Zammit v Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd
[2025] NSWPICMP 285
•28 April 2025
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Zammit v Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 285 |
| APPELLANT: | Jaclyn Zammit |
| RESPONDENT: | Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd |
| APPEAL PANEL | |
| MEMBER: | Deborah Moore |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Michael Hong |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | John Baker |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 28 April 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of three of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories namely self-care and personal hygiene, social and recreational activities, and concentration, persistence and pace; Held – Appeal Panel agreed; re-examination required; MAC revoked; new certificate issued. |
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
On 26 November 2024 Jaclyn Zammit (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Gerald Chew, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
29 October 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 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).
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.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that the worker should undergo a further medical examination because we concluded that the Medical Assessor erred in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of some of the PIRS categories, failed to provide adequate reasons for his assessments, and failed to have regard to the whole of the evidence.
EVIDENCE
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.
SUBMISSIONS
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in in his whole person impairment (WPI), WPI assessment of three of the PIRS categories, namely Self-care and personal hygiene, Social and recreational activities and Concentration, persistence and pace.
In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made, and that the MAC should be confirmed.
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 appellant was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI in respect of a primary psychological/psychiatric injury occurring on a deemed date of injury of 8 July 2021.
The Medical Assessor obtained a brief history of the circumstances of the injury which we do not intend to repeat here.
Present treatment was noted as follows: “She attends her GP and psychologist. She is prescribed fluoxetine 60mg and quetiapine 25mg when required.”
Present symptoms were described as:
“Ongoing low mood, rumination about the workplace issues, feelings of anxiety, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, low self-confidence. poor concentration.”
When asked to provide “Details of any previous or subsequent accidents, injuries or conditions” the Medical Assessor said:
“Approximately 13 years ago in the context of a MVA she saw a psychologist for a few months. There were no ongoing psychological symptoms or dysfunction. Earlier this year her daughter had a waterslide accident in April 2024 and was unable to walk unassisted for 4 months.”
The Medical Assessor then turned to consider the impact of the injury on her social activities and activities of daily living (ADL’s) and said:
“She is able to shop in the local area. She is close to her sister who she sees regularly who lives 5 minutes away. She has a good relationship with her daughter. She sees her mother regularly. She sees her brother every few weeks. She maintains 3 best friends. One recently moved to Perth which she found difficult. She has 2 other friends who she keeps in regular contact with and sees regularly approximately monthly. She accompanied a friend on an overnight trip to Canberra last week. She scrolls through social media. She watches television and has enjoyed the She has reduced motivation for self-care.”
Findings on examination were reported as follows:
“Appeared her stated age. Flat affect. Nil abnormal psychomotor activity. Depressed and anxious mood. Oriented to time, place and person. Speech of normal rate, rhythm, volume and prosody. Nil formal thought disorder. Nil delusions or hallucinations. No thoughts of harm to others. No suicidal ideation today or immediate plan.”
The Medical Assessor diagnosed “Major Depressive Disorder.”
The Medical Assessor assessed 8% WPI.
He then set out a summary of all the medical and other evidence he had before him. He said:
“I disagree with Dr Khan with respect to Social and Recreational activities I note she went on a trip with a friend to Canberra and has participated in a poker championship; and concentration I note her ability to watch a television series.”
The appellant’s submissions
The submissions are summarised as follows:
(a) as regards self-care and personal hygiene, the explanation by the Medical Assessor for assessing a Class 2 is meaningless, and a reader is not able to understand the rationale for this assessment;
(b) there is a dearth of information or evidence in the MAC;
(c) there is considerable evidence regarding her limitations in this area;
(d) as regards social and recreational activities, the Medical Assessor took into account irrelevant matters in this category;
(e) he also failed to refer to relevant evidence, in particular, statements from her addressing particular matters relevant to this category, and
(f) the Medical Assessor based his assessment in the category of concentration, persistence and pace solely on her ability to watch television, which is not an intellectually demanding task.
Discussion
The Panel agreed with the thrust of the appellant’s submissions and determined that a
re-examination was required.This was done by Medical Assessor John Baker of the Panel on 14 April 2025.
He reported to us as follows:
“The workers medical history, where it differs from previous records.
The worker said she had no prior psychiatric of psychological conditions prior to her employment commencing in November 2013. She said her last day of work with the employer was about 12 July 2021. She said her employment was terminated at the time of this re-examination.
