Tran v Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 804

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Tran v Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWPICMP 804
APPELLANT:	Quang Thanh Tran
RESPONDENT:	Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd, Adecco Industrial Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Todd Gothelf
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Tommasino Mastroianni
DATE OF DECISION:	17 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether Medical Assessor (MA) erred by not assessing the appellant had permanent impairment relating to his shoulders, thoracic spine, and right hip; Held – the findings of the MA from his examination of the appellant were such that the appellant did not have any rateable impairment of his right hip and thoracic spine and so consequently MA did not err by assessing the appellant had 0% whole person impairment (WPI) relating to those body parts; the MA’s assessment that the appellant had 0% WPI relating to his shoulders was based on the MA finding the appellant did not suffer an injury to his shoulders, in the circumstance where there was no dispute between the parties that he had; MA erred in that regard; appellant re-examined; MAC revoked.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 23 June 2025 Quang Thanh Tran, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Roger Pillemer, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
26 May 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):
·        deterioration of the worker’s condition that results in an increase in the degree of permanent impairment;
·        availability of additional relevant information (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against);
·        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 (AMA5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

From 6 November…

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 Tran v Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Tran v Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 804
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 804
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tran v Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd, the respondent, an insurance company, sought to have a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) affirmed, which concluded that the appellant, a former employee, had no permanent impairment resulting from his workplace injuries. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Magistrates Court of Queensland. The appellant contested the MAC, arguing that the Medical Assessor (MA) had erred in assessing his whole person impairment (WPI) as 0% with respect to his shoulders, thoracic spine, and right hip.

The legal issues before the court were whether the MA had erred in assessing the appellant's WPI, and if so, whether that error was significant enough to warrant a revocation of the MAC. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the MA's findings regarding the appellant's injuries to his shoulders, thoracic spine, and right hip were correct and if the MA had correctly applied the statutory criteria in assessing the appellant's WPI. The appellant contended that the MA had failed to properly assess his impairment and that this was a material error, while the respondent maintained that the MA's assessment was accurate and should stand.

The court found that the MA had not erred in concluding that the appellant did not have any rateable impairment relating to his right hip and thoracic spine. The MA's examination and findings supported the conclusion that the appellant had 0% WPI in those areas. However, the court did find an error in the MA's assessment regarding the appellant's shoulders. The MA had concluded that the appellant had no impairment relating to his shoulders because he did not suffer an injury there, despite it being undisputed that the appellant had suffered injuries to his shoulders. The MA's error in this regard was material, leading the court to revoke the MAC and order a re-examination of the appellant.

As a result of the court's decision, the MAC was revoked, and the appellant was to be re-examined by a new Medical Assessor. The court did not make any further orders at that time, leaving it to the parties to proceed with the re-examination and any subsequent proceedings.

Orders