed before the Medical Assessor.
Accordingly, the Appeal Panel are satisfied that the MAC contains a demonstrable error. This failure to consider has potentially informed the Medical Assessor’s consideration of the three PIRS challenged by the appellant. On this basis, the Appeal Panel conducted a re‑examination of the worker. That report is included here:
“REPORT OF THE EXAMINATION BY MEDICAL ASSESSOR
MEMBER OF THE APPEAL PANEL
Examination Conducted By: | Dr Michael Hong |
Date of Examination: | 22 August 2025 |
1. HISTORY RELATING TO THE INJURY
Brief history after MAC:
Mr Tanner came with his wife for the assessment, and I confirmed his identity on the surveillance material and the photo, and we discussed the previous assessments and material on file.
In terms of work injury, he started in 1988 and was promoted to plant operator and workshop manager around 25 years ago and always worked full-time. Due to repeated exposure to asbestos material, he became anxious and subsequently, bullying and harassment commenced at work. He developed chronic anxiety and depressive symptoms and ceased working, and had regular treatment, but turned to alcohol. He said instead of helping him, the supervisor screamed at him, and was angry as he thought Mr Tanner called Worksafe Australia.
Mr Tanner continues to drink alcohol every day, and when he was seen by Dr Morris, he was drinking a similar amount. His alcohol intake fluctuated between a third to half of a bottle of whisky every day.
Present treatment:
Mr Tanner has been consulting Matthew Gullotta, psychologist every Monday in the past 2 years. He consults Dr Frank Chow, psychiatrist every 2 months. He has not had a psychiatric admission.
He has not had a drug/alcohol counsellor, and his psychologist and psychiatrist, discussed alcohol treatment and monitored his alcohol intake.
Mr Tanner is taking:
· Medicinal cannabis around 1.5 years and recently, 5 joints a day.
· Venlafaxine 225 mg.
· Melatonin 2 mg.
· Quetiapine IR, 25 mg as needed for anxiety.
Present symptoms:
Mr Tanner described chronic anxiety and depressive symptoms. His alcohol intake fluctuated.
He described concentration and memory problems, and high interpersonal sensitivity, and had suicidal ideation without self-harm behaviour. He said his psychologist helps with his thoughts of self-harm, and were it not for his psychologist, he would have died by now.
He remains easy to anger. He said he smashed a man's window. There was a dispute over parking and the other driver gave him a middle finger, and he smashed the man's window with his hand in 2024. His wife was there during the confrontation and was crying.
Social activities/ADL:
Mr Tanner lives with his wife and mother, who is 86 years old. His wife works full‑time.
His wife said that on the day they went to yum cha, it was because she suffered from Bell's palsy and could not cook, so they went out to eat that day. She had treatment at the hospital for Bell's palsy.
In terms of going to Bunnings hardware store, Mr Tanner reported that he had a dog who had been very helpful during his work injury, but the dog passed away in September 2024, and his psychologist discussed doing something to remember the dog. So, he decided to go to Bunnings Warehouse and purchase timber to make a plaque or a timber memorial. He said that he was not helping with his daughter or the boyfriend, but they were the ones helping him, for example, drilling a hole to help him put it together. He could not remember how long it took to make the memorial.
He said he tried to install a bracket and could not do it. He said he has not done any other woodwork. He said he has a back problem with nerve impingement, but he never claimed it as a work injury. He said he needs surgery, but he does not have money for it. He had 10 sessions of chiropractic treatment, which helps with his depression too, as pain is better.
Before injury, Mr Tanner normally goes to Harley Davidson rider's club, a bicycle group, he enjoys fishing on his boat and motorcycle riding. He said he still has the boat and motorcycle, but no longer uses them.
He said he struggles to go out. His psychologist encouraged him to go out, but he gets triggered out, with increased anxiety.
He sleeps in a separate room and not with his wife now, and reported intimacy issues, and said this is upsetting as they have been together since he was 18. His daughter moved out because of him, due to his irritability and constant arguments.
On a typical day, Mr Tanner said he smokes cannabis and looks at his fish pond at home. Sometimes he goes to the garage, where he has a TV and lounge. He said he cannot follow movies anymore due to concentration difficulties.
He showers every 3-4 days with prompting. She said he stinks and tells him to shower. He generally eats one meal a day and sometimes, he does not eat for the whole day. His wife does most shopping. He said he needs cannabis before he goes out, and he helps her mother sometimes, and goes with her to the shops, but due to anxiety. He shaves usually after his shower and changes to clean clothes.
