1. On 26 November 2025 Bunnings Group Limited (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Himanshu Singh, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 29 October 2025.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).

1. Laura Catherine Mast (Ms Mast) sustained a psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 16 December 2021 in her employment as a Team Member with the appellant.
2. Ms Mast lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) dated 18 April 2024 in which she claimed lump sum compensation in respect the psychological injury.
3. Ms Mast was examined by Dr Himanshu Singh, Medical Assessor on 25 July 2024. He issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) dated 14 August 2024 in which he found that Ms Mast had not yet reached maximum medical improvement (MMI).
4. A Certificate of Determination (COD) was issued on 18 September 2024, confirming the degree of permanent impairment resulting from Ms Mast's injury was not fully ascertainable.
5. On 1 July 2025, Ms Mast sought to restore the proceedings, serving an updated report from Dr Glen Smith, psychiatrist dated 25 June 2025. Dr Smith considered that Ms Mast had reached MMI and assessed her with 23% whole person impairment (WPI) for her psychological injury.
6. The matter proceeded to preliminary conference on 21 August 2025, before Member Adam Halstead who issued a Certificate of Determination - Consent Orders (COD) on 21 August 2025:

"1. Pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, the matter is remitted to the President for referral to medical assessor Himanshu Singh, to assess the applicant:

(a) Date of injury: 16 December 2021 (deemed)

(b) Body systems / parts: Psychiatric and psychological disorder

(c) Method of Assessment: Whole person impairment

2. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are:

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents;

(b) Reply and attached documents;

(c) Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Himanshu Singh dated 14 August 2024, and

(d) Any Application to Lodge Additional Documents made by the parties, that is received by 26 September 2025, attaching supplementary reports as well as clinical notes obtained pursuant to the Directions for Production issued by the Commission today.

1. Medical assessment is not to occur before 1 October 2025."

1. The matter was referred again to Dr Himanshu Singh, Medical Assessor, for assessment of WPI of a psychiatric/psychological disorder as a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 16 December 2021.
2. The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 10 October 2025 and assessed 17% WPI. The Medical Assessor made a deduction of one-tenth pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act which resulted in a total assessment of 15% WPI in respect of the psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 16 December 2021.

1. 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.
2. As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for Ms Mast to undergo a further medical examination because there was sufficient evidence on which to make a determination.

1. 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.

1. The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.

1. Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
2. The appellant's submissions include the following:

(a) the Medical Assessor's allowance of 2% WPI for treatment effect is based on incorrect criteria and/or a demonstrable error under the Guidelines;

(b) the Medical Assessor has made a demonstrable error and/ or applied incorrect criteria by allowing 2% WPI for treatment effect to his assessment;

(c) neither of the qualified experts, Dr Smith nor Dr Verma, relied upon by the parties considered an adjustment for treatment effect was appropriate;

(d) Dr Smith made the following commentary in his report dated 25 June 2025, regarding treatment effect: "...Ms Mast has received psychological therapy and psychiatric treatment, including with antidepressant medication, and despite some reported improvement in her condition at times, her anxiety and depressive symptoms have persisted and there has been no substantial or total elimination of impairment justifying an adjustment for the effects of treatment";

(e) the decision of Justice Chen in Zoric v Secretary, Department of Education & Ors [2024] NSWSC 131 (Zoric), clarified the approach required to be taken when applying cl 1.32 of the Guidelines when making an adjustment for the effects of treatment. Of relevance, Justice Chen considered (at [80]): ...what is required by cl 1.32... is a comparative exercise between the plaintiff's original degree of impairment before the 'effective' treatment and the plaintiff's degree of impairment following that treatment: it is only by undertaking that comparison at those times can a medical assessor (or in the present case, the Appeal Panel) determine whether the treatment "results in apparent substantial elimination" of the plaintiff's permanent impairment;

(f) on page 6 of the MAC dated 14 August 2024, the Medical Assessor stated that: "...She has reported drastic improvement in her symptoms in the last few weeks since the dose of sertraline was increased. She reported she has been feeling a lot better. Her mood is stable as well. Her sleep has been consistent. She has better motivation, and her energy has improved as well";

