Sunnyfield v Stanojlovic

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Sunnyfield v Stanojlovic [2023] NSWPICMP 518
APPELLANT:	Sunnyfield Disability Services
RESPONDENT:	Aleksandar Stanojlovic
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	17 October 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor erred in his determination that the respondent rated a class 3 in relation to social and recreational activities, rather than class 2; the Panel agreed; there was extensive evidence of the respondent engaging in a variety of social and recreational activities; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 21 June 2023 Sunnyfield Disability Services (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 30 May 2023.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).

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 that will become apparent in due course.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the MA 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 MA erred in his determination that Aleksandar Stanojlovic (the respondent) rated a Class 3 in relation to social and recreational activities, rather than Class 2. In addition, the appellant submits that:
“If the Appeal Panel does not find a Class 1 or 2 impairment in social and recreational activities, then it is also submitted the MAC contains a demonstrable error on the basis the MA determined the Respondent suffers from:
(i)Class 2 in social functioning;
(ii)(ii) Class 2 in self care and personal hygiene; and
(iii)(iii) Class 5 in employability.”
In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made by the MA in his assessment.

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 MA for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a primary psychological injury on 1 July 2020.
The MA set out the history he obtained as follows:
“Mr Stanojlovic worked for around 30 years in the disability support sector, usually working in residential facilities with younger people. For most of this time, he worked for the NSW government. Three years ago, he began working in the same kind of role, but with nongovernment organisations.
In June 2020, Mr Stanojlovic commenced work with Sunnyfield Disability Services as a disability support worker. At the time he commenced working, he reported no psychiatric symptoms, psychotropic medication prescription or consultations with mental health professionals. He had been working there for around 3 weeks by the time of the incident.
On 1 July 2020, Mr Stanojlovic was working at a residential facility for Sunnyfield Disability Services. He explained that there were a number of separate residences on the same site. He was allocated to work in one house in which one man in his twenties lived. Mr Stanojlovic explained the young man was not able to live in a shared facility, and that there were meant to be 2 support workers allocated to this man on every shift. He described the man as taller than himself, possibly around 190 cm. Mr Stanojlovic thought this was the second time he had been allocated to work with this particular client.
Upon arrival at work at 07:00, Mr Stanojlovic found out that he was the only support worker allocated to work with this young man… Mr Stanojlovic said he notified a manager that there was only one staff member for the 8- hour shift.
Towards the end of the shift, Mr Stanojlovic alleged that he was physically assaulted by the young man, within the house. He alluded to being held down by the man; he said he later had dreams of being held down by him. He described his emotional response at the time of the assault as follows: ‘That happen (sic) very sick and very scary... I thought, I'm gone' I couldn't restrain the fellow, I couldn't protect myself.’
Following the assault, Mr Stanojlovic left the house and sought help, notifying two other employees who were in another building on the site. He said that the ‘client smashed things in the house’. He added, ‘I called staff, they came, I left.’
Mr Stanojlovic then returned home… He disclosed the incident to his wife, who recommended he consult a GP.
Within one or two days of the incident, Mr Stanojlovic consulted a GP in Mona Vale, but felt that the doctor couldn't understand him… He then organised to see Dr Vecerka Skovrlj, a Serbian-speaking doctor on the Northern Beaches. He has continued to consult her to date.
Mr Stanojlovic has not worked in any capacity since 1 July 2020. He said that he has had physical symptoms since the incident…
From a psychiatric perspective, Mr Stanojlovic reported continuous [?] from the incident onwards. When asked if there had been periods of minimal or no symptoms, for a day or a week, he replied, ‘I wish.’
In July 2020, Mr Stanojlovic initially consulted his psychologist, Ms Janette Tombleson. He has continued to consult her to date.
At some stage after the incident, Mr Stanojlovic was prescribed an antidepressant medication, escitalopram.
In November 2020, Mr Stanojlovic consulted a psychiatrist, Dr Blagoje Kuljic, for the first time. This was the first time he had ever consulted a psychiatrist. He explained Dr Kuljic speaks Serbian. He has continued to consult him to date, with both face-to-face and telehealth consultations. Dr Kuljic… diagnosed him with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and recommended that the dose of escitalopram be increased to 15 mg daily.