He goes out 1-2 times per week, generally with his family, sometimes he goes out on his own, either on foot or to his GP. He said he went to Bunnings hardware store with his mother, we discussed the surveillance did not show anyone else.
In terms of eating out, they usually do it weekly, generally with Mr Tanner, his wife, his daughter and mother, and on special occasions, birthdays or Christmas, or Chinese New Year, his sisters join them. He said they only go out for maximum 1 hour at the restaurants. We discussed the restaurants appeared busy at times. He said he takes cannabis for his anxiety, and wears a cap to hide his face, so he can tolerate his anxiety when there are people around. He does not go to the church now.
FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION
He was clean-shaven and had short greying hair. There was no overt impairment in self-care and personal hygiene. His wife helped with some history at times. There was no psychomotor slowing or abnormal movements. He was restricted in his affect range and struggled with managing his emotions, and suddenly spoke in a louder voice and presented as terse at times. He spoke spontaneously. He was not thought disordered and there were no psychotic symptoms.
SUMMARY
Summary of injuries and diagnoses:
Mr Tanner had no prior psychiatric problems and reported that due to the repeated issues at work, he suffered chronic depression and anxiety symptoms. His symptoms and treatment have not changed for a long time now, and he continues to suffer from Persistent depressive disorder and Alcohol use disorder.
ASSESSMENT OF THE PIRS
Self care and personal hygiene:In terms of self-care, it is clear that Mr Tanner is quite reliant on his family and he is not capable of independent living. Whilst he can go out and go shopping at times, as Dr Abhishek Nagesh noted, the Panel noted he does not cook and relies on other people to prepare food for him, or eat out, and prompts him to eat. He has lost weight since injured. Furthermore, he does not shower regularly, and requires prompting with showering too. Dr Nagesh noted Mr Tanner's ability to be independent out in the shops and reported there is inconsistency, but that is not the same as being able to look after himself without prompting, particularly as Dr Nagesh did not consider his need for prompting with showering, and he presented with reasonable hygiene, because he has been prompted and does shower and shave.
Social and recreational activities:
In terms of social recreation activity, Dr Morris rated a 3 and said Mr Tanner never leaves home alone for any social recreation activity and lost interest in previous recreational activities. This is true. The Panel also noted he does go out with the family to restaurants. While he has high anxiety, he can enjoy it to a degree. These are not rare occurrences, and he has some capacity to tolerate being in a social setting around strangers, for up to an hour at a time. He said this generally happens on a weekly basis, in addition to special celebrations like Chinese New Year or birthdays, where they will eat out at a restaurant or have a party at home, with his sisters and daughter. Taken all together, this is consistent with a 2.
Employability:
In terms of employability, the Panel noted the surveillance suggested he was out on his own at Bunnings hardware store, and he said he went with his mother. The fact that he was in the hardware store by himself and also carrying timber material, which was something that his elderly mother could not help with, suggests some capacity to engage in work-like activity. However, given that his alcohol disorder remains quite severe and his chronic depression and anxiety have not abated, it is unlikely that he could perform any meaningful work.”
The appellant has challenged three of the PIRS assessed by the Medical Assessor. Before discussing the assessment of impairment the Appeal Panel has reached, it is appropriate to discuss how the PIRS are assessed in accordance with the Guidelines, as well as the specific PIRS challenged by the appellant.
The PIRS
For the purposes of assessing psychiatric injuries, there are six scales, known as the PIRS, “each of which evaluates an area of functional impairment” (cl 11.11 of the Guidelines). The scales give examples of activities that are to be taken into account when assessing the class of functional impairment. The class descriptors range from no or minor deficit, through to totally impaired. This is explained by Campbell J in Ferguson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887:
“Class 1 relates to a situation where there is no psychological deficit, or a minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. Class 5 pertains to a person who is totally impaired by his injury, and the classes between are in an ascending order of impairment.”
Each area of functional impairment provides a series of examples, that are “examples only” (cl 11.12). In Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633, Garling J considered the construction of the PIRS in the context of the examples given. He provided some commentary on the construction of the Guidelines:
“The submission of the plaintiff that, in assigning a class of impairment to each scale, the AMS is restricted only to the examples of activities listed in the tables or, alternatively, to those activities as a minimum, cannot be accepted.” (at [57])
Self-care and personal hygiene
The Medical Assessor assed class 3 in this PIRS. The appellant submits that a reasonable inference can be drawn that the Medical Assessor relied solely on the history provided by the respondent worker, and did not engage with the balance of the evidence in assessment this PIRS. The appellant goes on to refer to the report of Dr Nagesh, who discussed the surveillance material taken including putting that material to Mr Tanner. The appellant submits that class 2 would be appropriate.
