Tierney v Wellington Aboriginal Corporation Health Service

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Tierney v Wellington Aboriginal Corporation Health Service [2025] NSWPICMP 824
APPELLANT:	Jacqueline Tierney
RESPONDENT:	Wellington Aboriginal Corporation Health Service
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	John Lam-Po-Tang
DATE OF DECISION:	23 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment of primary psychiatric injury; appeal by applicant worker in relation to assessment of Class 2 for social and recreational activities; statement of applicant worker not accepted as fresh evidence; Held – Appeal Panel found that the Medical Assessor did not err in awarding a Class 2 assessment for social and recreational activities and the assessment was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria; MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 15 July 2025 Jacqueline Tierney (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Melissa Barrett, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
17 June 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 sustained a psychological injury deemed to have occurred on
2 September 2021 in her employment as a finance officer with Wellington Aboriginal Corporation Health Service (the respondent).
The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 30 April 2025 in which she claimed lump sum compensation in respect the psychological injury.
The matter was referred to Dr Melissa Barrett, Medical Assessor, for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) of a psychiatric/psychological disorder as a result of the injury on
2 September 2021.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 2 June 2025 and assessed 9% WPI in respect of the psychological injury on 2 September 2021.

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.
The appellant submitted that in light of the issue with respect to the inadequacy of the history taken by the Medical Assessor, re-examination is appropriate.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was sufficient information upon which to make a determination.

Fresh evidence

Section 328(3) of the 1998 Act provides that evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to a medical assessment appealed against may not be given on an appeal by a party unless the evidence was not available to the party before the medical assessment and could not reasonably have been obtained by the party before that medical assessment.
The appellant sought leave to rely on the availability of additional relevant information that was not available before the medical assessment or that could not reasonably have been obtained before the medical assessment. The appellant did not rely on the availability of additional information as a ground of appeal in this matter.
The appellant seeks to admit the following evidence:
(a) statement of Jacqueline Tierney dated 15 July 2025.
The appellant’s submissions were as follows: “The appellant also relies on the attached statement of the appellant dated 15 July 2025”.
The appellant made no submissions as to whether the evidence was not available and could not reasonably have been obtained before the medical assessment.
The admission of ‘fresh evidence’ into an appeal was considered by Deputy President Fleming in Ross v Zurich Workers Compensation Insurance [2002] NSWWCC PD7 (Ross). The principles set out in Ross are relevant and have been applied to the admission of fresh evidence by an Appeal Panel.
In Ross the Deputy President stated:
“A number of authorities have considered the tests at common law for the introduction of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings before the Courts. The relevant tests are firstly, that the evidence which is sought to be admitted on appeal was not available to the Appellant at the time of the original proceedings or could not have been discovered at that time with reasonable diligence, and secondly that the evidence is of such probative value that it is reasonably clear that it would change the outcome of the case (Wollongong Corporation v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435; McCann v Parsons (1954) 93 CLR 418; Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632). These tests are addressed to the underlying principle of the need for finality in litigation and the importance of the ability of the successful party to rely on the outcome of the litigation. They are also addressed to the fundamental demands of fairness and justice in the instant case.”
It has been established that evidence should not be admitted by a Medical Appeal Panel unless it is of “substantive prima facie probative value”. In Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operation Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 112 at [78] Hodgson JA said:
“…in my opinion it would be reasonable for an AP not to admit evidence raising such a dispute unless that evidence had substantial prima facie probative value, in terms of its particularity, plausibility and/or independent support. Otherwise, simply by raising such a dispute, going to a matter relevant to the correctness of the certificate, a worker could put the AP in a position where it had to have a further medical examination conducted by one of its members. I do not think this would be in accord with the policy of the WIM Act.”
This supplementary statement clearly was not available before the examination by the Medical Assessor, however, no submissions were made as to why it could not have been reasonably obtained before the examination by the Medical Assessor. The Appeal Panel considers that this evidence from the appellant could have been obtained before the ARD was filed or before the examination by the Medical Assessor.
This supplementary statement, in our view, also does not have such substantial prima facie probative value as is necessary to be admitted as fresh evidence in this case. Further, the admission of such a statement, which, to a degree cavils with the history taken by the Medical Assessor, would undermine the need for finality in litigation.
The Appeal Panel determines for the reasons given above that the following evidence should not be received on the appeal:
(a) statement of Jacqueline Tierney dated 15 July 2025.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

