Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd v Chapman

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd v Chapman [2023] NSWPICMP 701
APPELLANT:	Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Ray Samuel Chapman
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Chris Oates
DATE OF DECISION:	22 December 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Medical Assessor (MA) assessed permanent impairment of the respondent from several injuries the respondent suffered to his knees; whether, with respect to two of those injuries, the deduction the MA made under section 323(1) for proportion of respondent’s permanent impairment that was due to a previous injury or pre-existing condition was wrong or was based on incorrect criteria; Appeal Panel held that the deduction made with respect to one injury involved error; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 26 September 2023 Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd, the appellant, lodged an
Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Rob Kuru, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 29 August 2023.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (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 (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

Ray Samuel Chapman, the respondent, commenced employment as an operator with the appellant in August 1998. He ceased his employment in July 2022. In a statement he signed on 14 June 2022 he described that his employment required him to tap metal out of pots into a large ladle and to change anodes in aluminium pots. He was required to wear clothing that the appellant provided him which included boots that each weighed one kilogram. His work required him to walk many kilometres on concrete floors in each shift and to walk on uneven ground. His work required him to negotiate stairs and uneven ground. Further, he spent long periods standing, crouching and squatting.
On 18 August 2007 he twisted his left knee whilst working for the appellant and suffered injury to it. The injury was treated by way of a meniscectomy on 15 February 2008. The respondent and the appellant subsequently entered into a complying agreement on 27 May 2009 providing for the appellant to pay the respondent compensation under s 66 of the
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for 1% whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from this injury.
The respondent again twisted his left knee on 11 June 2018 whilst working for the appellant and again suffered an injury.
On 18 November 2018 his left knee gave way whilst he was working for the appellant causing him to twist his right knee and injure his right knee.
There is no dispute between the appellant and the respondent that the appellant suffered the above described injuries.
The respondent also claimed he suffered an injury in the nature of an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease in his left and right knees due to the duties he performed for the appellant over the period of his employment with it, with that injury being deemed to have occurred on 8 August 2022 in accordance with s16 of the 1987 Act.
The respondent had a left knee replacement on 21 May 2019 and a right knee replacement on 13 August 2019
The respondent claimed compensation from the appellant under s 66 of the 1987 Act for 32% WPI from that injury. In support of his claim he relied on reports of orthopaedic surgeon Dr Gregg Burrow dated 1 November 2019, 9 September 2020, 16 September 2020 and 20 February 2022. Dr Burrow in his report of 16 September 2020 advised he had assessed the respondent had a combined impairment of 33% WPI from all the injuries to his left and right knees, including the injury to deemed to have occurred on 8 August 2022.
The appellant disputed the respondent suffered the injury to his left and right knees that was deemed to have occurred on 8 August 2022, and notified the respondent of that in a notice issued under s78 of the 1998 Act. The appellant also notified the respondent that it considered the injury he suffered to his left knee on 11 June 2018 and to his right knee on
18 November 2018 had resolved. It denied it was liable to pay him compensation that he had claimed.
The respondent then instituted proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking determination of his claim for compensation. The matter was referred to member Gaius Whiffin who on 28 June 2023 determined that the respondent suffered an injury to his knees in the form of an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a disease due to the nature of his duties with the appellant.[1] The member also made the following orders:
[1]Chapman v Tomago Aluminium Co Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 307.
“1. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) for assessment as follows:
(a) date of injury:               18 August 2007;
(b) body systems/parts:      left lower extremity (knee), scarring (TEMSKI), and
(c) method of assessment:            whole person impairment.
2. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s321 of the 1998 Act for assessment as follows:
(a) date of injury:               11 June 2018;
(b) body systems/parts:      left lower extremity (knee), scarring (TEMSKI), and
(c) method of assessment:            whole person impairment.
3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s321 of the 1998 Act for assessment as follows:
(a) date of injury:   18 November 2018;
(b) body systems/parts:   right lower extremity (knee), scarring (TEMSKI), and
(c) method of assessment:             whole person impairment.
4. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s321 of the 1998 Act for assessment as follows:
(a) date of injury:   8 August 2022 (deemed);
(b) body systems/parts:   left lower extremity (knee), right lower extremity (knee), scarring (TEMSKI), and
(c) method of assessment:   whole person impairment.
On 28 July 2023 a delegate of the President duly issued a referral to the Medical Assessor in accordance with the orders the member made.

