Woolworths Group Ltd v Dunn - [2025] NSWPICMP 666

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Woolworths Group Ltd v Dunn [2025] NSWPICMP 666
APPELLANT:	Woolworths Group Limited
RESPONDENT:	Geoffrey Dunn
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	John Isaksen
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
DATE OF DECISION:	2 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal from assessment of whole person impairment for psychological injury; employer challenges assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) for employability; consideration of no “bright line boundaries” for PIRS categories referred to in Jenkins v Ambulance Service of NSW; Held – no demonstrable error or application of incorrect criteria found in assessment of category of employability; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 29 April 2025, Woolworths Group Ltd lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Walsh, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 1 April 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, 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

Mr Dunn was employed as a truck loader for the appellant. Mr Dunn received constant threats from a group of workers at Woolworths Minchinbury Distribution Centre known as the ‘Core Group’, who had been members of a different trade union to the union that Mr Dunn was a member of. Mr Dunn sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment as a result of this intimidation.
Mr Dunn made a claim for a lump sum payment for 17% whole person impairment (WPI) based upon an assessment made by Dr Argyle, consultant psychiatrist, in a report dated
24 September 2024.
Dr Argyle examined Mr Dunn on 18 September 2024. Dr Argyle records that Mr Dunn ceased work due to his psychological injury in late 2019 or in 2020. He records that Mr Dunn…

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 Woolworths Group Ltd v Dunn

Details

AGLC: Woolworths Group Ltd v Dunn [2025] NSWPICMP 666
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 666
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Group Ltd sought to appeal against an assessment of whole person impairment for psychological injury sustained by its employee, Mr. Dunn, under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute centred on the assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) for employability, with the employer arguing against the rating provided by the assessing doctor. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the assessing doctor erred in categorising Mr. Dunn's employability within the PIRS framework.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the assessing doctor made a demonstrable error or applied incorrect criteria in determining Mr. Dunn's employability rating. The court was required to consider the absence of "bright line boundaries" for PIRS categories, as discussed in Jenkins v Ambulance Service of NSW, and whether this principle applied to the assessment of employability. The court also had to assess whether the Medical Assessment Certificate was appropriately confirmed by the assessing doctor.

The court found that there was no demonstrable error in the assessment of Mr. Dunn's employability rating. The court determined that the assessing doctor did not apply any incorrect criteria and correctly considered the absence of clear boundaries between PIRS categories. The court held that the Medical Assessment Certificate was properly confirmed, as the doctor's findings were based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the original assessment of the whole person impairment for psychological injury.

As a result of the court's decision, the employer's appeal was dismissed, and the original assessment of the whole person impairment for psychological injury was confirmed. The Medical Assessment Certificate remained valid, and the rating for employability within the PIRS was upheld.

Orders