Strathfield Municipal Council v Tanner - [2025] NSWPICMP 681

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, 4^th 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…

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 Strathfield Municipal Council v Tanner 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 681
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Strathfield Municipal Council versus Tanner, the issue before the court was the review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) concerning a workplace injury. The respondent, Tanner, had sought to challenge the certificate under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The primary contention was whether the Medical Assessor (MA) had appropriately evaluated the evidence provided, specifically focusing on Tanner's psychological injury as assessed by the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS). Tanner attempted to introduce fresh evidence through an application to lodge additional documents, which was lodged alongside the appeal. The court needed to determine whether the MA's assessment was flawed due to not considering relevant material and whether there were errors in the application of the PIRS.

The court examined whether the MA had indeed overlooked pertinent evidence, particularly surveillance material that Tanner claimed was crucial to the assessment. Additionally, the court scrutinised the validity of three specific PIRS ratings assigned by the MA. The court found that the MA had not considered the surveillance material, which was a significant oversight. Furthermore, an error was identified in one of the PIRS assessments. Given these findings, the court concluded that the MA's assessment was deficient.

Consequently, the court revoked the MAC, ruling that it was not based on a proper consideration of all relevant evidence. The court's decision hinged on the MA's failure to incorporate crucial surveillance footage and the error in the PIRS application. The fresh evidence presented by Tanner was not admitted as it was lodged under cover of an application to adduce additional documents, which the court deemed inappropriate under section 328(3) of the Act. This ruling underscores the necessity for thorough and unbiased assessments in workers' compensation claims, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered before any certificate is issued.

Orders