Medical Assessment Certificate

The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
The appellant’s submissions include the following:
(a)    the Medical Assessor did not have regard to sufficient history, the consideration of which may have resulted in the placement of a different category in respect of social and recreational activities;
(b)    the Medical Assessor failed to sufficiently consider evidence or elicit evidence from the appellant which may have been relevant to her findings;
(c)    the Medical Assessor states on page 11 of the MAC: “I disagree with the opinion of Dr Smith in regard to moderate impairment in social and recreational activities. Although she is overwhelmed by organising more complex recreational activities, such as overseas holidays, she described normal levels of enjoyment and frequent socialising with friends and extended family, which in my view is more consistent with PIRS definition of mild impairment”;
(d)    the outings include described by the Medical Assessor going for meals with her family on birthdays, going to a local Indian restaurant with her husband and adult children, and holidays which appear to have been with family only. These are family affairs as distinct from friends. Further, the applicant seems to also note that she “just did what she was told” when travelling in Europe. Firstly, that the time spent with family should not be considered “socialising”, and secondly that social interaction regarding family ought to be considered for relevant to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) category ‘social functioning’ which is framed more in terms of assessment of family dynamics;
(e)    the applicant did attend three different art fairs to sell works after being “pushed by a friend” and helped put art on easels at an open garden and sold raffle tickets for one hour. These social occasions in and of themselves would not have reasonably caused the Medical Assessor to find category 2 as opposed to category 3;
(f)    the main potential factor which supports a minor impairment would appear to be the frequency at which she attends to coffee every morning at a coffee shop where she meets two older friends for coffee and a chat. The Medical Assessor states in the rating of class 2 and in relation, presumably, to class 3 states “a rating of moderate impairment requires an individual to socialise only rarely”;
(g)    however, it is submitted that as required by category 3 of the PIRS, the applicant “rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by a close family or friend”. The pivotal history, insofar as it distinguishes her from class 3 and 2 would appear to be the fact that “every morning she drives to cafe. where she has coffee with two older female friends”;
(h)    Dr Smith (ARD p56) does not appear to take a history of this but does take a history of marked restriction in social and recreational activities. It should be considered, firstly, that there has been a marked decline as reported by Dr Smith, in socialising;
(i)    Dr Fernando, in report dated 18 February 2025 states (Reply p4), “She goes out to have coffee with friends, which gets her up in the morning”. However,
Dr Fernando also states, when speaking about recreational activities, “She has a coffee with two of her neighbours on a regular basis, one is a mental health nurse”. (Reply p5). It is understood that the mental health nurse is a retired mental health nurse however, it is clear that no history has been taken with respect to the fact that these are two close friends with whom she appears to exclusively socialise with, one being a former mental health nurse. No further history was taken from the appellant with regard to what she talks about with these people, whether the applicant is encouraged to go by them, and whether such meetings should be considered “social”;
(j)    further details would need to be taken with respect to this activity in order to determine whether it is in fact truly “social in nature” or whether it predominantly relates to the support of two friends. The Medical Assessor has not unpacked whether the coffee actually constitutes “social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate” as distinct, for instance, from being a form of pseudo-therapy rather than a genuine social activity for the primary purpose of enjoyment;
(k)    similarly with art class, it has not been determined the extent to which this is in fact therapy for the appellant rather than a true social or recreational outing. Again, further details would need to be taken given this categorisation of 2 is pivotal in determining the appellant not to have a moderate impairment;
(l)    the Medical Assessor has taken inadequate history from the appellant regarding the coffee and failing to consider that one of her friends is a retired mental health nurse;
(m)     in order to determine that the “social functioning” (sic) was not in fact moderate, the Medical Assessor ought to have appropriately sought further information and unpacked the reason for this socialising. There was a failure to consider the mental health nurse aspect and had this been done, the Medical Assessor may have come to a differing opinion based on the fact that it ought to have caused the Medical Assessor to seek more information regarding the nature of the socialising, and
(n)    the Medical Assessor has erred in that she did not have regard to highly relevant history, the consideration of which would have potentially resulted in the placement of a different category.
The respondent’s submissions include the following:
(a)    in line with paragraph 1.6a of the Guidelines the task of the Medical Assessor was to assess the appellant as she presented on the day of assessment and to apply her own clinical judgement in the application of the Guidelines;
(b)    the Medical Assessor recorded a detailed history of the appellant’s functional capacity and elicited key information from the appellant to provide an informed decision of whole person impairment;
(c)    the Medical Assessor assessed the appellant’s permanent impairment properly and in accordance with all requirements and she provided sufficient reasons to follow her actual path of reasoning;
(d)    the appellant by her own concession admitted that she socialises with two friends every morning and she attends a painting class once a week. She also attended three different art fairs to sell works. This is evidence of a capacity to engage in social and recreational activities on a consistent basis, without the need for a support person;
(e)    the Medical Assessor reported that the appellant indicated that she ‘would love to have coffee with friends through the week’ but many of her friends are unavailable. This suggests that the appellant would engage in further social events if possible and the coffee events are purely for social purposes;
(f)    the appellant also reported to the Medical Assessor that she went on an overseas holiday to Bali with her family in May 2025 to celebrate her 60th birthday. She reported that three of her friends accompanied them to Bali but stayed in separate accommodation. She reported that they met for group dinners on four of the seven nights and the appellant conceded that she enjoyed these interactions;
(g)    the appellant’s own history undermines the argument that the holidays were family affairs that were distinct from friends and did not involve social interactions. The respondent does not agree that the overseas holidays is only relevant to the PIRS category ‘social functioning’ and maintains the history of overseas holidays applies to the category of social and recreational activities;
(h)    the above descriptions and history do not align with a class 3 moderate impairment as the appellant is not dependent on a support person to attend social or recreational events, and her weekly engagements is inconsistent with the description of “rarely goes out to events”;
(i)    Dr Smith did not record a history consistent with the above as he did not have the benefit of the desktop surveillance report at the time of his assessment and he was not provided a thorough history of the appellant’s weekly activities;
(j)    the Medical Assessor’s observations did not contribute to a materially incorrect assessment of the appellant’s permanent impairment. She assessed the appellant as she presented on the day of assessment and applied her own clinical judgement based on the material available to her and the history reported by the appellant;
(k)    the Medical Assessor’s findings did not contain a demonstrable error and her assessment of social and recreational activities was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
(l)    the MAC did not contain any demonstrable errors and was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria. The appeal should be dismissed and the MAC should be confirmed.