The worker said she was born in Auburn District Hospital. She was the youngest child of six children. She had 3 elder sisters and 2 elder brothers. Her father worked as a wharf labourer and died in 2021 from cancer. Her mother was aged 75 years and lived independently with some support from the worker’s two eldest sisters. She attended Croydon Public School and then Strathfield Girls High School. she competed her school education in Year 10. She then attended Burwood Business College and Completed a Certificate III in Business Studies. She married in 2007 and had one child to this union. The marriage was dissolved after 5 years. She reported that the father of her daughter was aged 51 years and worked in a small delicatessen business. Her daughter was 17 years of age. The worker was 41 years of age at the time of this re-examination. The worker reported that she had received support in caring for her daughter from her daughter’s father and he also paid child support. The worker lived with her daughter in a townhouse.
The worker provided the following details about prior motor accidents, injuries or conditions. She said she had not suffered from any childhood, trauma abuse or neglect. She was close to her father and mother as well as her sisters. She did not suffer from any childhood psychiatric or psychological conditions.
The worker said that she had not suffered from any psychiatric or psychological conditions such as post-natal depression, in the antenatal or postnatal period about the pregnancy and birth of her daughter. She said her daughter was well and assisted her with cleaning of the home prior to this re-examination.
The worker commenced her career whilst she was still at school. she worked as a causal fruit shop assistant and baby sister. At about 18 years of age, she worked as a Luna Park Games attendant. She also worked as a retail shop assistant for Suzannes. She then found work for St. Georger Bank as a casual teller. Her role required her to move between branches and fill in for staff on leave. She progressed in her career to work as a head teller for a commercial bank. She then found employment with the subject employer in 2013. She said that she had attended a private business college and completed her Certificate III in Business Services. Since commencing work for this employer in November 2013 she worked as a personal assistant for various managers within the bank.
Prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury, she said she had a motor accident. She said that she had minor damage to the front of her car about seven years prior to this assessment. Before this minor event she had a low-speed motor accident about 14 years prior to this re-examination. She said she had attended a psychologist. She stopped attending after a few sessions. She did not suffer a permanent psychological impairment, injury of condition. She said her career continued before, during and after these minor events.
She said she would smoke about 20 cigarettes daily. She would drink wine with her evening meals. She said that she was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol at about 19 years of age. She had never had any other traffic offence.
The worker was an avid Western Hold ’em Poker (poker) player. She had been playing poker with her family socially for many years. she had an extended family member win through from the Australian Conference to play in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA world competitions. She said she had won many local, and regional tournaments. She said she had won at State and National Level. She was a known player who had a known style and percentage win to loss ratio leading to her been given a “nickname” related to her style of play. The worker would play about three times per week. She equated playing poker to having to practice like “senior golf players.” She said that the games were played with an entry fee and a “stack of allocated” starting chips. After the entry fee she did not place more money into the game as the goal was to collect all the other players allocated chips prior to moving to the next “winner’s table” where the process would be repeated. She said she had to concentrate, pace herself and persist for extended periods of play to learn both her opposition player’s playing styles as well as follow the flow of the specific abilities of each player and how they allocated their resources.
The worker said her relationship with the father of her daughter was amicable. At the time of the re-examination the worker had one child aged 17 years to this union. She lived with her 17-year-old daughter. The father of her daughter had always provided child support. She had always provided him with access to his child. She said her daughter was always cared for between her and her father and grandparents during her childhood. The worker had separated in about 2010.
The worker said she would drink about two bottles of wine each week. She said she drank wine to help her sleep. She smoked 20 cigarettes per day most days. Other than her driving under the influence of alcohol fine as a 19-year-old woman she had no other court matters. She had never lodged a Workcover psychological claim prior to this claim.
History of the Injury
The worker said that she had been the fulltime personal assistant to her manager for about 4 years period to the onset of this primary psychological injury. She said that had enjoyed her employment with this employer. She said she was told by her manager that he was retiring. After he had left his role, the coworker was allocated a new “temporary” senior manager who was her primary supervisor.
The new recruited manager was from outside of the bank and within about 3 months left the role which the worker was providing service for. She was replaced with another manager who was from outside the bank. She said that the period between the leaving of her manager until the commencement of her new manager between 2018 until February 2020 was very unsettled and disorganised.
The new manager commenced her appointment in about February 2020. From her initial attendance in the workplace the new manager, immediately changed the milieu of the office. She said that manager was abrupt in her manner towards the worker. The new manager would make short sharp demands of the worker. The new manager would also not follow bank procedures.
