Tregeagle v Mowbray Farm t/as ACMII Australia 2 Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWPICMP 793
•15 October 2025
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Tregeagle v Mowbray Farm t/as ACMII Australia 2 Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 793 |
| APPELLANT: | Andrew Tregeagle |
| RESPONDENT: | Mowbray Farm t/as ACMII Australia 2 Pty Ltd |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Carolyn Rimmer |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Michael Hong |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | John Lam-Po-Tang |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 15 October 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); assessment by Medical Assessor (MA) of 8% whole person impairment (WPI) for primary psychiatric condition; appeal under section 327(3)(c) and (d) on the basis that the MA did not correctly apply the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS); the application of the PIRS in the scale of self care and personal hygiene was inconsistent with the evidence; Appeal Panel satisfied that MA took an irrelevant matter into consideration; which amounted to a demonstrable error; worker re-examined; Held – MAC revoked. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 3 June 2025 Andrew Tregeagle (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
16 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):
· 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
The appellant sustained a psychological injury deemed to have occurred on
4 September 2023 in his employment as a Farm Manager with Mowbray Fram t/a ACMll Australia 2 Pty Ltd (the respondent).The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 9 April 2025 in which he claimed lump sum compensation in respect the psychological injury.
The matter was referred to Medical Assessor Surabhi Verma, for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) of a psychiatric/psychological disorder as a result of the injury on
4 September 2023.The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 13 May 2025 and assessed 8% WPI in respect of the psychological injury on 4 September 2023.
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 requested that he be re-examined by a Medical Member of the Appeal Panel.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was necessary for the appellant worker to undergo a further medical examination because there was an error in the MAC and insufficient evidence on which to make a decision.
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.
Further medical examination
Medical Assessor Michael Hong of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 25 September 2025 and reported to the Appeal Panel.
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) ground 1 - the Medical Assessor did not correctly apply the psychiatric impairment rating scales (PIRS). The Medical Assessor will commit legal error where the application of the PIRS is inconsistent with the available evidence, which is consistent with the above principle and/or misapplies the relevant tables;
(b) the Medical Assessor assessed the appellant as a Class 2 in respect of the PIRS category “self-care and personal hygiene”;
(c) the Medical Assessor makes no comment about the histories of Dr Anand and
Dr Saboor and the applicant’s statement above when providing her assessment on page 11. Histories and observations are an important function of the assessment process. (Ferguson v State of New South Wales & Ors [2017] NSWSC 887), at [23];(d) instead of applying the observations and histories provided to her, the Medical Assessor attaches significance to the fact that the appellant apparently was able to take care of his foster children, including changing their nappy, giving them a shower and sit with them. Those factors do not form part of the PIRS Category for Self-Care and Personal Hygiene (emphasis added). By definition, it is the care and hygiene of the appellant that must be assessed;
(e) the Medical Assessor ignored the history provided, ignored the histories in other reports (which was not specifically stated to be rejected), and focussed on a matter that could not be considered;
(f) the Medical Assessor erred in assessing the appellant as a Class 2 in respect of the category self-care and personal hygiene. A Class 3 rating was warranted on the available evidence, which was before the Medical Assessor. In this regard, the Medical Assessor erred and did not correctly apply the PIRS;
(g) ground 2 – the Medical Assessor failed to give adequate reasons (Campbelltown City Council v Vegan & Ors [2006] NSWCA 284);
(h) at page 7 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor relevantly states the following:
“c. My brief comments regarding the other medical opinions and findings submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the reasons why my opinion differs. However, at page 8 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor simply states the following: Clinical notes from Alpha Medical Centre, various dates”;
(i) there is no context to this bare statement. The relevance of the clinical notes is in fact unclear, and it is equally unclear how they informed the Medical Assessor’s opinion. In this regard, the Medical Assessor erred and failed to give adequate reasons;
(j) this is compounded when consideration is given to her failure to provide reasons concerning the histories she was given regarding self-care and personal hygiene. It is not clear whether the histories were relied on but minimised in terms of significance or dismissed entirely or not considered at all;
