Sydney Trains v Marshall - [2025] NSWPICMP 753

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Sydney Trains v Marshall [2025] NSWPICMP 753
APPELLANT:	Sydney Trains
RESPONDENT:	Ralph Marshall
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
DATE OF DECISION:	24 September 2025
DATE OF AMENDMENT:	3 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); psychological injury; appeal with respect to three tables of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS); Held – with respect to self-care and personal hygiene the history in the file showed that weight loss was intentional and not a result of the injury; no error with respect to assessment of travel and no error in not making a section 323 deduction; Cole v Wenaline Pty Ltd, and Vitaz v Westform (NSW) Pty Ltd; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 18 June 2025 Sydney Trains lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Medical Assessor Ash Takyar, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 30 May 2025.
Sydney Trains relies on the ground of appeal under s 327(3)(d) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) - that the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The President’s delegate was satisfied that, on the face of the application, the ground of appeal was made out in respect of the Medical Assessor’s assessment of self care and personal hygiene. We conducted a review of the original medical assessment, limited to the grounds 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

Mr Marshall was employed by Sydney Trains in track maintenance. He suffered a psychological injury as a result of events in his employment. In the Application to Resolve a Dispute, he pleaded that the injury was deemed to have occurred on 28 October 2024. Since the date of our original decision, Mr Marshall and Sydney Trains have filed consent orders in which they agreed that deemed date of injury was 4 January 2023.
The Medical Assessor assessed 22% whole person impairment using the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), placing Mr Marshall in class 2 for travel and social functioning, class 3 for selfcare and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence and…

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 Sydney Trains v Marshall

Details

AGLC: Sydney Trains v Marshall [2025] NSWPICMP 753
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 753
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sydney Trains appealed against the decision of a workers' compensation assessment officer, who had revoked a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued by Sydney Trains. The MAC related to the appellant's claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury sustained in the course of employment. The dispute centred on the assessment of the appellant's psychiatric impairment under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), specifically with respect to three tables: self-care and personal hygiene, social and leisure activities, and travel. The appellant argued that the assessment officer had erred in revoking the MAC.

The court was required to decide whether the assessment officer was correct in revoking the MAC issued by Sydney Trains. The key issue was whether the assessment officer was correct in determining that there was no psychiatric impairment under the PIRS, particularly with respect to the three tables in question. The court had to consider whether the assessment officer's findings were supported by the evidence and whether there were any errors in the assessment process.

The court found that the assessment officer was correct in revoking the MAC. The court held that there was no error with respect to the assessment of self-care and personal hygiene, as the history in the file showed that weight loss was intentional and not a result of the injury. The court also found that there was no error with respect to the assessment of travel and no error in not making a section 323 deduction. The court relied on the cases of Cole v Wenaline Pty Ltd and Vitaz v Westform (NSW) Pty Ltd to support its findings.

The court revoked the MAC issued by Sydney Trains, affirming the decision of the assessment officer. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the assessment officer erred in revoking the MAC. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

Orders