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

The Medical Assessor set out in Part 1 of the MAC the injuries the respondent suffered that had been referred to him to assess. In Part 4 of the MAC he described the circumstances in which the respondent suffered his injuries and detailed the treatment the respondent had, which included the arthroscopic surgery on the 15 February 2018 to his left knee, a left knee replacement on 21 May 2019 and a right knee replacement on 13 August 2019. The Medical Assessor noted that the respondent suffered an injury to his right knee 30 years ago, which was prior to his employment with the appellant, and had a partial meniscectomy as treatment for that.
The Medical Assessor detailed the relevant radiological investigations the appellant had done on his knees. This comprised an MRI of his left knee on 6 December 2017 which was reported to reveal medial compartmental osteoarthritis and a degenerative meniscal tear. The investigations also included an x-ray of both knees done on 14 October 2019 that revealed medial compartmental osteoarthritis in both knees. They included a further MRI of the left knee on 26 January 2018 that the Medical Assessor noted was reported to show tri-compartmental osteoarthritis. They included an x-ray done on 7 February 2022 of the right knee which the Medical Assessor noted was reported to reveal a minor substance of the right tibial component.
The Medical Assessor provided the following “summary of injuries and diagnoses” in Part 7 of the MAC:
“Mr Chapman twisted his left knee at work and aggravated a pre-existing degenerative meniscal tear. He went on to have an arthroscopy and over time has developed osteoarthritis in his knee.
Mr Chapman had previously had an injury to his right knee, having had a meniscectomy. He aggravated pre-existing osteoarthritis when he twisted his right knee on 18/03/18. He has subsequently gone on to have bilateral total knee replacements.”
The Medical Assessor assessed the respondent had 1% WPI relating to the injury to his left knee on 18 August 2007. He explained that he assessed that by reference to Table 17.33 of AMA 5 which stipulates that the rating for a partial medial or partial lateral meniscectomy is 1% WPI. The Medical Assessor noted that respondent's scar was well healed and assessed no impairment relating to the respondent's scarring for the partial medial meniscectomy. The Medical Assessor advised within Part 11 of the MAC that his opinion was the respondent had a pre-existing of osteoarthritis in his left knee. He certified in Table 2 of the MAC that one-third of the respondent's permanent impairment relating to the injury he suffered to his left knee on 18 August 2007 that was due to pre-existing osteoarthritis. A deduction under s 323(1) of the 1998 Act on account on that made no difference to the result 1% WPI was achieved after rounding. That is what the Medical Assessor certified the respondent's degree of permanent impairment to be from the injury to his left knee on 18 August 2007.
With respect to the injury to the respondent's left knee on 11 June 2018 the Medical Assessor indicated in Part 10a of the MAC that he assessed the respondent's permanent impairment as 1% WPI. Confusingly in Part 10b of the MAC he indicated that he based his assessment on the criteria set out at Table 17.31 in AMA 5, but within Table 2 to the MAC he recorded that he assessed the respondent's impairment by reference to the criteria of Table 17.33. The Medical Assessor again made a deduction under s 323(1) of one-third resulting in his assessing the respondent's permanent impairment of his left knee from the injury on 11 June 2018 to be 1% WPI. He again assessed 0% WPI relating to scarring.
The Medical Assessor said within Part 10b of the MAC that the respondent's injury to his right knee on 18 November 2019 represented an aggravation of underlying arthritis and that he could not make an assessment of the respondent's permanent impairment from that injury because imaging was not available to enable an assessment to be done.
Within Part 10b of the MAC the Medical Assessor recorded that he assessed the respondent's impairment relating to the injury he was deemed to have suffered on 8 August 2002 to his left and right knees by reference to the criteria in Table 17.35 of AMA 5 as corrected by the table set out at page 21 of the Guidelines. He assessed the respondent had a good result from his left knee replacement which correlated with 15% WPI and had a fair result from his right knee replacement which correlated with 20% WPI. The Medical Assessor considered the respondent's scars from the knee replacements were well healed without complication and were typical for the surgery and the Medical Assessor did not consider the respondent had any impairment from scarring from those procedures.
The Medical Assessor also considered that the respondent had pre-existing arthritis in both joints and this contributed to his permanent impairment from the injury he suffered on
8 August 2022. The Medical Assessor indicated that he could not make an assumption under s 323(2) of the 1998 Act that the deduction to be made under s 323(1) on account of that pre-existing condition was one-tenth because he said that was at odds with the available evidence. With respect to the left knee the Medical Assessor made a deduction of one-third providing the following explanation:
“The injury to the left knee represented aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative pathology which was aggravated at the time of injury. Progression of the pathology to require knee replacement is a consequence of Mr Chapman’s age and body habitus and less consequence of the injury.”
The Medical Assessor also said the following, when comparing his assessment with the assessment of other medical examiners:
“An area of disagreement between the reports is over the extent to which the nature and conditions of Mr Chapman’s employment may have contributed to the progression of osteoarthritis and the magnitude of deduction that should be made on the basis of age and obesity. I note AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation 2nd Edition pages 363 and 364 note very strong evidence for age, obesity as risk factors, and strong evidence for previous trauma and meniscectomy. With respect to occupational risk factors, lifting, sitting, standing and walking are described as having insufficient evidence and kneeling, squatting and knee bending and combination risk factors (kneeling and squatting with heavy lifting, squatting, kneeling, climbing, knee bending and heavy physical demand) as some evidence. On this basis, a significant deduction is applicable for both knees.”
The Medical Assessor made a deduction of three-quarters when assessing the degree of permanent impairment relating to the injury the respondent suffered to his right knee on
8 August 2022 for the proportion of that permanent impairment that was due to his
pre-existing osteoarthritis. The Medical Assessor provided the following explanation for that:
“The total knee replacement in the right knee is a consequence of Mr Chapman’s age and body habitus with a contribution from the injury he had 30 years previously to the right knee. The knee was significantly symptomatic in 2014, prior to the aggravation at work on 18 November 2018. It is likely Mr Chapman would have come to total knee replacement around the same time, with or without the injury at work on 18 November 2018.”
The Medical Assessor assessed and consequently certified that he assessed the respondent had 5% WPI relating to the injury the respondent suffered to his right knee that was deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022. The Medical Assessor certified that the combined total of the permanent impairment he assessed the respondent to have of his left knee and right knee from the injury deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022 was 15% WPI.