(k) in addition, it is not at all clear why being able to look after infant foster children is somehow analogous to having only a Class 2 self-care and personal hygiene impairment. There is nothing particularly difficult about changing a nappy, giving them a shower, sitting with them. Doing an “activity” (whatever that means), when “told” by his partner, hardly seems like someone with only a mild impairment;
(l) ground 3 – the Medical Assessor failed to take into account relevant considerations and/or took into account irrelevant considerations In Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWCA 180, Basten JA stated at [9] the following: The term “relevant considerations” as used in leading authorities, such as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko- Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; 162 CLR 24 at 39 (Mason J) it refers to a matter which the decision-maker is bound to take into account. Further, a matter traditionally described as an “irrelevant consideration” is one which is prohibited because, having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the power being exercised, it can be seen to reflect an extraneous or improper purpose or to render the decision arbitrary or capricious. Between these two categories is usually a wide range of permissible considerations which the decision-maker may weigh or disregard without committing an error of law;
(m) clause 11.6 of the Guidelines relevantly states:
“…Clinical assessment of the person may include information from the injured worker’s own description of his or her functioning and limitations, and from family members and others who may have knowledge of the person. Medical reports, feedback from treating professionals and the results of standardised tests – including appropriate psychometric testing performed by a qualified clinical psychologist and work evaluations – may provide useful information to assist with the assessment”;
(n) for the reasons set out above, the Medical Assessor failed to properly address the PIRS category by reference to the self-care and personal hygiene category in particular;
(o) the Medical Assessor had a history concerning same, which was not inconsistent with the histories provided to Dr Anand and Dr Saboor. The focus on others, particularly small children, is not a relevant consideration. The Medical Assessor should have applied the history provided and/or as compared to the other doctors and then rationally applied it to the relevant PIRS Category;
(p) neither Class 2 nor Class 3 impairments mention anything about the ability to care for others. Indeed, the Medical Assessor seems to have taken that fact into account under “Social Functioning”;
(q) the Medical Assessor’s approach to the documentary evidence was also unsatisfactory. While a reference is made to the clinical notes from Alpha Medical Centre at page 8 of the MAC, it is presently unclear as to what consideration was given to them. Without more, the Medical Assessor failed to take into account relevant considerations and thus erred as it concerned the clinical notes. The same can be said concerning the expert evidence. This is relevant, particularly so in circumstances where Dr Anand on 10 September 2024 assessed the appellant above the threshold, in addition Dr Saboor opined that he would assess the appellant higher than 17% WPI, albeit hypothetically;
(r) the Medical Assessor failed to take into account relevant considerations or considered irrelevant considerations and thus erred, and
(s) the MAC dated 16 May 2025 should be set aside, and a Medical Assessor of the Appeal Panel re-examine the appellant and reassess WPI.
The respondent’s submissions include the following:
(a) ground 1 - the descriptors in the PIRS table are to be used as a guide and it is a matter for the Medical Assessor to apply his expert judgement when applying the relevant rating. In order to establish that the Medical Assessor has erred in her assessment of the self-care and personal hygiene PIRS category, the appellant must establish that the finding of a Class 2 impairment in respect of his self-care and personal hygiene was so flawed that another reasonable assessor could not share the findings;
(b) the Medical Assessor did not fail to consider the evidence before her and made specific reference to the evidence of Dr Saboor and Dr Ashwinder Anand on page 8. Further, the Medical Assessor notes on page 7 that she had considered the documentation received when arriving at her assessment;
(c) Dr Anand had made similar observations to the Medical Assessor. Dr Anand observed the appellant to be unkempt, bearded and disheveled. The assessment of the Medical Assessor under Class 2 is consistent with that of Dr Anand;
(d) on the history obtained, it was open for the Medical Assessor to assess Class 2 with respect to ‘self-care and personal hygiene’, consistent with the assessment of Dr Anand;
(e) the Medical Assessor specifically reported that the appellant had lost interest in self-care activities, including showering, changing into clean clothes and brushing teeth. It would be fair to assume that this history was provided by the appellant himself and there is no suggestion by the appellant that the information recorded in this part of the MAC is in any way inaccurate;
(f) the submission that the Medical Assessor’s assessment focused on the appellant’s ability to care for his foster children, but care of others fell outside of the PIRS category for selfcare, which by definition, is limited to the assessment of the personal hygiene and care of the appellant is refuted. The appellant’s ability to shower and change his children nappies is relevant in the context of his ability to care for himself;