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 Appeal Panel has reviewed the MAC and the evidence in this matter.

Social and recreational activities

The appellant submits the Medical Assessor did not have regard to sufficient history, the consideration of which may have resulted in the placement of a different category in respect of social and recreational activities. The appellant argues that the Medical Assessor failed to sufficiently consider evidence or elicit evidence from the appellant which may have been relevant to her findings.
The examples under Table 11.2 for “Social and recreational activities” in the Guidelines are:
“Class 2: Mild impairment: occasionally goes out to such events e.g. without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (e.g. dancing, cheering favourite team).
Class 3: 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.”
The Medical Assessor assessed the appellant as Class 2 for social and recreational activities. In the PIRS Rating Form, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“Social and recreational activities - Class 2
Every morning she drives to a coffee shop where she meets two older female friends for coffee and chat. She enjoys crosswords. On Tuesdays she travels to Dubbo for a painting class. She will go out with her family to restaurants for birthday dinners. She enjoyed an overseas holiday to Bali, arranged for her 60th birthday
celebration. Although her son made the arrangements, over the 7 night holiday, there were group dinners and a cocktail party on 4 nights, which she enjoyed. In
September 2024 she enjoyed a six-week holiday to Europe, which her son had organised, noting that as she did not have to make decisions or organise logistical
arrangements, she was able to enjoy it, describing it as “great”.
Her current frequency and pattern of social engagement, and her capacity to enjoy herself, is consistent with a mild impairment. A rating of a moderate impairment requires an individual to socialise only rarely."