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 did not require the respondent to undergo a further medical examination. This is because the Appeal Panel, for reasons explained below, found that none of the grounds for appeal on which the appellant relied was established. Consequently, the Appeal Panel would be confirming the MAC and did not need to re-assess any part of the medical dispute that had been referred for assessment. In other words it did not need any further clinical data to deal with the appeal. Further, absent the Appeal Panel finding error in the MAC, the Appeal Panel has no power to examine the appellant.[2]
[2]NSW Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1792 at [33]; Ziraki v The Australian Islamic Liverpool Area [2019] NSWSC 1158 at [74]; Coenradi v the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 864 at [134]; and Finnegan v Komatsu Forklift Australia Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 38 at [125]-[130].
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.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor applied incorrect criteria and made an error when assessing the deductible proportion under s323(1) of the 1998 Act
relating to respondent's left knee injury on 18 June 2018 and from the left injury that was deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022. The appellant submitted that given the Medical Assessor made a deduction of three-quarters when assessing the degree of permanent impairment of the respondent's right knee injury on 8 August 2022 due to the respondent
having a partial meniscectomy of the right knee, the Medical Assessor ought to have applied a similar deduction when assessing the respondent's permanent impairment relating to the injury he suffered to his left knee on 18 June 2018 and to the injury to his left knee that was deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022. The appellant noted that the respondent had arthroscopic debridement of his left knee with partial meniscectomy and medical femoral chondroplasty on 15 February 2008. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor failed to consider this surgery when considering what deduction was to be made under s 323(1) when assessing the permanent impairment the respondent had from the injury to his left knee on 8 June 2018 and the injury deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022.
The appellant referred to the case of Cole v Wenaline Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 78 (Cole) and to Fardell v Clinton Industries Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 111 (Fardell). The appellant submitted that based on those authorities the Medical Assessor was required not to base his
assessment on an assumption or hypothesis and was required to analyse how a prior injury or pre-existing condition contributes to the permanent impairment from the injury that is the subject of the assessment.
In reply, the respondent submitted that the appellant's appeal is based on unreasonable
generalisations and repetitious assertions. The respondent submitted that the appellant
ignores that each knee suffered separate and distinct insults and was subjected to surgery of a different nature at different times. The respondent submitted that it is apparent from the MAC that the Medical Assessor took into consideration the meniscectomy that he had done to his left knee in 2008.