(g) in this regard, the respondent relies on the decision in Campbell v New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2024] NSWPICMP 221 which concluded that if a Medical Assessor’s regard to care for others is in the context of the extent of the appellant’s ability to take care of themselves, then this is not an irrelevant consideration. The Appeal Panel had found that the Medical Assessor had not erred when considering the appellant’s ability to prepare school lunches as it related to the conduct of the appellant with respect to capacity for self-care and personal hygiene. It was open to the Medical Assessor to consider the ability for the appellant to shower his children and change their nappies in the context of his own personal care;
(h) in any event, the Medical Assessor could not have solely focused on this factor when arriving at her assessment, particularly in circumstances where the Medical Assessor has made specific reference to the appellant’s personal care and hygiene in her reasoning, specifically, his irregular brushing of his teeth and showering;
(i) the Medical Assessor validly based her assessment on her observations on examination and the history obtained, as evidenced in her reasoning for the determination. Therefore, there has been no error;
(j) ground 2 – failure to give adequate reasons - The Medical Assessor has provided appropriate rationale for the ratings applied based on his clinical assessment of the appellant and available medical evidence;
(k) there is a clear path of reasoning to the Medical Assessor’s ultimate conclusion when one has regard to the reasons as a whole;
(l) paragraph 11.12 of PIRS in the Guidelines notes (relevantly): Impairment in each area is rated using class descriptors. The examples of activities are examples only. The assessing psychiatrist should take into account of the person’s cultural background. Consider activities that are usual for the person’s age, sex and cultural norms;
(m) to establish a demonstrable error with respect to the PIRS categories, requires more than the submission that the Medical Assessor ought to have considered certain factors more significant. It must be established that the determination was such that another reasonable mind could not have come to the conclusion reached: “In relation to Classes of PIRS there has to be more than a difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ to establish error in the statutory sense.” (Glen William Parker v Select Civil Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 140 at [66]);
(n) the Medical Assessor assessment is not an unreasonable conclusion, particularly in circumstances where Dr Anand had arrived at the same assessment of the appellant. Mere disagreement with the Medical Assessor’s opinion is not grounds for an appeal;
(o) ground 3: The Medical Assessor failed to take into account relevant considerations and/or took into account irrelevant considerations;
(p) as noted above it has been concluded that caring for others in the context of the appellant’s own self-care is a relevant consideration. Additionally, see the decision of Shrestha v RSL Care RDNS Ltd [2020] NSWWCCMA 158 in this regard. Whilst the classes are silent on this factor, the respondent refers to paragraph 11.12 which notes that those are merely examples;
(q) in Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284, relevantly, that the Medical Assessor does not need to provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals. Further, the Medical Assessor is entitled to prefer the history given by the appellant on the date of examination and attribute more weight to it;
(r) paragraph 11.6 PIRS in the guidelines relevantly note that medical reports from treating professionals may provide useful information to assist with the assessment. The Medical Assessor is not required to limit their assessment to the findings in that material. The Medical Assessor is not required to provide detailed reasoning as to what extent this material was considered, as discussed above;
(s) the appellant has not demonstrated any demonstrable error in the MAC, nor established that the assessment was conducted on the basis of incorrect criteria;
(t) the appellant's request for a re- examination should be rejected noting the appellant has not provided any reasons as to why a re-examination would be appropriate, and
(u) the appeal should fail.
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.
Self-care and personal hygiene
Ground 1 – The Medical Assessor did not correctly apply the PIRS
The appellant submits the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment and incorrectly applied Chapter 11 of the Guidelines in relation to “self-care and personal hygiene” and that category should be assessed as moderate (Class 3).
The examples under Table 11.1 for “Self-care and personal hygiene” in the Guidelines are:
“Class 2 Mild impairment: Able to live independently; looks after self adequately, although may look unkempt occasionally; sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food.
Class 3 Moderate impairment: Can't live independently without regular support. Needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. Does not prepare own meals, frequently misses meals. Family member or community nurse visits (or should visit) 2-3 times per week to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition”.
The Medical Assessor assessed the appellant as Class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene. In the PIRS Rating Form, the Medical Assessor wrote:
“Self care and personal hygiene - Class 2
Mr Tregeagle reported that he has lost interest in his self-care and showers changes into clean clothes and brushes his teeth irregularly. He at times packs the dish washer. He said that he used to do a lot of cooking before, but he does not. He is however able to take care of the foster children and is able to change their nappy, give them a shower and sit with them. He does activities with them whenever he is told by his partner.”
