Wilkinson v Crane Payment Innovations Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPICMP 834

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Wilkinson v Crane Payment Innovations Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPICMP 834
APPELLANT:	Glenn Wilkinson
RESPONDENT:	Crane Payment Innovations Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier
DATE OF DECISION:	6 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Medical Assessor (MA) assessed 9% whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from psychiatric injury; worker appealed on the basis that MA failed to consider adequately his statements and the report of Dr Glen Smith in two psychiatric impairment rating scale categories; Panel reviewed the evidence and were satisfied there was no error in the assessment of social functioning but found error in the assessment on concentration, persistence and pace; however, despite the assessment of class 3 in place of class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace, there was no change to the assessment of WPI; Held – review did not lead to a different result and Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 14 June 2024 Glenn Wilkinson (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Bradley Ng, Medical Assessor (Medical Assessor), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 6 September 2024.
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 Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 5 July 2024 in which he claimed 19% whole person impairment (WPI) in respect of a psychiatric and psychological disorder as a result of injury in the course of his employment with Crane Payment Innovations Pty Ltd (the respondent) deemed to have occurred on 16 September 2019.
The matter was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment.
The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 6 September 2024.
In the MAC dated 6 September 2024, the Medical Assessor assessed 9% WPI resulting from psychiatric injury deemed…

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 Wilkinson v Crane Payment Innovations 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: [2024] NSWPICMP 834
Decision Date: 6 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilkinson v Crane Payment Innovations Pty Ltd involved the worker appealing a Medical Assessor's (MA) assessment of his whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from a psychiatric injury. The worker argued that the MA failed to adequately consider his statements and the report of Dr Glen Smith in two specific psychiatric impairment rating scale categories. The dispute was heard and determined in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the MA's assessment correctly considered the worker's statements and Dr Smith's report and, if not, whether the errors in the assessment led to an incorrect WPI rating. The tribunal was required to review the evidence and determine if the MA's assessment was flawed, and if so, whether the errors affected the final WPI rating.

The tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that while there was no error in the assessment of social functioning, there was an error in the assessment of concentration, persistence, and pace. Despite finding an error in the MA's assessment, the tribunal concluded that the error did not change the WPI rating. As a result, the tribunal confirmed the MA's WPI rating of 9%. The tribunal found that the review did not lead to a different result and upheld the Medical Assessment Certificate.

The final orders of the tribunal confirmed the WPI rating of 9%, upheld the Medical Assessment Certificate, and dismissed the worker's appeal. The tribunal found that the MA's assessment was correct, and any errors in the assessment did not impact the final WPI rating.

Orders