Under “Social activities/ADL”, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“Every morning, she drives to cafe where she has coffee with two older female friends. On Tuesdays, she goes to painting class in Dubbo. She will go out for meals with her family on birthdays. In the previous week she accompanied her husband and adult children to a local Indian restaurant. She enjoyed a number of overseas holidays. Between 9 May 2025 and 16 May 2025, she and her family went on holiday to Bali to celebrate her 60th birthday. Her son had organised the accommodation at a large villa and a cocktail party for her birthday. She and her adult children and grandchildren stayed in the villa accommodation and three friends also accompanied them to Bali, but stayed separately. They met for group dinners 4 out of 7 nights and she enjoyed these interactions.
In September 2024 she went on a six-week trip to London, France, Portugal and Spain, organised by her son who lives in London. She stated she, ‘just did what we were told’. ‘We were the children – great’. She stated she paints during her art class, but rarely paints when she is at home, which she attributes to poor motivation. She had attended three different art fairs to sell works after being ‘pushed’ by a friend. She had helped put art on easels at an open garden and sold raffle tickets for one hour stating, “I’m the lap dog’.”
At part 10c of the MAC, when commenting on the other medical opinions, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“I disagree with the opinion of Dr Smith in regard to moderate impairment in social and recreational activities. Although she is overwhelmed by organising more complex
recreational activities, such as overseas holidays, she described normal levels of enjoyment and frequent socialising with friends and extended family, which in my view is more consistent with PIRS definition of a mild impairment.”
In her statement dated 6 May 2024, the appellant stated: “I enjoy painting in my spare time but cannot put a brush to canvas without someone pushing me. My mind goes blank and | just stare at the canvas”.
Dr Glen Smith, consultant psychiatrist, in a report dated 7 August 2024, assessed Class 3 for social and recreational activities providing the following reasons:
“Ms Tierney reported marked restriction in social and recreational activities. She took up painting some years ago and found this enjoyable. She continues to try to engage in painting with a teacher/friend every Tuesday but she described reduced enjoyment in this activity. She previously enjoyed gardening but she now neglects this. She sometimes attends rugby union games with her husband.”
Dr Sachie Fernando, consultant psychiatrist, in a report dated 18 February 2025 noted that the appellant goes out to have coffee with friends “which gets her up in the morning”. He noted that the appellant does some artwork and had started painting before Workcover when she was stressed. He noted that she had made herself a little studio for this but not done anything since “November 24”. He noted that the girl who helps her to paint, motivates her.
Under “Recreational activities”, Dr Fernando reported that the appellant goes out for coffee, does painting, reads, and Pilates. He noted that she has a coffee with two of her neighbours on a regular basis, one is a mental health nurse and “likes this routine”. He noted that she was going away with her friends to Nelson Bay soon. He noted that she goes for “restaurants/ pub dinner, watch rugby in winter” and socialises with her close friends and family on a regular basis. Dr Feranado considered that with treatment, her condition appeared to have improved with some ongoing residual symptoms.
Dr Fernando assessed Class 2 for social and recreational activities, providing the following reasons:
“Ms Tierney appears to be able to go out for social/ recreational activities independently (eg - arts, Pilates, having coffee). However, she does not appear
to engage in recreational activities like she used to preinjury. She appears to need motivation and encouragement from family, friends and others for this at times and does not appear to engage to pre injury level.
Her social and recreational activities appear to be affected by low mood, amotivation, anergia, fatigue, anhedonia.
Minor impairment.”
Stern JA in Botha v Secretary, NSW Department of Customer Service [2024] NSWSC 781 at [68] considered the aim of Table 11.2 and said: “Rather, the intention in table 11.2 is to provide a tool for assessing the worker’s ability to engage in activities that are properly characterised as social or recreational”.
The appellant submits that her attendance at three different art fairs to sell works after being “pushed by a friend” and helping put art on easels at an open garden and selling raffle tickets for one hour would not have reasonably caused the Medical Assessor to find Class 2 as opposed to Class 3. The appellant submits that the main potential factor which supports a “minor” [sic] impairment would appear to be the frequency at which she attends to coffee every morning at a coffee shop where she meets two older friends for coffee and a chat.
The Appeal Panel noted that the Medical Assessor found that the appellant had a mild impairment, not a minor impairment, in the scale of social recreational activities. The Medical Assessor was correct in taking into the account the frequency of social and recreational activity in making her assessment. The Medical Assessor did take a history of the appellant driving to a cafe every morning where she had coffee with her two older female friends. However, in rating the impairment in this scale, this is only one of various factors identified in the PIRS Rating Form that was taken into account in the assessment of impairment in this scale.
The appellant submits that the appellant “rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by a close family or friend”. The appellant submits that pivotal history, insofar as it distinguishes her from class 3 would appear to be the fact that “every morning she drives to cafe where she has coffee with two older female friends.
However, the Appeal Panel noted that Dr Fernando took a history of the appellant going for “restaurants/ pub dinner, watch rugby in winter” and socialising with her close friends and family on a regular basis.