Under “Findings on Physical examination” the Medical Assessor noted:
“He presented as a 57-year-old male who looked his stated age. He had a beard and moustache and was wearing a grey sweatshirt.”
Under “Social activities/ADL” the Medical Assessor wrote:
“Mr Tregeagle reported that he has lost interest in his self-care, including showering, changing into clean clothes, and brushing his teeth, which he does irregularly. At times, he packs the dishwasher. He mentioned that he used to do a lot of cooking but doesn’t do so anymore. However, he is able to care for the foster children in his care, managing to change their diapers, give them showers, and spend time with them. He participates in activities with them whenever his partner requests it.”
In his statement dated 27 March 2025, the appellant stated at paragraph 6:
“We do some fostering of children. We currently have two children in our care, being 3.5 years old. We have had one for 2 years and one for about 4-5 months”. At paragraph 73 he wrote: “don’t cook anymore and not eating much. have not weighed myself but believe I have lost weight and lost muscle tone. I think I have lost about 10kg. I don’t sleep well.”
At paragraph 76, he wrote:
“My partner says that I don’t shower enough or change my clothes enough and she will often prompt me, and is a constant battle. I have grown a beard and don’t shave. My partner said a couple of weeks ago that my hair was getting unruly and needed a cut and she cut it off for me and gave me a crew cut.”
Dr Ashwinder Anand, consultant psychiatrist, in a report dated 10 September 2024, assessed a Class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene providing the following reasons:
“In a typical week he stated that he can shower independently and regularly but occasionally finds that he must be prompted, or he may skip a shower. He can look after his foster children, but he struggles with chores and cooking because of his poor motivation.”
Dr Assad Saboor, consultant psychiatrist, in a report dated 23 August 2023, noted that the appellant had short cut hair and beard and appeared dishevelled.
In a report dated 29 December 2024 Dr Saboor noted under “Progress since last review” that the appellant reported that his self-care was affected. Dr Saboor wrote:
“He would only take a shower and change his clothes when his partner told him to do so. He reported that his partner would bring him clothes to change into and forcing him to shower. He stated that he only did this probably once a week.”
Dr Saboor noted the appellant said that his appetite was poor and he did not eat. Dr Saboor wrote:
“He stated that he probably ate once a day. He could not be bothered…he stated that he was drinking an excessive amount of coffee and smoked cigarettes a lot… He reported that he has lost some weight; however, he has not weighed himself.”
Dr Saboor was of the opinion that the appellant had deteriorated since his last review.
Dr Saboor made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with anxious distress. Dr Saboor was of the view that the condition had not been adequately treated, and the appellant had not reached maximum medical improvement. Dr Saboor noted that if he did a WPI assessment at this stage, the final WPI score would be much higher than 17%.
The appellant submits that his care of foster children should not be taken into account in the assessment in the scale for self-care and personal hygiene because this activity was not a relevant consideration.
The Appeal Panel accepts that one of the reasons that the Medical Assessor assessed
Class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene was because the appellant was able to take care of the foster children and is able to change their nappy, give them a shower and sit with them. On balance, the Appeal Panel considers that this activity of taking care of foster children is not relevant and should not be taken into account in making an assessment in this scale. The Appeal Panel considers that such activity could be relevant in the assessment of social functioning or employability because the appellant is looking for after foster children, not his own children, and he and his partner are paid to care for foster children. Further, the fact that he can care for the children, when directed to so do, does not detract from the fact that his partner has to prompt him to shower, no longer cooks and may have lost weight.The Appeal Panel does not accept an inference can be made that because the appellant can care for foster children on occasion that this can be applied to his own capacity in
self-care and personal hygiene.The Appeal Panel concludes that the Medical Assessor made a decision on the basis of incorrect criteria by taking into consideration an irrelevant activity in the assessment of
self-care and personal hygiene. The application of incorrect criteria is a demonstrable error.This ground of appeal is made out.
The Medical Assessor did not address whether the appellant required prompting to shower and carry out other activities of self-care. In circumstances, where Dr Saboor noted that the appellant would only take a shower and change his clothes when his partner told him to do so and only did this probably once a week but Dr Ananad reported that the appellant can shower independently and regularly but occasionally finds that he must be prompted, or he may skip a shower, the Medical Assessor should have addressed the question of whether the appellant did need prompting to shower, clean his teeth and change clothes. The Appeal Panel considers that one of the key differences in the descriptors between a Class 2 and a Class 3 impairment is the ability to live independently without support and the need for prompting to carry out various activities in self-care needs to be considered.