In March 2021, Mr Stanojlovic had an IME with Dr Con Kafataris…
In May 2021, a review of Mr Stanojlovic's psychological treatment by Ms Tombleson was conducted by Mr Thomas O'Neill, clinical psychologist…
In December 2022, Mr Stanojlovic said that his workers' compensation payments ceased, as did payment of medical treatment costs…
Since Mr Stanojlovic's compensation payments ceased, he reported increased anxiety, stating the family were reliant on his wife's income and he was worried about losing the family home due to inability to cover his mortgage…
At some stage in early 2023, Mr Stanojlovic was prescribed mirtazapine, an antidepressant medication…”
After setting out details of Mr Stanojlovic’s treatment, the MA noted present symptoms as follows:
“Mr Stanojlovic described his mood as ‘very sad’ at the time of the assessment, rating it as 1/10 on a 10-point scale, where 10/10 represents a very cheerful mood, and 0/10 represents a very depressed mood. He also reported elevated generalised anxiety, as well as episodic anxiety including panic attacks. Additional emotional symptoms included feeling frustrated by the compensation process, as well as feeling guilty for the burden he feels he is placing on his family.
Mr Stanojlovic described a variable appetite and when asked if he enjoyed his food replied, ‘Sometimes yes, sometimes no’. He estimated his current weight as at around 100 kg, commenting this is the heaviest he has ever been. He estimated he had gained 20 kg of weight in the three years since the accident, and of this, 5-6 kg since the start of 2023. He described his energy levels as ‘very low … I’m like a zombie around the house’. When asked to describe motivation he replied, ‘I lost motivation’. He spontaneously reported feelings of hopelessness.
Mr Stanojlovic described highly variable sleep: Every day is really different’. He reported sometimes taking many hours to fall asleep, and advised that at times he did not sleep at all during the night. At other times he may fall asleep relatively quickly. He also reported middle insomnia, waking in the middle of the night. At times he experiences somatic symptoms of anxiety such as shortness of breath, chest tightness, and sweating when he wakes during the night. He reported dreams and nightmares commenting, ‘I can sometimes see someone above me’, stating this occurred ‘when I'm snoozy’. When clarification was sought from Mr Stanojlovic as to whether these represented hypnogogic or hypnopompic hallucinations, he was not able to provide additional information. He stated at times the dreams experienced were so intense he may scream loudly enough for his wife, who now sleeps in a different room on a different floor, to hear him.
Mr Stanojlovic stated If he sees ‘buses with disabled people’, he becomes anxious as they remind him of his former employment. He stated he if he sees ‘tall people in the shopping centre… this guy was tall’, he also becomes anxious.
Mr Stanojlovic denied any suicidal ideation, and denied any diurnal mood variation. He reported increased tearfulness commenting, ‘I can be very sad and cry for half the day’. He also describes himself as irritable towards family members and others.”
The MA then noted details of the respondent’s general health, work history and other matters not of relevance to the issues in dispute.
He then turned to consider the impact of Mr Stanojlovic’s injury on his social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) and said:
“Mr Stanojlovic is married, and has been in a relationship with his wife for almost 30 years. His wife works for a university in a managerial position… They have two adult daughters, both of whom are employed… Mr Stanojlovic stated he does not receive any income… He and his family live in their own property in Newport, and they have lived there for around 30 years.
Mr Stanojlovic states he is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church, stating he attends a church in Elanora. He stated he now attends church six to seven times a year, mainly the main religious holidays. He stated he used to attend every fortnight, and also used to be involved in church activities. Mr Stanojlovic speaks English and Serbian.
Mr Stanojlovic described himself as a fan of the Manly rugby league team. He stated he used to be a club member, but has ceased his membership. That said, he attended a game in person with his wife and two friends of hers at Brookvale Oval, and estimated he had attended three or four games in person in the 2023 season to date. He also watched a game of rugby league on the night prior to the IME at home, stating he was able to follow the game for 90 minutes, recalling the outcome in which his team lost. He recalled, ‘I enjoyed it, yes I did’…
Mr Stanojlovic has one close friend who lives in Cromer, and they catch up once or twice a month. Mr Stanojlovic advised that the friend either visits him at home, or he goes to visit his friend at his home. He states they may have coffee or tea, and spend time ‘talking about sport, an hour, an hour and a half max’. This friend is a relative of his wife.