The worker said she initially tried to assist her new manager by providing her with the necessary information, routine procedures and processes that the worker had performed for her prior superiors. The new manager failed to accept this help and re-asserted that the worker does as she had been directed. The worker said the subsequent confusion resulted in many incidences of “double – handling” with delays in completion of tasks and deadlines. The worker again tried to explain the routine of the office to ease her new manager into her role. This failed.
The worker said that at about this time her manager began to overtly bully and harass her. She said that the manager would publicly shame the worker in team meetings. She would isolate the worker from the other employees. She would tell the worker that she was “incompetent” whilst in meeting with the whole team of about 20 co-workers.
The worker said that she had developed the following symptoms of depression. The worker notified her human resources department about the increased bullying and harassment that was persistent and occurred most days she was in her workplace job. The worker also spoke to her union and asked for assistance and advice. She said she sought help from the Employee’s Assistance Program and spoke to the counsellor about 5 times.
The worker said that she developed the following symptoms of a major depressive disorder:
·Depressed mood most days for most of the day
·Increased tearfulness and depressive rumination on her travel to work most days.
·Increase in 20kg in weight due to her poor appetite, and nutrition due to loss of interest in cooking for herself and her daughter
·Low energy and rapid fatigue most days from when she first woke and continuing throughout the day
·Poor sleep with her having difficulty initiating and remaining asleep.
·Poor concentration with increased difficulties performing her work and concentrating when trying to perform at her favourite pastime poker.
The worker said that her manager told her to leave and take her long service entitlements with her. The worker reported to her manager that her father was in physical decline from his known cancer. Her father had been assessed by the cancer care team of his local hospital. The choice made by her father in consultation with her father’s medical team and the worker’s mother was for him not to have further chemotherapy as it was unlikely to provide benefit. The worker and her sisters came together and supported their mother through the dying phase of her father’s condition.
The worker said her father was able to share and inform his family of his condition. His family was able to adapt to his needs as well as her mother’s needs after the passing of hr father. She had resolved her normal grief in relation to the loss of her father, as it was not unexpected or unusual for a man of his age and working history on the wharves.
The worker said that her manager began to make her circumstances at work difficult during this time. She said that initially she was told to, “stay away” from work until her father had died. Then when the worker tried to explain that her father’s rate of decline was “unknown but his condition was terminal” her manager failed to accommodate any of the worker’s needs whilst her father was slowly passing. The worker said that towards the final days of her father’s passing the worker’s manager was inflexible and unyielding in understanding of the works needs to meet her family’s traditional culture and family practices regarding the death of her father. The worker said she was sad about her father’s passing but that was not the cause of her depression as she was bullied and harassed by her manager before her father died.
Additional history since the original Medical Assessment Certificate was performed
The worker reported that she had persisted with her work however she was more depressed in her mood, she lost hope that her manger would change her bullying and harassment as it became overt to the worker that the manager would continue to bully and harass her until she had left her job. The worker said, it was as if her manager had already “found her replacement” but the worker had failed to move on and this increasingly frustrated and distressed her manager most days that the worker was performing her role since the manager’s first day of work in the bank.
The worker said her mental state failed to recover. She attended her general practitioner, and she was referred to a psychologist. She said that she was prescribed fluoxetine 20mg and had this evidence-based antidepressant increased to 60mg (3 x 20mg capsules) daily as well as quetiapine 25mg at night to induce sleep. She was not referred to a psychiatrist and was not admitted to psychiatric hospital. She was not referred to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of her depressive disorder as an outpatient.
The worker said that her condition had failed to improve. She said that her psychologist was encouraging her to “return to her normal lifestyle” and during 2022 she tried to attend one poker game. She was unsuccessful at the first table and on her elimination she went home. Her attendance at the event was recorded by investigators. The work said she had never returned as she lost all trust in her employer.
The worker remained irritable, agitated, and avoidant of others at the time of this er-examination.
Findings on clinical examination
Current Symptoms
The worker at re-examination demonstrated and reported the following symptoms of a major depressive disorder:
·Depressed mood most days for most of the day
·Increased tearfulness and depressive rumination on her travel to work most days.
·Increase in 20kg in weight due to her poor appetite, and nutrition due to loss of interest in cooking for herself and her daughter
·Low energy and rapid fatigue most days from when she first woke and continuing throughout the day
·Poor sleep with her having difficulty initiating and remaining asleep.