(g) on page 6 of the MAC dated 29 October 2025, the Medical Assessor stated that:

"...She has received treatment under the care of a psychiatrist, her GP and a psychologist. She has been regularly on medications. She reported improvement in her mood. She does not feel depressed though she continues to feel anxious";

(h) in relation to the Medical Assessor's observations, the ongoing treatment Ms Mast has received has only improved her current psychological symptoms. Furthermore, ongoing symptoms include fatigue, fluctuating appetite, poor memory and difficulty concentrating on tasks, with appointments and talking about the workplace triggering anxiety;

(i) there is no evidence that Ms Mast's psychological therapy and psychiatric treatment, including antidepressant medication, has resulted in a "substantial or total elimination" of her permanent impairment. The Medical Assessor assessed 15% WPI even without the allowance for treatment effect. This can hardly be considered an elimination of impairment;

(j) on this basis, the Medical Assessor has made a demonstrable error in applying 2% WPI for treatment effect modifier, under the Guidelines;

(k) in the alternative, the Medical Assessor has applied incorrect criteria under the Guidelines allowing 2% WPI for treatment effect to his assessment, and

(l) there should be no additional allowance for treatment effect, and the Medical Assessor's 17% WPI assessment should be revoked and a revised assessment of 15% WPI be provided in accordance with the Guidelines.

1. The respondent's submissions include the following:

(a) the Medical Assessor on examination in 2024 found: "Ms Mast continues to take medications. She is on sertraline ... the medication has helped her with her mood symptoms ... she is a lot better. Her mood is pretty stable ... The treatment with sertraline has helped her in managing her mood";

(b) the Medical Assessor on examination in 2025 found: "She described her mood as anxious. She does not feel depressed.";

(c) in 2025, the Medical Assessor stated: "Ms Mast is a 40-year-old single female living on her own with a past history of long-standing depression...She has received treatment under the care of a psychiatrist, her GP and a psychologist. She has been regularly on medications. She reported improvement in her mood. She does not feel depressed though she continues to feel anxious ... Her sleep is fine.";

(d) the Medical Assessor recorded correspondence from Ms Mast's treating psychiatrist, Dr Andrew Frukacz from 13 March 2025, noting: "... overall Ms Mast's adjustment disorder has improved with the passage of time. I would suggest continuing on the sertraline 100 mg... She presented reasonably well today saying "I have come a real long way." She is not as fatigued as previously saying she sleeps will and awake feeling more alert.";

(e) the Medical Assessor commented on Dr Glenn Smith's report dated 25 June 2025, noting: "I agree with the diagnosis of Dr Glenn Smith however I differ in my assessment of whole person impairment. In my opinion, the final whole person impairment is 17%. I have also made a reduction of one-tenth but I made an addition of 2% for the effects of treatment as the treatment has helped her in improvement of her symptoms.";

(f) finally, the Medical Assessor stated: "I have also made an addition of 2% for the effect of treatment that she has received due to which she is currently presenting in remission. Ms Mast presents with persistent depressive disorder which is currently in remission with the previous history of cannabis use which is also in remission and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for which she is not on treatment.";

(g) in circumstances where Ms Mast has reported a significant improvement in her depressive symptoms with effective long-term treatment, such that the Medical Assessor considers her persistent depressive disorder to be in remission, we submit that this meets the criteria set out in paragraph 1.32 of the Guidelines;

(h) there is no demonstrable error or any application of incorrect criteria as contemplated by section 327(3)(c) and (d) of the 1998 Act, and

(i) the Medical Assessment Certificate dated 29 October 2025 should be confirmed.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The Appeal Panel reviewed the MAC and the evidence in this matter.

1. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in making an adjustment for the effects of treatment.
2. The Medical Assessor on page 3 of the MAC under "Present Treatment" noted:

"Ms Mast stated that she we will see psychiatrist Dr Andrew Frukacz whenever she can. She takes Zoloft (sertraline 100 mg). She has also started to see a psychologist. She had an appointment in end of September and has another appointment next week. She was also consuming cannabis to help her but last she smoked around Christmas and the beginning of the year and has not smoked since then. She does not drink alcohol and is a non-smoker"

1. The Medical Assessor on page 4 of the MAC under "Present Symptoms" noted:

"Ms Mast stated that she can only do 10% of things that she was able to do earlier. She has a very sedentary life. She gets fatigued and tired easily. She is not social. Her mood is generally fine but she would love to have more energy. On being asked about how she feels, she stated 'I am on Zoloft, life is good, my wound is generally fine but appointments and other things trigger me'."

1. The Medical Assessor on page 6 of the MAC under" Summary of Injuries and Diagnoses" wrote:

"In my opinion, Ms Mast sustained work-related psychological injury and her diagnosis as per the DSM 5-TR is the exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder which currently appears to be in remission."

1. In commenting on the opinion of Dr Glen Smith on page 12 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:

"I agree with the diagnosis made by Dr Glenn Smith however I differ in my assessment of whole person impairment. In my opinion, the final whole person impairment is 17%. I have also made a reduction of one-tenth but I made an addition of 2% for the effects of treatment as the treatment has helped her in improvement of her symptoms".

1. In commenting on the opinion of Dr Verma on page 13 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:

"I differ from the assessment by Dr Naresh Verma, Consultant Psychiatrist and in my opinion the whole person impairment that she is presenting with is attributable to work related injury with a deduction of 1/10th preexisting impairment. I have also made an addition of 2% for the effect of treatment that she has received due to which she is currently presenting in remission.

Ms Mast presents with persistent depressive disorder which is currently in remission with the previous history of cannabis use disorder which is also in remission and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for which she is not on treatment.

In my opinion her condition has become permanent and her impairment is unlikely to change substantially by more than 3% in the next 12 months with or without treatment hence I have made an assessment of a whole person impairment".

1. Under Table 11.8 on page 18 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote: "In my opinion, there is a 1/10 reduction for pre-existing impairment, and I have made an addition of 2% for the effects of treatment that she has received so far".
2. The clinical notes and records of Cowra Medical Associates contained the following entries:

(a) on 13 December 2021, Dr John Chang noted: "Wanted to talk about mental health. Worried she has ADHD. Never formally diagnosed as a child. Does have depressive symptoms such as tiredness, lethargy. As well as at times feeling anxious. Past states some suicidal thoughts, but never had plan to action. Cares about her animals at home. Sleep - generally quite good. Appetite - good. Energy levels - poor. Mod depression/Mod anxiety. Plan mental health care plan.";

(b) on 16 December 2021, Dr Chang noted: "Pt alleges on Sat 11/12/21 whilst at work, had a customer grab and squeeze her buttocks. She has gone into management at work, who have asked her to come in to report this to her doctor. Explained to pt this is obviously not a legal document per se, I am just writing down in her words what has happened as a record of alleged events. Pt also states she has reported this to the police already. Understandably this has been distressful to her";

(c) on 20 December 2021, Dr Ankush Goyal noted: "So pt feels unsupported and will need early medication by an independent aprty sao (sic) pt can go back to work quickly.";

(d) on 11 January 2022, Dr Atul Joshi noted: "Requesting referral to private psychologist. Has been having low mood, anxiety and lack of energy for past few months trigger after allegedly a verbal incident at work. recently triggered by an incident at work... her symptoms are progressing.";

(e) on 17 January 2022, Dr Chang noted that Ms Mast had cancelled dokotela but would rebook. He wrote: "Called up wanting to tell me the whole story. Doesn't require anything per se at this stage";

(f) on 24 January 2022, Dr Joshi noted: " not able to see a psychologist: booked for 31/1/22 has been struggling with her symptoms...has been tired and stressed sleep variable low mood appetite variable depending in stress living alone ..has animals to look after...keen to try medications: never tried in the past... last DASS 20/10/15, today 20/8/13...prescription added: SERTRALINE TABLET 50mg daily.";