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.
The Appeal Panel notes that no challenge has been made to the Medical Assessor's
assessment of the respondent's permanent impairment from the injury to his left knee on 18 August 2007 and from the injury to his right knee that was deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022. Further, no challenge has been made to the Medical Assessor's conclusion that the permanent impairment from the respondent's injury to his right knee on 18 November 2018 is not assessable. Also, no challenge has been made to the Medical Assessor's
assessment that the respondent had a good result from his left knee replacement and that as a consequence, he has 15% WPI overall following the injury to his left knee that was deemed to have occurred on 8 August 2022.

The Appeal Panel rejects the appellant's submission that because the Medical Assessor in his assessment of the permanent impairment relating to the respondent's right knee resulting from the injury that was deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022 made a deduction of three-quarters on account of the contribution that pre-existing osteoarthritis made to the
respondent's permanent impairment from that injury, the Medical Assessor should have made a deduction of around the same order when assessing the permanent impairment from the injury to the respondent's left knee that was deemed to have happened also on 8 August 2022. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the development of the degenerative pathology in the respondent's right knee was highly likely to have followed a different course than the
development of the degenerative pathology in his left knee. The respondent in his statement of 14 June 2022 said that he suffered an injury to his right knee 35 years ago, which would be 1987, in which he tore a ligament that required surgery. He said that he recovered from that injury. Notwithstanding his recovery, it is likely, in the Appeal Panel’s view, that this injury and the consequent surgery would have initiated a degenerative process in the respondent's right knee. The respondent did not have any symptoms in his left knee until he suffered injury on 18 August 2007. The impression of the radiologist who reported on the MRI scan of the respondent’s left knee done on 6 December 2007 was as follows:
40.“There is an oblique tear through the posterior horn, body, and anterior horn of the medial meniscus. This is associated with degenerative bruising of the medial tibial plateau and cartilage loss at the level of the medial tibial plateau. There is some fluid around the medial collateral ligament, which remains however intact. There is a 5mm posteromedial loose body.
41.There is increased signal in the lateral prepatellar soft tissues, which could be related to prepatellar bursitis inflammation.”
In the Appeal Panel's view, which is an expert panel, that does not indicate extensive
degeneration in the respondent's left knee at that time. In other words, in the Appeal Panel's view, it was likely that there was variation in the extent of the osteoarthritis in the
respondent's knees at the time he commenced employment with the appellant, that is at the time at which he commenced the tasks in his employment that resulted in an aggravation, exacerbation, acceleration and deterioration of the degeneration of the degenerative disease in his knees and which continued for around 24 years.
The second reason why the Appeal Panel rejects the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor ought to have made the same deduction under s 323(1) when assessing what the respondent's permanent impairment was from the respondent’s left knee injury deemed to have happened on 8 August 2022 as that which the Medical Assessor made when assessing the permanent impairment from the injury to his right knee is that in the Appeal Panel's view it is strongly arguable that the three-quarter deduction the Medical Assessor made with respect to the right knee is wrong and that the deductible proportion for the purpose of s 323(1) should have been assumed, in accordance with s 323(2), to be 10%. The evidence relevant to that issue is that the respondent was around 39 years of age when he commenced
employment with the appellant. There was no evidence that he had any symptoms or
impairment in his right knee at that time. It was likely though, that as a consequence of the earlier injury and surgery he had to his right knee he would have had some degeneration at the time he commenced his employment with the appellant. He nevertheless was able to work without problem in his right knee until 2018. The work that he undertook for the