·Poor concentration with increased difficulties cooking
·Increased irritability and agitation with verbal arguments between her and her daughter.
·Increased isolation from her extended family with her elder sisters performing most of the care and support of her aged, widowed mother.
·Loss of interest in her self-care and personal hygiene with increasing reliance on her daughter now aged 17 years.
The worker said she was too low in her energy to attempt to return to any role. She said she was not interested in her future career. She would become quickly irritated and have angry outbursts when responding to questions that involved unhappy and upsetting memories of the bullying and harassment she experienced whilst employed with this employer.
The worker’s mental state examination was as follows:
The worker presented as a dishevelled and irritable woman with unwashed and unbrushed hair. She would have angry outburst during the assessment when remembering unhappy and distressing memories of the bullying and harassment she had endured. She spoke in a loud voice when distressed. She was provided time and reassurance which enabled her to settle. Rapport was difficulty to establish and maintain. When rapport was lost, the assessor provided the worker with time to settle and use her relaxation and cognitive skills prior to proceeding with the re-examination.
The worker spoke about her inability to trust others. The worker reported that she had a depressed mood most days for most of the day, she had frequent intrusive and distressing thoughts of hopelessness and loss of career. She did not have suicidal intent or thoughts of harming others. She had depressive rumination of hopelessness and worthlessness. She was insightful into her condition. Her judgment was fair. She did not have psychotic symptoms or delusional ideas. She did not report melancholia.
Current Functioning
The worker’s assessment of whole person impairment was as follows at the time of this assessment:
Self-Care and Personal Hygiene
At the time of this re-examination the worker reported that she had lost interest in her self-care and person hygiene. Her daughter prompts her to shower and change her clothes when she smells. She often does not shower unless asked by her 17-year-old daughter. She relies on her daughter to wash and cut her hair. She relied on her daughter and sister to cook food. She said her sister would attend her house and bring food to her to freeze about once every two weeks. Her daughter cleans and vacuums. She also cleans the bathrooms and performs the laundry. Her daughter purchases most of the groceries. The worker is assessed with a Class 3 moderate impairment for this table of function.
I note that that this table of function was assessed by Assessor Chew documenting the following: “She has reduced motivation for self-care”. I note that Assessor Chew assessed the worker as having a Mild permanent impairment for this table of functioning documenting “Class 2”.
I do not agree with this assessment of whole person impairment for this table of functioning, at the time of this re-examination the claimant was not able to live independently as she had been for many years prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury. I have for the above reasons assessed the worker with a Class 3 moderate permanent psychiatric impairment.
Social and Recreational Activities
At the time of this re-examination the worker does not participate in Christmas and Easter celebrations as she would have prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury. She would not participate in gift giving between her, her daughter and extended family. She reported she had ceased socialising with her sisters as they were too far from her house and were preoccupied with caring for her mother.
The worker stated that she last attended a poker tournament in 2022. She said she had lost interest and was no longer watching poker on YouTube or attending clubs to watch her favourite local players. She said she had stopped taking vacations with her last vacation in 2019 with her daughter and extended family. She said she preferred to isolate herself away from others.
The worker said her sister does visit her about once ever to week to check on her progress and check on her daughter. They would talk about family news and her aged mother’s progress. She said she felt that her sisters understood her situation. The worker is assessed with a Class 3 moderate impairment for this table of function.
I note that that this table of function was assessed by Assessor Chew documenting the following: “She continues to engage with a number of friends and family members socially She participated in a poker championship in October 2022” I note that Assessor Chew assessed the worker as having a Mild permanent impairment for this table of functioning documenting “Class 2”.
I do not agree with Assessor Chew’s assessment of whole person impairment for this table of functioning, at the time of this re-examination the worker had not attended a poker tournament since. She had lost interest in poker programs on You Tube. She had lost interest in vacations. She had lost interest family celebration and family festivals such as Christmas, Easter and gift giving. I have for the above reasons assessed the worker with a Class 3 moderate permanent psychiatric impairment.
Travel
At the time of this re-examination the worker reported she was able to travel locally to her corner shop to buy cigarettes and wine, she was able to travel to her general practitioner and psychologist venues when requested to attend by these medical providers. She was not able to use public transport due to her becoming irritable and agitated when in groups of people she did not know.
I note that claimant was unable to travel long distances from home, as she had prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury. I assessed the worker with a Class 2 mild permanent psychiatric impairment for this table.
