Wall v Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 138

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Wall v Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 138
APPELLANT:	Adrian Wall
RESPONDENT:	Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	James Bodel
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Andrew Porteous
DATE OF DECISION:	4 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Appeal by worker against 10% whole person impairment (WPI) Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether the Medical Assessor (MA) had given adequate reasons for making a one fifth deduction regarding the left shoulder; Held – reasons adequate as they reflected the opinion of the appellant’s expert, referred to the prior radiological evidence, repeated the appellant’s history regarding the prior injury, and noted the appellant’s complaint of continuing symptomatology when he returned to work; Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, and El Masri v Woolworths Ltd applied; Cole v Wenaline Pty Ltd referred to; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 22 October 2024 Medical Assessment Certificates (MACs) were issued in respect of injuries to the purpose of nervous system and to the cervical spine and left upper extremity. Dr Ross Mellick was appointed to assess the injury to the nervous system, and the orthopaedic injuries were assessed by Medical Assessor Tommasino Mastroianni, who was also appointed as Lead Assessor.
On 19 November 2024 Adrian Wall lodged an application to appeal against the Lead MAC of Medical Assessor Mastroianni.
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 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 Guides) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5). “WPI” is reference to whole person impairment.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 13 August 2024 this matter was referred to the Lead Assessor (hereinafter “Medical Assessor”) for an assessment of whole person impairment caused by injury to the cervical spine and the left upper extremity on 9 January 2020.
Mr Wall was using a GPC truck which is a pallet moving machine. He had alighted from the machine when a high reach forklift collided with it. Mr Wall was thrown to his…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wall v Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 138
Decision Date: 4 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wall v Philip Leong Stores Pty Ltd, the appellant, Mr Wall, appealed against a Medical Assessment Certificate that assessed his whole person impairment at 10%. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor regarding a one fifth deduction for the left shoulder injury. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue was whether the Medical Assessor had provided sufficient reasons for the one fifth deduction related to the left shoulder. The appellant argued that the reasons were inadequate, while the respondent contended that the reasons were comprehensive and reflected the opinion of the appellant's expert. The court was required to determine whether the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the deduction, considering the evidence and the appellant's history of injury and symptoms.

The court found that the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor were adequate. The reasons reflected the opinion of the appellant’s expert, referred to prior radiological evidence, repeated the appellant’s history regarding the prior injury, and noted the appellant’s complaint of continuing symptomatology when he returned to work. The court held that the reasons were sufficient and aligned with the relevant legal precedents. The cases of Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak and El Masri v Woolworths Ltd were applied, and the reference to Cole v Wenaline Pty Ltd was noted. The court concluded that the Medical Assessment Certificate was confirmed.

As a result of the decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the Medical Assessment Certificate was upheld. The court's decision ensured that the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor met the required standard, thus maintaining the integrity of the assessment process in workers compensation claims.

Orders