Sydney Trains v Singh - [2025] NSWPICMP 551

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Sydney Trains v Singh [2025] NSWPICMP 551
APPELLANT:	Sydney Trains
RESPONDENT:	Mahendra Singh
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Davies
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
DATE OF DECISION:	29 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); medical appeal; causation; questions of causation not foreign to medical disputes; Bindah v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd applied; previous injury; section 323 applied; effect of finding that injury had resolved; subsequent events excluded on basis of Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education v Johnson, and State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley; relevant considerations; surgery causally connected to injurious event; scarring also causally connected and assessed appropriately; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 6 May 2025, Sydney Trains, the appellant lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Donald Cawthorne, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 9 April 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) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr Singh, the respondent worker to these proceedings, commenced employment in an administrative role with the appellant in 2005. Later that same year, he commenced employment as a train guard, a role he was employed in until April 2021. He ceased employment with the appellant in July 2023.
The nature of Mr Singh’s injury, as well as other injuries he has suffered in his employment with the appellant, is complex. This is (at least) the fourth set of proceedings between the appellant and respondent that has proceeded through the Commission. Earlier proceedings have involved a claim for weekly compensation, which were resolved by consent in December 2021, a claim for neck surgery, which was also resolved via consent…

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 Singh

Details

AGLC: Sydney Trains v Singh [2025] NSWPICMP 551
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 551
Decision Date: 29 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sydney Trains v Singh involved the claimant seeking compensation for an injury sustained while working for Sydney Trains. The dispute centred on the review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) which had been issued by the defendant. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The claimant argued that the MAC did not appropriately consider the extent of her injuries and their causation, while the defendant maintained that the MAC was correctly issued and that the claimant's injuries were either not causally connected to her employment or had resolved prior to the injurious event in question.

The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the questions of causation were foreign to medical disputes, the application of the principles in Bindah v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd, and the effect of a finding that an injury had resolved. The court was also required to consider the relevance of subsequent events in the context of Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education v Johnson and State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the surgery undertaken was causally connected to the injurious event and if the scarring resulting from the surgery was appropriately assessed.

In its judgment, the court determined that the questions of causation were not foreign to medical disputes, applying the principles from Bindah. It was held that section 323 was applicable, and the effect of finding that an injury had resolved was that subsequent events were excluded from consideration. The court found that the surgery was indeed causally connected to the injurious event, and the scarring resulting from the surgery was also causally connected and assessed appropriately. Consequently, the court confirmed the MAC issued by the defendant, upholding the findings of the original tribunal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by the claimant was dismissed, and the MAC was confirmed as correctly issued by the defendant. The claimant was not entitled to the compensation she sought, as the court found that the MAC appropriately reflected the nature and extent of her injuries, and their causation.

Orders