appellant, as set out above, required him to walk many kilometres on concrete floors and on uneven ground wearing boots that together weighed two kilograms over the course of each shift he performed. Additionally, he had to negotiate stairs and crouch and squat and also had to stand for long periods of time. He did that work for the appellant for a period of 24 years. It would be difficult to determine the exact extent of the degeneration in his right knee at the time he commenced employment, and hence it is difficult to determine the
precise extent to which that pre-existing condition contributes to his present permanent
impairment in his right knee. To assume however, that the deductible proportion for s 323(1) for the purpose of the assessment of the assessment of the permanent impairment of his right knee injury was 10% was not at odds with the evidence the Appeal Panel has just
outlined.
The Appeal Panel also does not accept the appellant's submission that the deductible
proportion for the purpose of s 323(1) for the assessment of the respondent's permanent impairment from the injury that was deemed to have occurred on 8 August 2022 to his left knee should be greater than the one-third the Medical Assessor assessed it is. The Appeal Panel considers that the work the respondent did for the appellant over the course of 24 years was the factor that contributed most to his permanent impairment of his left knee following his
injury that is deemed to have occurred on 8 August 2022. The Appeal Panel in coming to that conclusion notes that the respondent's body weight was only a risk factor for him in developing osteoarthritis. That is, it predisposed him to degeneration in his left knee. At the time the respondent commenced his work with the appellant, that is at the time he exposed himself to the activities that resulted in an aggravation, acceleration and deterioration of his degeneration in his left knee, the degeneration in his left knee would have been modest. The principal cause of the advancement and progression of the degeneration in his left knee and the symptoms consequent upon that, which necessitated him having a left knee replacement, would have been, in the Appeal Panel's view, the work he did for the appellant. Again,
bearing in mind the work the respondent did for the appellant over the course of 24 years and the likelihood any degeneration in his left knee was modest at the time he commenced his employment, a strong argument could be made that to assume pursuant to s 323(2) that the deductible proportion for s 323(1) is 10% is not at odds with the evidence. However,
neither party has put that argument to the Appeal Panel.
In the final analysis, the Appeal Panel does not consider, based on the submissions that have been made, that the Medical Assessor made an error in concluding that the deductible proportion for s 323(1) was one-third.
With respect to the Medical Assessor's assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury to his left knee on 11 June 2018, when the MAC is read as a whole it would seem that the criteria that the Medical Assessor applied to rate the respondent's permanent impairment were those contained in Table 17-33 of AMA 5. That is his assessment was based on the respondent having had a partial medial meniscectomy. Neither party raised any issue regarding that. Table 17-33 permits 1% WPI for that. That however relates to the
permanent impairment the respondent had from his injury on 18 August 2007. Consequently, the deduction that ought to have been made under s 323(1), with respect to the assessment of the respondent's permanent impairment from the injury to his left knee on 11 June 2018 ought to have been 100%. On this issue, the Medical Assessor erred, such that the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 29 August 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:	W1824/23
Applicant:	Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd
Respondent:	Ray Samuel Chapman

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 Rob Kuru 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)
Left lower extremity (knee)	18/8/2007	Chapter 3	Table 17.33	1%	1/3	1%
Scarring	18/8/2007	Table 14.1	0%	0%
Left lower extremity	11/6/2018	Chapter 3	Table 17.33	1%	100%	0%
Scarring	11/6/2018	Table 14.1	0%	0%
Right lower extremity	18/11/2018	Chapter 3	Table 17.31	Not assessable
Left lower extremity	8/8/2022	Chapter 3, page 21	Table 17.35	15%	1/3	10%
Scarring	8/8/2022	Table 14.1	0%	0%
Right lower extremity	8/8/2022	Chapter 3, Page 21	Table 17.35	20%	3/4	5%
Scarring	8/8/2022	Table 14.1	0%	0%
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) DOI 18/8/2007					1% WPI
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) DOI 11/6/2018					0% WPI
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) DOI 18/11/2018					Not assessable
Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) DOI 8/8/2022					15% WPI

[2023] NSWPICMP 701

22 December 2023