(g) on 2 March 2022, Dr Joshi noted: "feeling better from mental health perspective since initiating Sertraline: happy to continue. Has been looking for new jobs as not keen to resume to previous work...did 1 shift in Café for few hours as urgent requirement: did not feel comfortable dealing with people ...";

(h) on 28 March 2022, Dr Joshi noted: "Has been feeling worse since last consultation anxiety is progressively worse...also having bodily symptoms from stress: non-specific joint pain, lethargy, diarrhoea not able to sleep well no focusing at things, does not feel like doing anything. Videsha suggested she can see Psychiatrist if required: not keen to Consult any new person as nothing has helped in the past except Sertraline and Psychologist.";

(i) on 26 April 2022, Dr Joshi noted: "Has been feeling better since increasing the Sertraline dose...has 5 sessions in total with Kathryn mood has been stable sleep better still not able to secure any new job overall gradual improvement. Still not confident to resume work: gets anxious and stressed.";

(j) on 29 April 2022, Dr Joshi noted: " Laura reports that she does not have any confidence to face people has been isolating at home most days except seeing Kathryn and myself claims she is more happy when is at home ...sessions with Kathryn helpful but not treatment initiated yet Sertraline has been helping otherwise...she needs to be mentally stable before we can put her through process of vocational assessment due to her previous experiences...";

(k) on 27 May 2022, Dr Joshi noted: "Laura still struggling with stress and anxiety. Claims she was initially feeling better since last consult but had a push back with her symptoms ...she reports she could not sleep...Sertraline has helped but only to an extent...will add some mood stabilisers to see if that makes her symptoms better. Will arrange referral to Dr Fruckaz to see if an input from Psychiatrist will be helpful to assess and manage mental health symptoms". Dr Joshi prescribed Quetiapine 100mg I daily;

(l) on 23 June 2022, Dr Joshi noted: "Mood has been up and down in past 3 weeks but better this week. Reports Quetiapine helped for 1st week, 2nd week went downhill again and this week she is feeling better again. Reports her physical symptoms has improved significantly since starting Quetiapine sleeping a lot better: occasionally sleeps more than normal mood has been better ...goes out on a walk occasionally...", and

(m) on 19 July 2022 Dr Joshi noted: "Has been functioning better mental health has been stable but still gets some negative thoughts ... Laura reports that she still does not go out of the house much and only prefers going out where there are only females".

1. The clinical notes and records of Canowindra Medical Practice contain the following entries:

(a) On 10 November 2022, Dr Raman Kaipu noted: "Applying for Centrelink Disability...stressed today."

1. The clinical notes and records of Orange Family Medical Centre contain the following entries:

(a) On 14 August 2025, Dr Bingjun Li noted: "does not like going outside of her home. Used up a lot of energy attending consult with me last week. Rested from Thu-Sun to be able to take up other tasks does not like crowds ...some friends locally - slowly fell out of contact...no contact with men", and

(b) On 1 September 2025, Dr Li noted: " Mood and anxiety (sx in general) has not changed...Imp: regardless what psychiatric diagnosis Laura ultimately is diagnosed of (seems to be in contention and out of my scope - but regardless, chronic and potentially lifelong), due to the hypervigilance and persistent belief that she is unsafe among men or in public, for at least the past 4 years and likely persist indefinitely due to partial insight to address this +/- a longstanding psychiatric issue, I do believe there is a disablement until clinical picture changes (uncertain timeframe)".

1. Dr Andrew Frukacz, treating psychiatrist, in his clinical notes dated 13 March 2025, wrote:

"Currently on Sertraline 100mg mane Quetiapine 25mg nocte. Struggling with not wanting to be exposed to many people ...has difficulty leaving the house. Depressed mood - 'I want to die'. No attempt. Felt burnt out with no energy. Poor sleep - awakes several times during the night. Not eating well and loss of weight. Aches and pains. Distrustful of people. Enjoys spending time with her animals - especially her dog and her horses. Struggles with cleaning at home - feels overwhelmed - will get side tracked onto other tasks...sees Kathryn Walker - talking about it helps.