The Appeal Panel considers that there was a quite limited amount of information in the MAC in relation to the appellant’s activities of self-care and personal hygiene and if the care of foster children was excluded from the assessment, the appellant could be assessed as either Class 2 or Class 3.
The appellant submits that the evidence supports an assessment of Class 3 for self-care and personal hygiene. However, the Appeal Panel, considers that there is insufficient information on which to make an assessment in the scale of self-care and personal hygiene. The Appeal Panel notes that the Medical Assessor did not refer to the appellant’s statement which was evidence of the need for prompting to carry out various activities in self-care.
It follows that the Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor failed to provide adequate reasons in making the assessment of Class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene.
This ground of appeal is made out.
Ground 2 – The Medical Assessor failed to give adequate reasons
The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor merely identified the “Clinical notes from Alpha Medical Centre, various dates” when commenting on the other medical opinions and findings submitted by the parties. The Appeal Panel accepts that the relevance of the clinical notes is unclear, and it is also unclear how they informed the Medical Assessor’s opinion.
As noted above, the Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor failed to provide adequate reasons in respect of the assessment of self-care and personal hygiene. The failure to provide a sufficiently clear reasoning process is a demonstrable error.
This ground of appeal is made out.
Ground 3 – The Medical Assessor failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations
As noted above the Appeal Panel accepted that the Medical Assessor took into account an irrelevant consideration in the assessment of self-care and personal hygiene, namely, the appellant can care for foster children on occasion.
The Appeal Panel, having found error, concludes that it was necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient evidence on which to make a determination in respect of an assessment of the PIRS scales appealed, namely, self-care and personal hygiene.
As noted above Medical Assessor Hong of the Appeal Panel examined the appellant on
25 September 2025. Medical Assessor Hong provided the following report:“1. HISTORY RELATING TO THE INJURY
·Brief history after MAC:
Mr Tregeagle worked with the subject employer between 2021 and September 2023. He reported being bullied at work, causing anxiety and depressive symptoms, and has been treated with antidepressant and consulted a psychologist. He has not worked since 2023.
He said he requested treatment but has never had psychological treatment. He had side effects from psychotropic medications and ceased them.
Since Medical Assessor Surabhi Verma’s assessment, he has not had further psychologist, psychotropic medication or other psychiatric treatment, and his symptoms remain at a similar level.
·Present treatment:
Mr Tregeagle is not on treatment for his psychological symptoms.
He is on glucose-lowering medication for diabetes.
·Present symptoms:
Mr Tregeagle's anxiety and depressive symptoms are chronic and have not significantly changed since the MAC. He said he read Medical Assessor Verma's MAC, but asserted that half the history in that report was lies including things he did not say to her, and reading it made him worse. He said he only spoke to her for a few minutes, but on clarification, he then said it was only a short time. He said he does not trust people now, as people lied about him, and said he had enough.
He reported chronically disrupted sleep with nightmares. His brain constantly goes through ‘what if’. He has concentration difficulties.
In terms of weight, he said he does not weigh himself, but he does not have the same muscle tone since bullied. He said his partner makes him eat, and he does not eat much. He said he does not eat, but she ensures he eats at least once a day. He said he is not sure how often he would eat without prompting.
He smokes a lot of cigarettes, and has a lot coffee, possibly 10 cups a day. He does not drink alcohol. He checks his blood sugar level and said it is higher, possibly 10-12 mmol/L, and does not know his HbA1c (three monthly blood sugar level). He said his diabetes medications have not changed.
He described feeling frustrated.
·Social activities/ADL:
It is difficult to clarify the frequency of activities and detail of activities with him.
Mr Treagle is 57 and living with his partner of four years and their two foster sons, who are four years old. They have been caring for them for almost three years now. He also has two adult children.
I asked about a typical day, Mr Tregeagle said every day is the same, he wakes up, has coffee, and smokes outside. He watches TV for a few hours, but nothing makes sense on TV, and then he lies down, to be by himself. He said he cannot watch movies as he forgets. He used to read books, and now he can only read for a couple of minutes.
