Wright v Ngroo Education Incorporated - [2022] NSWPICMP 106

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Wright v Ngroo Education Incorporated [2022] NSWPICMP 106
APPELLANT:	Janet Wright
RESPONDENT:	Ngroo Education Incorporated
APPEAL PANEL:	Member Carolyn Rimmer Dr Douglas Andrews Dr Nicholas Glozier
DATE OF DECISION:	9 May 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Worker suffering primary psychological injury appealed against the classification of the Medical Assessor in the PIRS categories of concentration, persistence and pace; Held – no error demonstrated; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 8 March 2022 Janet Wright (Ms Wright/the appellant) made an Application to Appeal against a Medical Assessment (the appeal) to the President of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission). The medical assessment was made by Dr Patrick Morris, Medical Assessor (the MA) and issued on 8 February 2022.
The respondent to the appeal is Ngroo Education Incorporated (the respondent).
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 (the 1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria pursuant to
s 327(3)(c) of the 1998 Act, and
· the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) contains a demonstrable error.
The delegate was satisfied that, on the face of the application, a ground of appeal was capable of being made out in the appeal application. The appeal was referred to a Medical Appeal Panel for determination.
The Appeal Panel has conducted a review of the original medical assessments but limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
The WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006 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 the WorkCover Medical Assessment Guidelines 2006.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed 1 April 2016 reissued 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

Ms Wright developed a primary psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent as the chief executive officer (CEO).
On 30 September 2021, Ms Wright commenced proceedings in the Commission claiming 15% whole person impairment (WPI) pursuant to s 66 of the Worker Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of a primary psychiatric injury deemed to have occurred on 30 March 2021.
The matter was referred to the MA, on 22 November 2021 for assessment of WPI of
Ms Wright’s psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 30 March 2021.
The MA examined Ms Wright on 2 February 2022 through video link. The MA assessed 7% WPI as a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 30 March 2021.

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 WorkCover…

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 Wright v Ngroo Education Incorporated 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: [2022] NSWPICMP 106
Decision Date: 9 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Wright, was appealing a decision regarding his workers' compensation claim against the defendant, Ngroo Education Incorporated. The dispute centred on the assessment of Mr. Wright's psychological injury following a work-related incident. Mr. Wright sought to challenge the classification of his injury by the Medical Assessor, specifically the ratings assigned in the Personal Injury Rating Schedule (PIRS) for concentration, persistence, and pace.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the Medical Assessor's findings in the PIRS categories were correct and whether there was any error in the assessment that warranted a different outcome. The court needed to examine the evidence provided, including the assessments made by the Medical Assessor, and determine if the findings were supported by the presented facts and medical evidence.

The court found no error in the Medical Assessor's determinations. The evidence showed that the assessments were consistent with the Medical Assessor's findings, and the court concluded that the classifications in the PIRS categories were appropriate. The Medical Assessment Certificate was thus confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised that the Medical Assessor's findings were supported by the evidence and that there were no grounds for altering the classification of Mr. Wright's psychological injury.

Orders