1. Dr Frukacz in his report dated 13 March 2025, wrote:

"Ms Mast presented reasonably well today saying, 'I've come a real long way'. She is not as fatigued as previously saying she sleeps well and awakes feeling more alert. She is more able to cook meals and has a healthier appetite. She continues to avoid going out, saying she does not feel safe as a result of the harassment that she experienced whilst working...

Ms Mast remains on sertraline 100 mg mane but has ceased the quetiapine...

Thus overall Ms Mast's adjustment disorder has improved with the passage of time. I would suggest continuing on the sertraline 100 mg. I would encourage her to continue with her exposure task particularly going out in order to become more comfortable with this. Ms Mast remains on sertraline 100 mg but has ceased the quetiapine. I indicated I would be happy to review her at any time. She presented reasonably well today saying, "I have come a real long way." She is not as fatigued as previously saying she sleeps well and awake feeling more alert. She is more able to cook meals and has a healthier appetite. She continues to avoid going out saying she does not feel safe as a result of the harassment that she experienced while working and has to push herself to leave the house".

1. Dr Smith in his report dated 16 August 2023 assessed 23% WPI. He wrote:

"Ms Mast had reported that her mood has improved to some extent, "the medication has worked really well" and she noted that her suicidal ideation has reduced with the medication. Notwithstanding the improvement in her mood, she has remained anxious particularly when leaving the house and she has been avoidant and less engaged in activities.

Ms Mast has received psychological therapy and psychiatric treatment including with antidepressant medication, but her anxiety and depressive symptoms have persisted and there has been no substantial or total elimination of impairment, justifying an adjustment for the effects of treatment. It is not likely that her condition will change by more than 3% over the next 3 years".

1. Dr Glen Smith, in his report dated 25 June 2025, again assessed 23% WPI and at page 14 wrote:

"Ms Mast stated that since my previous assessment in August 2023, there have been fluctuations in her anxiety and mood symptoms and there have been periods of relative improvement in functioning but no full remission of her symptoms at any stage. She ceased seeing Ms Kathryn Walker, psychologist, in around December 2022, when her claim was declined and she has not seen another psychologist for treatment. She reported that she has been prescribed sertraline (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant/antianxiety medication, SSRI) by the psychiatrist, Dr Frukacz, whom she saw most recently in around March 2025. She stated that she ceased quetiapine (mood stabilising medication) in around January 2024, "it was when a roommate moved in, I was worried, I wanted to be fully conscious when I had someone in the house". She stated, "in hindsight, it was a really horrible experience, it was really bad for my mental health" and the roommate left in late 2024. She stated that after she saw Dr Frukacz in March 2025, "I was in bed for a week, the trip to Bathurst was draining, I couldn't do anything". She remains markedly anxious of going out in public settings, "of being approached, being harassed, threatened". She is therefore avoidant of going out, for example, to the shops, "I have to really build up to get there, I get that feeling 'if something happens I know it will be really bad for my well-being'..." She stated that she finds it difficult to go to the rooms of her general practitioner (GP), because "there are a lot of people in there".

"Ms Mast has received psychological therapy and psychiatric treatment, including with antidepressant medication, and despite some reported improvement in her condition at times, her anxiety and depressive symptoms have persisted and there has been no substantial or total elimination of impairment justifying an adjustment for the effects of treatment. In my opinion, Ms Mast's condition has stabilised and reached maximum medical improvement because it is not likely that her condition will change by more than 3% over the next year."

"Where the effective long-term treatment of an illness or injury results in apparent substantial or total elimination of the claimant's permanent impairment, but the claimant is likely to revert to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn, the assessor may increase the percentage of WPI by 1%, 2% or 3%. This percentage should be combined with any other impairment percentage, using the Combined Values Chart. This paragraph does not apply to the use of analgesics or anti-inflammatory medication for pain relief."