Mr Stanojlovic stated he watches TV, but stated that he is disinterested at times. He commented, ‘I used to love action movies, but now I can't’, stating he sometimes has insomnia after watching these types of movies. He estimated he watched TV three to five times a week, for one to one and a half hours, sometimes watching the news.”
The MA then turned to consider Mr Stanojlovic’s “Current level of function” and said:
“Mr Stanojlovic stated he did not wash on a regular basis saying he sometimes does so twice a week. He commented, ‘Sometimes I'm pushed by my wife, she says, you smell very bad’. I don't think I smell, but stated that his bathing habits have led to arguments. He estimates he changes clothes twice a week, after showering. He stated he last showered three days prior to the IME, and had been wearing the same clothes for the past three days. By contrast, Mr Stanojlovic states he attends to dental hygiene twice a day. He estimated he goes to the barber every six to seven weeks, and tends to his beard every fortnight.
Mr Stanojlovic stated he very rarely’ eats breakfast, and may have snacks or meals in the late afternoon or evening. He stated he does not prepare meals or snacks for himself and relies on ‘what my mother-in-law makes’, explaining she lives a couple of blocks away, and typically visits their home every day.
Mr Stanojlovic advised his mother-in-law visits every day, from around 09:00 to 18:00. He stated this is a long-standing pattern… Mr Stanojlovic does not undertake any household chores or gardening stating they have a gardener. He states he sometimes go shopping with his wife commenting, ‘I do enjoy that, actually, to get out’. He states if he goes shopping with her, it will be on a weekend, but clarified he does not go shopping every weekend. He estimated he may be out shopping with his wife for ‘a couple of hours’, and at times they may have a cup of coffee.
Mr Stanojlovic advised he is able to drive alone, to local shops or to his psychologist in Newport. At other times, his wife or daughter will drive him to locations, such as his psychiatrist’s office in Liverpool… Mr Stanojlovic stated he does not catch public transport, when asked if he thought he could, he replied ‘I don't know’…
Mr Stanojlovic is able to use a mobile phone, as was demonstrated in the assessment. He advised he is able to send and receive emails by phone, but his wife assists him with other technological devices…
Mr Stanojlovic stated that he and his family go out to a restaurant ‘once every three months’, to a local restaurant in Newport. He commented, ‘I don't even go for coffee’, and explained this was due in part to him not having an income, and being very self-conscious about financial strain in the family, and having to ask his wife for an allowance.”
Findings on mental state examination were reported as follows:
“Mr Stanojlovic presented as a thick-set man of European appearance… Several days facial hair could be seen underneath the mask. He made good eye contact. He gestured freely and spontaneously, with no psychomotor agitation or retardation observed. He did not appear hypervigilant during the assessment. He was polite and pleasant in the interview, readily answering all questions…
Mr Stanojlovic’s speech was spontaneous, fluent, and normally in volume and rate. A Serbian accent was noted in passing. His proficiency in English was good. Whilst an interpreter was present, Mr Stanojlovic spoke in English for almost the entire period of time the interpreter was present… His affect was restricted in that he rarely smiled, however, towards the end of the assessment when talking about the incident at work that led to the current claim, he became visibly distressed and his eyes watered. He described his mood subjectively as depressed, anxious and irritable. Objectively, he presented as depressed and anxious, but not irritable. His mood was not objectively apathetic or elevated. His thought form was logical and sequential, with no formal thought disorder. He expressed his ideas with variable degrees of elaboration, from brief responses, to more detailed ones. No delusional thought content was observed or expressed at any time. He spontaneously reported thoughts of hopelessness and worthlessness. He denied suicidal ideation.
Mr Stanojlovic presented as alert and oriented throughout the assessment. He did not present as drowsy at any stage, nor was any fluctuation in level of consciousness observed at any stage.”
He then summarised the injuries and diagnoses as follows:
“Mr Stanojlovic is a 62 year old former disability support worker, who was allegedly assaulted by a client whilst at work on 1 July 2020. He reported onset of both physical and psychiatric symptoms as a direct consequence of the incident; both physical and psychiatric symptoms have continued to date. Documentation records prescription of at least 3 antidepressant medications since the injury, and at least 2 other psychotropic medications, as well as numerous individual psychological consultations.
Mr Stanojlovic has not returned to any kind of occupational activity since the incident, despite psychological and psychiatric treatment.
Diagnostically, Mr Stanojlovic meets DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.”