The appellant submits that there has been a marked decline as reported by Dr Smith, in socialising. Dr Smith considered that there had been a marked restriction in social and recreational activities as opposed to a marked decline. Dr Smith noted under current symptoms that the appellant was planning to reduce the dose of citalopram from 40mg to 20 mg daily after returning from holidays (the six week trip to London in late August 2024). However, the Appeal Panel noted that Dr Fernando, after examining the appellant on
6 February 2025, considered that with treatment the appellant’s condition appeared to have improved with some residual symptoms. The Appeal Panel considers that there been some improvement in the appellant’s condition and noted that she did reduce the dose of citalopram from 40mg to 20 mg daily in December 2024.
The Appeal Panel accepts that there has been some reduction in the appellant’s social and recreation activities but not to the extent that there is a “marked decline”. Further, the Appeal Panel noted that the appellant told the Medical Assessor that she would love to have coffee with friends through the week, but many of her friends are unavailable.
The appellant submits that one of the friends with whom she has coffee in the morning is a retired mental health nurse but no history was taken with respect to the fact that these are two close friends with whom she appears to exclusively socialise with, one being a former mental health nurse. It is suggested that no consideration was given by the Medical Assessor as to whether the applicant is encouraged to go to coffee by them, and whether such meetings should be considered “social”.
The Appeal Panel considers that even if the appellant was encouraged at some stage by her friends to meet for coffee in the morning, she is still able to leave her home on her own and meet them on a daily or very regular basis for coffee. While these meetings with her friends have a social component, they are the type of activities that are properly taken into account in the scale of social and recreational activities rather than social functioning as they involve going out and having coffee, as she is engaging in a recreational activity and not just maintaining the quality of a relationship.
The Appeal Panel noted that the Medical Assessor reported that the appellant described a trip to Bali in May 2025 to celebrate her 60^th birthday where she stayed in a villa with her husband, children and grandchildren. The appellant said that three other friends came and stayed nearby, and they met for group dinners four out of the seven nights and she enjoyed those interactions. Therefore, there is evidence that the appellant socialises with more that the two friends with whom she has coffee, since three of her friends went to Bali to celebrate her birthday. She also socialises with family members and enjoys recreational activities with them such as going out with her husband to the rugby and going out for meals with them on birthdays. The fact that some social events, such as going out for dinner, are with family members does not preclude those events being considered as social and recreational activities.
The Appeal Panel noted that Dr Fernando reported that she was going away with her friends soon to Nelson Bay.
The appellant submits that further details should need to be taken with respect to this activity of having coffee with her friends in order to determine whether it is in fact truly “social in nature” or whether it predominantly relates to the support of two friends, being a form of pseudo-therapy rather than a genuine social activity for the primary purpose of enjoyment. As noted above, the Appeal Panel accept the Medical Assessor’s categorisation of the meetings for coffee being social and recreational activities. Any therapy should be provided by an appropriate qualified professional currently practising, and not by a close personal friend. The Appeal Panel does not accept that having coffee with two friends one of whom is a retired mental health nurse on a regular basis can be regarded as a form of pseudo-therapy as opposed to the normal social interactions between friends.
The Appeal Panel noted that the appellant submits that similarly with the art classes, it was not determined whether this was therapy for the appellant rather than a true social or recreational outing. The Appeal Panel noted that the Desktop Investigation Report dated
31 January 2024 by Ms Kylie King of Quantum Corp referred to the appellant attending various art fairs and contained photographs of various works. The Appeal Panel accepts that painting may be therapeutic for the appellant. However, that does not preclude the painting activity being a recreational activity. The Appeal Panel also noted that the appellant goes to weekly Pilates classes.
The Appeal Panel rejects the submission that the Medical Assessor has taken inadequate history from the appellant regarding the coffee meetings. The Appeal Panel considered that the Medical Assessor had more than sufficient information to reach the conclusion that the appellant’s impairment in the scale of social and recreational activities was mild and not moderate. Many of the appellant’s submissions were based on speculation to the effect that a more detailed history may have resulted in a different outcome, rather than on the evidence.
In summary, the appellant enjoys regular social and recreational activities with her family and friends. The appellant has gone on several holidays to Bali, London and Europe, Uluru and Nelson Bay. Such holidays include recreational activities such as going out to dinner with family and friends. The appellant also attends weekly art and Pilates classes and has coffee with two friends each morning or several times a week. This pattern of activity cannot be considered as “rare”.
The Medical Assessor has provided a clear reasoning for the awarding of a Class 2 impairment. The Appeal Panel considers that there is no evidence, apart from Dr Smith’s report, to suggest that the appellant would satisfy the Class 3 criteria under Table 11.2. Although Dr Smith assessed Class 3 for social and recreational activities, he made no reference to the desktop investigation report, the various holidays or having coffee at a cafe regularly with two friends in the mornings.
The Medical Assessor did not err in awarding a Class 2 impairment for social and recreational activities under Table 11.2 and the assessment was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria. This ground of appeal is not made out.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 17 June 2025 should be confirmed.

[2025] NSWPICMP 824

23 October 2025