I note that that this table of function was assessed by Assessor Chew documenting the following: “She is able to travel independently locally”. I note that Assessor Chew assessed the worker as having a Mild permanent impairment for this table of functioning documenting “Class 2”.
I concur with Assessor Chew’s assessment of this table of whole person impairment. I have for the above reasons assessed the worker with a Class 2 mild permanent psychiatric impairment for this table.
Social Functioning
At the time of this re-examination the worker reported that she would have verbal arguments with her teenage daughter. She said she was not expecting separation or estrangement from her daughter. She reported that her daughter remained attending her father’s home and events more than before the worker was injured. The worker said that she would not often socialise with her daughter with extended family of the gathering was large as she preferred to isolate herself from others.
The worker did not have any friendships and had lost all her friends from her poker tournament community. She had no friends from her old workplace. She would telephone her mother and sisters most weeks to check on their progress. I have assessed the worker with a Class 2 mild psychiatric permanent impairment for this table of functioning.
I note that that this table of function was assessed by Assessor Chew documenting the following: “She maintains good relationships with family and a few friends”. I note that Assessor Chew assessed the worker as having a Mild permanent impairment for this table of functioning documenting “Class 2”.
I concur with Assessor Chew’s assessment of this table of functioning as a Class 2 mild impairment.
Concentration, persistence and pace
At the time of this re-examination the worker said that she had stopped playing poker as she could not concentrate and persist for the extended time a tournament may take to complete. She said she had lost interest and stopped playing this game when she was eliminated at the first-round table which was documented by the investigators, as she having attended.
The worker said she no longer cooked traditional meals as she lacks energy and interest. She said she would watch short television programs. She was not interested in watching or remembering storylines for her to following series. She avoided watching news. I have assessed the worker with a Class 2 mild psychiatric permanent impairment for this table of functioning.
I note that that this table of function was assessed by Assessor Chew documenting the following: She has reduced concentration however can watch television episodes for up to 30 minutes”. I note that Assessor Chew assessed the worker as having a Mild permanent impairment for this table of functioning documenting “Class 2”.
I concur with Assessor Chew’s assessment of this table of functioning as a Class 2 mild impairment.
Employability
At the time of this re-examination the worker had not recovered from her primary psychological injury. Her psychiatric symptoms have not remitted. She had not worked in any capacity since leaving the employment in July 2021. The claimant had not received any training or assistance in finding alternative employment by this employer. Due to the severity and duration of psychological symptoms, in my opinion the worker will never return to any employment in any role available in the Australian jobs market. I have assessed her as having a Total impairment in employability at the re-examination.
I note that that this table of function was assessed by Assessor Chew documenting the following: “She is unable to work.” I note that Assessor Chew assessed the worker as having a Total permanent impairment for this table of functioning documenting “Class 5”.
I concur with Assessor Chew’s assessment of this table of functioning as a Class 5
Total impairment of employability.
Consistency of presentation
The worker provided a consistent history similar to what other assessors had
documented. The worker was able to talk about her interest in tournament poker
which had been played inside her extended family for many years. She had also
played in public venues for many years, winning tournaments at high levels. She was
a known member of her local poker playing community and held a known nickname
which she was referred to when she was introduced to her competitors. She
abandoned this hobby when she was unable to be successful in progressing beyond
the first round in 2022. This was her worse performance in public recorded. She had
not returned to this sporting community.”
The Panel agrees with the thorough and comprehensive assessments of Medical Assessor Baker. Unlike the Medical Assessor, he obtained a much more detailed history of the appellant’s impairments resulting from her injury.
As the appellant correctly pointed out, the MAC was “sparse and lacking in detail” which reinforces our reasons for agreeing and accepting Dr Baker’s assessments.
The rating are then as follows:
(a) Self-care and personal hygiene – Class 3;
(b) Social and recreational activities – Class 2;
(c) Travel – Class 2;
(d) Social functioning – Class 2;
(e) Concentration, persistence and pace – Class 3; and
(f) Employability -- Class 5.
This then means that the aggregate scores are 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 5, a total of 17 with a median score of 3 resulting in 19% WPI.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
29 October 2024 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: | W5009/23 |
Applicant: | Jaclyn Zammit |
Respondent: | Teachers Mutual Bank 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 Gerald Chew 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 WorkCover Guides | 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 | 8/07/2001 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 14 | 19% | nil | 19% |
| Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals) | 19% | |||||
0