I asked him about other activities he still engages in, he said not a lot, on further enquiry, he said he sits around, wanders around the house with no purpose, occasionally mows the lawn when told to. He said he does not go fishing or do sports anymore, as he has no enjoyment. He said he has no other activities.
I asked him specifically about golf. He said he goes every now and then with his partner, and plays a few holes. I asked him how many holes, he does not count how many holes. He said he does not talk to people there.
He said his partner makes him go out for a drive, and she does not trust him to be home alone and worries about suicide. He said he has suicidal ideation and never attempted. He said he is never alone.
I asked him about pokies at the club. He said he has not gone after Medical Assessor Verma's assessment, and was going once a month or every two months with his partner prior to that. The children were in childcare centre when they went to the club. The children now attend day care three days a week.
I asked him about his childcare activities. He said he tries to engage with them, and play with them, but the majority of care is provided by his partner. He said he will change nappies. He does not feed them, as they eat by themselves. He used to do everything with them, and used to cook for them, making sausages and vegetables, but does not cook now, as he does not enjoy it. I asked him if he could cook now, and he said he does not get left alone ever, and on further enquiry, he said he cannot cook due to problems with his confidence, and his partner loves cooking.
He again said he said he is never alone, and I asked him about driving on his own and being out alone, as noted in previous assessments. He said he has not done it for months or after Medical Assessor Verma's assessment. Before Medical Assessor Verma’s assessment, he was going to the shops to get cigarettes or things needed at home before, and buy food, but not in the past few months. He also bought groceries with a list from his partner.
He said he showers only when his partner told him that he stinks, but it is not possible to obtain a history of the frequency during the assessment today. He said he gets up, and his partner said he stinks, so he showers. On specific enquiry, he said he does not shower after golf, or after mowing the lawn, unless his partner told him to. I discussed this does not make sense, he said he has no interest to shower and so he does not care for it.
He said he does not take the children out now. Sometimes, they go for a drive together, but only if his partner makes him come out. He said he does not want to see people from work, or his ex-manager.
He said he wants to take the children out, take them fishing and to different activities, but he cannot now, as he does not want to see anyone from work.
2. FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION
Mr Tregeagle was assessed by video. He was alone and at home during the assessment. His partner and children were also at home. He had receding hair and a full beard, and wore a red tee-shirt. He smoked during the assessment. There was no psychomotor slowing or abnormal movements. He was consistently restricted in his affect and reactivity. He spoke spontaneously, he was generally talkative but was vague. He spoke logically without overt cognitive impairment. He gestured regularly.
Before I completed the assessment, I asked him for additional information that he wanted to add and he discussed EML offered treatment, he responded he wanted a psychologist, but nothing happened, he has been left out in the cold and everything stops for him, with zero support from any of them. His psychologist requested more treatment, but nothing happened. He said he wants psychotropic medications, but nothing happened, no one helped him with medication either. He said he just exists. Previously, he was always out and doing things, and he is getting worse.
I discussed potentially, he is not MMI due to deterioration, he said he does not want any more waiting. People do not want to help him on Workcover. He said he wants to get treatment himself and not in the system, as he rang some psychologist, they do not take Workcover.”
The Appeal Panel adopts the report and findings of Medical Assessor Hong.
On balance, the Appeal Panel accepts that the appellant only showers when prompted by his partner and no longer shops for food or cooks. The appellant, in our view, is not able to live independently and is unable to look after himself adequately.
The Appeal Panel assesses the appellant as Class 3 for self-care and personal hygiene. The assessment of Class 2 for social and recreational activities, Class 1 for travel, Class 2 for social functioning, Class 3 for concentration persistence and pace and Class 5 for employability were not appealed.
The Appeal Panel finds that the PIRS scales score 3 2 1 2 3 5, ascending order 1 2 2 3 3 5, median 3, aggregate 16 so that the WPI = 17%.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel determines that the MAC issued on 16 May 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DIVISION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002
Matter number: | W4046/25 |
Applicant: | Andrew Tregeagle |
Respondent: | Mowbray Farm t/as ACMII Australia 2 Pty Ltd |
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 Surabhi Verma 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 NSW workers compensation guidelines | 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) |
| Psychological/ psychiatric | 4 September 2023 | Chapter 11 11.4-11.6 | 17% | Nil | 17% | |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 17% | |||||
0
6
0