Strong v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 713

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Strong v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 713
APPELLANT:	Cindy Dawn Strong
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Mohammed Assem
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
DATE OF DECISION:	16 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of impairment of the lumbar spine under DRE Lumbar Category III; Appeal Panel found that the applicant did not have cauda equina syndrome and there was no error in the assessment of the lumbar spine; Appeal Panel satisfied no error in assessment of activities of daily living; no assessment of scarring; Appeal Panel found error as claim was made in respect of scarring; worker re-examined and assessed at 1% whole person impairment (WPI) for scarring; Held – MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 29 May 2025 Cindy Dawn Strong (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr David Lewington, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
13 May 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) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant suffered an injury on 30 May 2020 in her employment as a check out operator/cashier with Woolworths Group Limited (the respondent).
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 24 February 2025 in which she claimed lump sum compensation in respect the injury to her lumbar spine.
The matter was referred to Dr David Lewington, Medical Assessor, for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) of the lumbar spine as a result of the injury on 30 May 2020.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 12 May 2025 and assessed 16% WPI in respect of the…

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.

Continue reading Strong v Woolworths Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Strong v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 713
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 713
Decision Date: 16 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Strong v Woolworths Group Ltd involved the applicant, Strong, appealing a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Strong contested the assessment of impairment of the lumbar spine, which had been categorised under DRE Lumbar Category III, and the overall evaluation of activities of daily living. The dispute also included an issue regarding scarring, which had not been assessed in the initial MAC.

The court needed to determine whether there was any error in the Appeal Panel's assessment of the lumbar spine, the evaluation of activities of daily living, and whether the failure to assess scarring constituted a valid ground for appeal. The court also had to consider whether the re-examination and reassessment of scarring warranted a revision of the MAC. The primary focus was on whether the Panel's findings were legally sound and whether the process adhered to the statutory requirements.

The Appeal Panel concluded that there was no error in the assessment of the lumbar spine and the evaluation of activities of daily living. They found that Strong did not have cauda equina syndrome and that the assessment of the lumbar spine was correctly conducted. However, the Panel acknowledged an oversight in not assessing scarring, which was a valid component of the claim. After re-examining Strong and assessing the scarring, the Panel determined a 1% whole person impairment (WPI) for this aspect. The court found that the Appeal Panel's failure to initially assess scarring constituted an error and, as a result, revoked the MAC.

The court ordered the revocation of the MAC and directed that the scarring be reassessed, with a 1% WPI assigned for this condition. This decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive assessment in workers' compensation claims, ensuring that all aspects of an injury are adequately considered.

Orders