1. In Zoric, Chen J considered the correct application of clause 1.32 of the Guidelines when determining whole person impairment. Chen J said (at [45]) "... cl 1.32, it deals with when, and to what degree, a medical assessor can adjust by way of increase the percentage of WPI when treatment for the illness or injury giving rise to the permanent impairment results in apparent substantial or total elimination of it". Chen J said (at [80]): "...what is required by cl 1.32... is a comparative exercise between the plaintiff's original degree of impairment before the 'effective' treatment and the plaintiff's degree of impairment following that treatment: it is only by undertaking that comparison at those times can a medical assessor (or in the present case, the Appeal Panel) determine whether the treatment "results in apparent substantial elimination" of the plaintiff's permanent impairment."
2. The Appeal Panel accepts that cl 1.32 is understood to involve, and require findings about, the following "steps":

(1) First, whether there has been effective long-term treatment of an illness or injury.

(2) Secondly, whether that treatment results in apparent substantial or total elimination of the claimant's permanent impairment.

(3) Thirdly, whether the claimant is likely to revert to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn.

1. The Appeal Panel accepts that Medical Assessor did not consider these steps in cl 1.32 and make the findings required to adjust by way of increase the percentage of WPI. The Medical Assessor made an addition for the effect of treatment on the basis that "treatment has helped her in improvement of her symptoms". The Appeal Panel finds that the failure to properly apply cl 1.32 was a demonstrable error and the Medical Assessor made the assessment on the basis of incorrect criteria,
2. The ground of appeal is made out.
3. The Appeal Panel will proceed to consider the application of cl 1.32 of the Guidelines.
4. In relation to the first step as referred to in Zoric, there needs to be a finding about the "illness or injury" that results in permanent impairment and whether there has been effective long-term treatment of that "illness or injury".
5. The Medical Assessor found that there was an injury, namely, an exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder, which "currently appears to be in remission". He assessed 17% WPI. The Appeal Panel agrees with the diagnosis made by the Medical Assessor and concurs that this condition is in remission. The primary DSM-5 diagnostic criterion for this disorder is a depressed mood for most of the days, more days than not for at least two years. Ms Mast does not report this symptom and thus cannot have this disorder.
6. However the Medical Assessor elicits ongoing symptoms of sleep disturbance, fatigue, anxiety, amotivation, triggered distress, variable appetite and avoidance
7. The Appeal Panel concludes, after reviewing the evidence, that many of Ms Mast's symptoms have not really improved since she commenced treatment in late January 2022. In December 2021, before treatment, Ms Mast reported to Dr Joshi that she had been tired and stressed, her sleep was variable, her appetite variable depending on stress and she has low mood and was living alone. Ms Mast told the Medical Assessor that she was in a relationship when the work incident happened and eventually, in April 2022, her boyfriend left her. She stated that "we split up before the injury in November 2021 but we were still friends. We were together throughout my job and time at Bunnings. We started dating while I was at Aldi, but I was leaving Aldi at that time, somewhere in July 2020, and at that time, I met Chad, and we started dating. We were dating through that period, and we were together from around October 2020."
8. The Medical Assessor examined Ms Mast on 10 October 2025 and noted that Ms Mast stated that she "can only do 10% of things that she was able to do earlier". Ms Mast reported having a very sedentary life, getting fatigued and tired easily, and not being social. The Medical Assessor noted that her mood was generally fine, but she would love to have more energy. Ms Mast stated that, "I always think about the issues that happened at work, and I find it hard to overcome them. My mental health is the same....Ms Mast stated that, "I go day by day. I do not have the capacity to plan".
9. Ms Mast said that her working memory was not good. Her appetite was variable and she would try to have three meals a day, which can be an apple or a carrot, and she may have popcorn for dinner. The Medical Assessor noted that Ms Mast lost weight in the beginning, around 10 to 16kg, but then she gained it back and then gained an additional 10 to 15kg above her usual weight, as she is not as active as she would like to be and often needs to rest. Ms Mast reported that her sleep was fine and she may sleep 10 hours at night and sometimes in the day as well, ranging from 30 minutes to three to four hours.
10. The Appeal Panel accepts that some of Ms Mast's symptoms have changed, for example, she now no longer complains of low mood and so the first step may be met, although it is not stated expressly in Zoric whether effectiveness is determined by an improvement in symptoms, function/impairment or both.
11. However symptoms and impairment are not the same things and frequently not closely correlated. There is no evidence of a change in the level of impairment due to the treatment (as opposed to the reported change in her symptoms) as required by the second step - "whether that treatment results in apparent substantial or total elimination of the claimant's permanent impairment".
12. Some areas of function appear to have worsened despite treatment. Ms Mast has had no intimate social relationships since her relationship with Chad ended in early 2022 following the work injury. She has not been employed in any capacity since the work injury apart from a few shifts at a nursery in February 2022. She is still socially isolated and leads a very sedentary life. Her self- care is mildly impaired with her appetite still affected.
13. She said that she would occasionally speak to her family overseas and to her bestie, who just had a baby and lives in Melbourne, and they are planning to visit her, and she is excited about it. The Medical Assessor noted that Ms Mast lived on her own and said that her house was not in good condition and she has not yet unpacked some of the boxes when she moved in. The Medical Assessor noted that Ms Mast stated that she did not feel depressed, however, finds hard to focus and to concentrate and it takes a long time to finish tasks.
14. The Appeal Panel is not persuaded that there has been any real change in her permanent impairment. The Appeal Panel notes that Ms Mast now says only does one-tenth of what she used to do. Dr Chang, on 22 November 2021, described Ms Mast as "does seem quite isolated, limited friends, No family around". Ms Mast is still isolated with few friends, and has lost contact with local friends. On 13 December 2021, Dr Chang noted that her energy levels were poor. Again, there has been no real change or substantial improvement in her energy levels. On 13 December 2021 Dr Chang noted that Ms Mast had symptoms of tiredness and lethargy. Again, the Appeal Panel does not consider that those symptoms were worse in December 2021 compared to her state at the examination by the Medical Assessor. Ms Mast still lives alone, cares for her pets, has very little social life and is not working.
15. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that treatment has not improved any aspect of functioning and there has been no elimination in her impairment over the years with treatment. Any change in functioning has been minor and not substantial, and in some aspects possibly worsened
16. The Appeal Panel notes that Dr Smith made two assessments of WPI, one in his report dated 16 August 2023 and another in his report of 25 June 2025. Dr Smith assessed 23% WPI in both reports. The Appeal Panel accept that Zoric makes it clear that a focus by the Appeal Panel in that case on WPI was erroneous, however, Chen J said at [79]:

"Whilst it may be accepted that the degree of WPI was not irrelevant (it could be considered as part of the "qualitative and quantitative" assessment, as the plaintiff submitted), it was certainly not the sole consideration, nor a decisive one".

1. The Appeal Panel accepts that assessments of WPI are only part of the qualitative and quantitative assessment of permanent impairment, but Dr Smith's assessments do indicate that there were no significant changes in Ms Mast's functioning and permanent impairment during the 22 month period between those assessments.
2. The Appeal Panel noted that Dr Smith, in both his reports, was of the view that Ms Mast received psychological therapy and psychiatric treatment, including with antidepressant medication, but her anxiety and depressive symptoms had persisted and there had been no substantial or total elimination of impairment justifying an adjustment for the effects of treatment.
3. In relation to the third step, that is, whether the claimant is likely to revert to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn, this does not apply since there has been no substantial or total elimination of Ms Mast's permanent impairment. Ms Mast has received treatment since January 2022 and there is no evidence that she has shown any sustained improvement in function. Therefore, there can be no reversion to the original degree of impairment if treatment is withdrawn.
4. The Appeal Panel finds that no addition should be made for effects of treatment as there has been no effective long-term treatment of the injury that results in apparent substantial or total elimination of Ms Mast's permanent impairment,
5. The Appeal Panel therefore makes an assessment of 17% WPI and deducts one-tenth pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act, which results in a total assessment of 15% WPI. As a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 16 December 2021.
6. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 29 October 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

This Certificate is issued pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Himanshu Singh and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:

Chapter, page and paragraph number in NSW workers compensation guidelines

Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides

Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition

Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)

Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)

The above assessment is made in accordance with the SIRA NSW Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment for injuries received after 1 January 2002.