In reply, the respondent submits that the ground of appeal is a complaint being a difference of opinion, and contrary to the appellant’s submission the Medical Assessor did not unquestioningly accept the worker’s history.
The Appeal Panel are not satisfied that the MAC contains an error in respect of the Medical Assessor’s assessment of this PIRS.
The history recorded by the Medical Assessor, as well as by Medical Assessor Hong on re‑examination, is consistent with class 3 impairment. The respondent submits that the surveillance material shows the worker shopping independently. Whilst the material shows Mr Tanner at Bunnings, that is not necessarily relevant to the criteria for self-care and personal hygiene. Bunnings is a hardware store, and does not sell groceries. Attendance at Bunnings is not demonstrative of an ability to “look after self adequately”, per class 2, or relevant to whether Mr Tanner prepares his own meals or misses meals, per class 3. Mr Tanner, in attending Bunnings, is not shopping independently in a way to support himself, but rather for woodworking or some other hobby or activity. This is not evidence of an ability to live independently.
The history given to Medical Assessor Hong on re-examination is that of poor personal hygiene (showering every three to four days with prompting), and poor eating habits (once a day, or not at all). Mr Tanner would be unable to look after himself without the support of his wife, who does the majority of the shopping. He needs support to ensure a minimum level of hygiene and nutrition.
This is entirely consistent with class 3 impairment.
Social and recreational activities
The Medical Assessor assessed class 3 in this PIRS. The appellant submits that the surveillance report showed Mr Tanner shopping by himself at Bunnings, which is inconsistent with the history taken by the Medical Assessor that he never leaves the home alone for any social or recreational activities. The appellant submits class 2 is appropriate.
In reply the respondent submits that the Medical Assessor had the benefit of the clinical records of his treating psychologist, as well as the history he took of reduced activities. The respondent submits that the error is nothing more than a disagreement about the level of impairment.
On re-examination, Medical Assessor Hong took a history of a loss of interest in previous activities, consistent with that of the Medical Assessor. It was also noted that Mr Tanner could attend restaurants with his family, and whilst he is anxious, he can enjoy it to a degree. These are not rare occurrences.
The Appeal Panel are satisfied that the Medical Assessor erred in finding class 2 impairment in this PIRS. There is evidence of Mr Tanner going out without a support person (to Bunnings), attending restaurants with his family, and working on a memorial (albeit with assistance). It is acknowledged that Mr Tanner’s activities were more significant prior to his injury, but to qualify for class 3, he would need to be more restricted on attending events, especially without a support person.
The Appeal Panel are satisfied class 2 is the correct assessment.
Employability
The Medical Assessor assessed class 5 in this PIRS. The appellant submits that the surveillance materials shows a level of functioning that is inconsistent with a total inability to work. The appellant submits that the conclusion reached by the Medical Assessor is inconsistent with class 5 impairment.
In reply, the respondent worker submits that the submissions of the appellant are a mere different of opinion without foundation.
The Appeal Panel note that the surveillance evidence does show Mr Tanner engaging in some activities that may, in certain circumstances, be consistent with a limited capacity to engage in some work-like tasks. For example, Mr Tanner was shown to carry timber at Bunnings and based on the history given on re-examination, complete a woodworking task to create a plaque. However, the respondent’s symptoms of chronic depression and anxiety have not abated, and his alcohol use disorder remains quite severe. To qualify for a different rating in this PIRS, there must be evidence that a worker would be able to work, albeit at a reduced capacity. Although there is evidence that Mr Tanner can perform some tasks that would be relevant to employment, there is insufficient evidence that he would be able to work. Employment requires more than a capacity to perform a limited number of tasks in an isolated setting. The remainder of Mr Tanner’s symptoms are incompatible with employment, and accordingly class 5 is the correct assessment.
CONCLUSION
The Appeal Panel are satisfied that the MAC contains a demonstrable error. Following a re‑examination, the Appeal Panel have concluded that the Medical Assessor’s conclusion in respect of the PIRS of social and recreational activities was incorrect. Accordingly, the MAC will be revoked and replaced with a new certificate, which is attached to these reasons.
The scores in the PIRS, in ascending order, are now 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, for a total of 17 and a median class of 3. This is converted to 19% whole person impairment. There are no adjustments for treatment effect and no pre-existing impairment to be deducted.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002
Matter number: | W967/25 |
Applicant: | Strathfield Municipal Council |
Respondent: | Hardy Tanner |
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 Patrick Morris 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) |
| Psychiatric/psychological disorder | 11/10/22 | Chapter 11 | N/A | 19% | Nil | 19% |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 19% | |||||
0
6
0