As regards consistency of presentation, the MA said:
“Mr Stanojlovic's presentation was consistent with the history provided, and consistent with the documentation provided by his treating psychiatrist. It is noted that the consistency of Mr Stanojlovic's reported symptoms during a previous psychiatric IME and a neurosurgical IME were not consistent with video surveillance taken within the same month.”
The MA assessed 17% WPI.
He then turned to consider the other medical reports and documents before him. He noted the extensive medical information he had. Relevant to the issues in dispute he said:
“Report by Dr Blagoje Kuljic, consultant psychiatrist, dated 29 November 2020: This report is written by Mr Stanojlovic's treating psychiatrist… Dr Kuljic's report records a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder…
IMC assessment report by Dr Con Kafataris, Injury Management Consultant, dated 26 March 2021: Reference is made to a psychiatric IME report by Dr Ben Teoh (dated 23 August 2020); this report was not received as part of the documentation for the current assessment.
Dr Kafataris, in a discussion with Mr Stanojlovic, records that ‘I advised the worker that I was quite sceptical that he would be able to return to work as a disability support worker particularly working with individuals who had challenging behaviours.’ Whilst Dr Kafataris expressed some optimism that Mr Stanojlovic might return to the workforce in some capacity in the future, there was no suggestion of what kind of role he might undertake following vocational redeployment.
Psychological report by Mr Thomas O'Neill, clinical psychologist, dated 25 May 2021: Mr O'Neill concluded that at that time, individual psychological consultations were not leading to significant clinical improvements to symptoms or functioning, nor... an increasing in work treatment’. He recommended continuation of treatment…
Report by Dr Blagoje Kuljic, consultant psychiatrist, dated 15 October 2021: Dr Kuljic's report records a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and a whole person impairment calculation is also documented in this report. A median class value of 3 is recorded, with an aggregate score of 19, resulting in a whole person impairment score of 24%. No adjustment was made for the effect of treatment, and no deduction was made for a pre-existing psychiatric disorder.
Independent medical examination report by Dr Brian Potter, consultant psychiatrist, dated 4 January 2022: Dr Potter records that during this assessment, Mr Stanojlovic ‘slipped a stick, similar to about a metre of a broom handle, from the sleeve of his top smashing it on the desk in front of him. The whack and noise of the stick was frightening.’ Reference is made to ‘the psychiatrist stopped a long time ago’, however, this is not consistent with Dr Kuljic's report from October 2021 in which he wrote,
‘Mr. Stanojlovic has been attending a psychiatrist since 28/11/2020.’ Dr Potter did not record a specific psychiatric diagnosis, stating, ‘.. the manner in which he gave his history at this assessment did not leave the possibility for an informed diagnosis’, but added, ‘... there is interference of a life stress with depression and anxiety.’
Video surveillance report by Procare C&A Investigations, dated 27 January 2022: This report describes video surveillance of Mr Stanojlovic over three separate days in January 2022. Mr Stanojlovic was recorded as driving alone in the Northern Beaches. He was also observed to have coffee (or similar beverage) with a male in the Warriewood Shopping Centre. Other activities recorded included picking up dry cleaning, going to the barber and conversing whilst in the centre. He was also observed going to a venue in Auburn, and playing on poker machines.
Supplementary report by Dr Brian Potter, consultant psychiatrist, dated 11 April 2022: Dr Potter refers to the video surveillance report. He opined, ‘The surveillance video does not reflect the "debilitated", "damaged" individual, within the history, although an unreliable history, by Mr Stanojlovic.’ He added, ‘... the impression he [Mr Stanojlovic] appeared to want to convey to the listener for the report of 4 January 2022, is not consistent with his functioning as captured on the surveillance’.
Report by Dr Blagoje Kuljic, consultant psychiatrist, dated 20 February 2023: Reference is made to surveillance footage in January 2022. Dr Kuljic advised that the surveillance material did not alter the opinion he expressed in his reported dated 15 October 2021. He opined that the ‘footage did not differ from the functional impairment assessment provided in the initial report’. Dr Kuljic did not provide updated or current information about Mr Stanojlovic's function after October 2021. The differences between the class rating in Dr Kuljic's October 2021 report (and restated in his February 2023 report) may be accounted for by the passage of time between October 2021 (his initial report) and January 2022 (the surveillance footage).
Dr Kuljic's assertion that Mr Stanojlovic ‘prefers to be driven but can drive locally’ is not consistent with the surveillance evidence that Mr Stanojlovic drove alone from his home to Auburn, some 40 minutes away.”

