1. On 24 June 2025, the appellant, [BWW], lodged an Application to Appeal Against a Decision of Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by

Dr Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 27 May 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): * availability of additional relevant information (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against); * 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). "WPI" is reference to whole person impairment. "Baseline WPI" is a reference to the total WPI assessed before deduction for the effect of pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.

1. On 5 May 2025 this matter was referred to the Medical Assessor for an assessment of WPI caused by a psychiatric/psychological disorder which was deemed to have occurred on

12 January 2024. 2. [BWW] was the Senior Engineer for the respondent's company. [BWW]'s injury came about as a result of interpersonal conflict with his manager, being unsupported when seeking to escalate the situation and was accused of inappropriate conduct with a junior engineer the investigation of which gave no clear answers. 3. He was put on a performance review in September and October 2023 and was unable to comprehend fully the allegations being made against him. 4. He was passed over for a promotion. 5. He became suicidal and he took leave. 6. He was moved to another manager where his performance levels were passed. 7. However, his previous manager made a remark that [BWW] took leave to avoid work and

[BWW]'s condition deteriorated. 8. The Medical Assessor found there to be 9% WPI.

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 maximum medical improvement had not been achieved and a re-examination would be too early following the trauma of [BWW]'s arrest to obtain any reliable assessment.

1. Section 328(3) of the 1998 Act provides that evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to a medical assessment appealed against may not be given on an appeal by a party unless the evidence was not available to the party before the medical assessment and could not reasonably have been obtained by the party before that medical assessment.
2. [BWW] sought to introduce the following fresh evidence:

(a) further supplementary statement from [BWW] dated 23 June 2025, and

(b) apprehended domestic violence order from Parramatta Local Court dated

18 June 2025.

1. [BWW]'s statement was dated 23 June 2025.[1] He explained that he had recently gone through a period of separation from his partner following a domestic violence incident at home.
2. On 18 June 2025 [BWW]'s wife, [CCO], called the police as a result of an argument:

"Where I became emotionally dysregulated and hysterical in relation to my psychiatric condition."

1. [BWW] said he was taken away by the police and has now had the AVO issued against him which he said he was in the process of challenging.
2. He said:

"This condition has changed me completely. I was never an aggressive person before."

1. The notice itself was also produced.[2]
2. The apprehended domestic violence order required [BWW] to appear at Parramatta Court on 24 June 2025 and contained a short factual statement of the allegations against [BWW]. This described that [BWW] and [CCO] had been married for about 20 years and had three children together.
3. In summary the factual allegations alleged that [BWW] started yelling at his children in their bedroom due to the mess in the house and that [CCO] became concerned as [BWW] was becoming aggressive. She went downstairs with her children. [BWW] pushed her in the back when she was picking something up and the allegation is that [BWW] grabbed

[CCO] by her shoulders and continued to yell at her in front of one of the children. 4. [CCO] contacted 000 and the police arrived and noted that [CCO] had no visible injuries and took [BWW] to the police station. 5. [CCO] declined to provide a statement, stating that she still wished to be with [BWW].

Submissions as to the Application to Admit Fresh Evidence

1. [BWW] submitted that the evidence of both his statement and the apprehended domestic violence order should be admitted as it was relevant to the assessment of WPI but also critical to the assessment of social functioning, as the evidence illustrated the deterioration of [BWW]'s condition.
2. The respondent at [34] noted the application and that [BWW] alleged that the Medical Assessor failed to properly consider the evidence contained therein.
3. The respondent observed that, as was conceded by [BWW], the domestic violence order was not available at the time of the assessment so that the Medical Assessor could not have erred by failing to consider it.

1. We consider that the evidence is relevant to the assessment of [BWW]'s psychological condition. It demonstrates a significant deterioration in his mental state, which has occurred since the MAC and has thus rendered the assessment otiose. There is no point in assessing the issues within the MAC, as the gravity of the circumstances [BWW] now finds himself may well have caused additional issues in the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) category that will need re-assessment by his own experts. [BWW] cannot be re-examined at present, as the effect of his arrest will have caused a disturbance in his mental state that will not be assessable for at least six months.
2. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 27 May 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 Surabhi Verma and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate.

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)