Discussion

Dealing firstly with the category of social and recreational activities, we note that the descriptor for a Class 3 reads:
“Moderate impairment: Rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by family or close friend. Will not go out without a support person. Not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn.”
For a Class 2 it reads:
“Mild impairment: Occasionally goes to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg dancing, cheering favourite team).”

The appellant makes the following submissions:
“a.     The MA provides the following reasoning in support of assessing a Class 3 impairment:
Mr Stanojlovic remains a fan of the Manly rugby league team, and has attend 3 or 4 home games since the start of the 2023 season (a 10 -11 week period). He attended the most recent game with his wife and 2 others. Mr Stanojlovic reported watching a football game on the night before the IME, and even though his team lost, he reported being able to enjoy the game. Mr Stanojlovic advised he is no longer able to watch the kinds of action films he used to enjoy watching.
b.     The MA obtained a history of the Respondent having attended a rugby league game in Manly at Brookvale Oval – and having attended three to four games between March 2023 (when the season commenced) and May 2023 (date of the MAC). [The appellant provided evidence in support of this claim].
c.     The Appellant refers to the fact that the Manly Sea Eagles rugby league team have only had five games at the Brookvale Oval (home ground) since March 2023 (when the season commenced) and May 2023 (date of the MAC). Therefore, the Respondent attended 80% of the games (assuming he attended four games). This behaviour is inconsistent with an individual who ‘rarely goes out to such events.’
d.     The Respondent reports he is no longer a club member but does not provide his reasoning for the cessation of his membership. Notwithstanding the cessation of his membership, it is clear the Respondent remains ‘actively involved’ and engaged as a ‘fan of the Manly rugby league team’ and indeed shows the Appellant, ‘regularly participates in social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate’. Thus, the Appellant submits that the Respondent should have been assessed with a Class 1 impairment with respect to social and recreational activities.
e.     Turning to the surveillance evidence, the Appellant submits the Respondent’s activities of attending a shopping centre, engaging in several conversations with different individuals and sitting at the poker machines for two hours shows no deficit in his ability to engage in social and recreational activities ‘attributable to the normal variation in the general population’, and indeed shows the Appellant, ‘regularly participates in social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate.’
f.     The MA did not adequately to set out a path of reasons for his decision to assess a Class 3 impairment in circumstances where the history portrays an individual who is actively engaged in the community and his sporting organisation. The surveillance evidence does not show evidence of a quiet and withdrawn person. The surveillance evidence does not show evidence of a person who requires a support person. The MA assessed Class 3 without addressing the nature of a ‘moderate impairment’ – and how the above factors and history establish a Class 3 PIRS rating.
g.      The MA failed to adequately consider the PIRS Class descriptors with all of the information before him and this has amounted in a failure to assess the appropriate criteria.
h.     A key difference in the wording between Classes 1, 2 and 3 is that Class 1 requires ‘regular’ involvement in social and recreational activities, while a Class 2 requires ‘occasional’ involvement in social and recreational activities and a Class 3 requires ‘rare’ involvement in social and recreational activities. Based on the fact the Respondent has stated he attended 80% of the home games (four out of five home game matches between March 2023 and May 2023), it is arguable the Respondent attends on a regular (emphasis added) basis.
i.     The MA should have been assessed with a Class 1 impairment with respect to social and recreational activities… At the very maximum, the respondent should have been assessed with a Class 2 impairment for social and recreational activities.”
We agree with the thrust of the appellant’s submissions for reasons that follow.
The MA in our view failed to adequately explore specific details as to the nature and extent of the respondent’s social and recreational activities, and inconsistencies between the documentary and oral evidence.
He reported what the respondent told him about such activities at the same time acknowledging that:
“Mr Stanojlovic's presentation was consistent with the history provided, and consistent with the documentation provided by his treating psychiatrist. It is noted that the consistency of Mr Stanojlovic's reported symptoms during a previous psychiatric IME and a neurosurgical IME were not consistent with video surveillance taken within the same month…
Dr Kuljic's assertion that Mr Stanojlovic ‘prefers to be driven but can drive locally’r is not consistent with the surveillance evidence that Mr Stanojlovic drove alone from his home to Auburn, some 40 minutes away.”
The evidence clearly showed Mr Stanojlovic attends church on occasions, regularly attends rugby league games, engages with his friend from Cromer, meets for coffee and plays the poker machines for some time.
In short, the evidence does not suggest that Mr Stanojlovic “rarely” goes out nor that he requires a support person. Equally, to suggest that he is “not actively involved and remains quiet and withdrawn” is inconsistent with all the evidence to which we have referred.
The evidence is completely at odds with the descriptor for a Class 3 rating.
We do of course accept that the descriptors are just that, and are of a general nature summarising the type of behaviour relevant to each category.
But as we have said, the evidence in this case does not come close to the descriptor for a Class 3.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence, we are of the view that a Class 3 rating is not open to the MA and a Class 2 rating is appropriate, since Mr Stanojlovic clearly has some restrictions in this category.
Having determined that a Class 2 is appropriate, it is not then necessary for us to deal with the other categories referred to by the appellant as “alternative” submissions noted in paragraph 10 above.
The aggregate score then becomes 15, median 2 and WPI 8%.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 30 May 2023 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

APPEAL PANEL

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W8113/22
Applicant:	Aleksandar Stanojlovic
Respondent:	Sunnyfield Disability Services

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)
1.Psychiatric disorder	1/7/2020	Chapter 11, page 6, Table 11.8	N/A	8	0	8
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)					8%

The above assessment is made in accordance with the SIRA NSW Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002.

[2023] NSWPICMP 518

17 October 2023