CBE v CTT [2026] NSWPICMP 192;

1. On 3 September 2025 [CBE] (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr John Baker, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on

6 August 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. [CBE] commenced employment with the respondent in about 2004.
2. [CBE] lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 5 June 2025 in which it was pleaded that she had sustained psychological injury on the deemed date of 28 June 2023. [CBE] pleaded that she was employed on a full-time basis at [DIA] for a period exceeding 19 years; that she underwent psychology treatment in 2016 due to ongoing anxiety due to the conditions and nature of her employment; that in or around 2017/2018 she commenced working as the manager in the [redacted] where she was subjected to being undermined and overworked; that in or around November 2022 she was moved to the "[redacted]" [redacted] due to her position becoming redundant and that in or around February 2023 she was moved to the behavioural [redacted] and was exposed to excessive workloads.
3. [CBE] claimed permanent impairment compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).
4. [CBE] was examined by the Medical Assessor on 22 July 2025. The MAC was issued on

6 August 2025. The Medical Assessor assessed [CBE] as suffering from 8% whole person impairment (WPI) due to psychiatric and psychological disorders. [CBE] appeals against that assessment.

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 the worker should undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient evidence contained in the MAC and the material before the Appeal Panel to determine the dispute. The Appeal Panel determined that a ground of appeal had been made out, and accordingly directed the worker to attend for re-examination, which proceeded before Medical Assessor Blom on

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. Medical Assessor Graham Blom of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 8 December 2025 and reported to the Appeal Panel.

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. In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor:

(a) failed to properly assess the evidence in respect of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) for concentration, persistence and pace, and employability (Tables 11.5 and 11.6 of the Guidelines);

(b) failed to consider relevant factors in respect to the PIRS for concentration, persistence and pace, and employability, and

(c) gave inadequate reasons and failed to expose reasoning process.

1. The appellant's more specific submissions will be discussed below.
2. In reply, the respondent in summary submits:

(a) that the examples provided in each class descriptor of the PIRS provide guidance and, in some instances, form a kind of threshold wherein the absence of certain indicators precludes an assessment at a higher class. However, this does not mean that the presence of one factor given as an example of a higher class, demands that the higher class applies irrespective of other relevant factors. In the respondent's submission the appellant is seeking to cavil with a matter of clinical judgment;

(b) that an assessment certified in a MAC is conclusively presumed to be correct in respect of the degree of permanent impairment of the appellant as a result of an injury and a difference in the assessments between that of the Medical Assessor and other medical assessments does not of itself constitute a demonstrable error, and

(c) the respondent opposes the submissions made by the appellant against the PIRS categories of concentration, persistence and pace, and employability assessed by the Medical Assessor.

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 appellant challenges the Medical Assessor's assessment in two of the PIRS scales being:

(a) Concentration, persistence and pace, and

(b) Employability.

1. Functional impairment in each PIRS is rated using class descriptors with examples of identifying activities provided for each class. The classes range in severity from 1 to 5, no or minor deficit through to totally impaired.[1] The example activities provided are "examples only."[2] Garling J observed in Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633 at [57]:

"The submission of the plaintiff that, in assigning a class of impairment to each scale, the AMS is restricted only to the examples of activities listed in the tables or, alternatively, to those activities as a minimum, cannot be accepted."

1. On preliminary review the Appeal Panel determined that the MAC contains a demonstrable error. The Medical Assessor assessed impairment of concentration, persistence and pace as class 2 and employability at class 4. In the view of the Appeal Panel the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor are inadequate and do not explain the actual path of reasoning.[3]
2. The Appeal Panel determined upon preliminary review that it was necessary for a Medical Assessor member of the Appeal Panel to conduct a re-examination of [CBE]. The re-examination was conducted by Medical Assessor Graham Blom on 8 December 2025 the report is as follows:

"1. The workers medical history, where it differs from previous records

Initially I asked [CBE] if she had read the medical certificate provided by Dr Baker, which she said she had. She felt that in places there were errors and that overall, she felt that Dr Baker had not 'listened' to her, although on further enquiry this seemed to be particularly related to his PIRS ratings, rather than the history he had taken, as when I reviewed his history with her, there were no substantive issues with which she had difficulties.

In reviewing the onset of her symptoms, she emphasised that she had been subject to an extremely toxic work environment with substantial bullying, harassment and threatening behaviour. She had developed symptoms over a considerable period.

She said that she had taken leave in June 2023 because she was feeling so overwhelmed. While on leave her condition deteriorated - she described crying persistently and uncontrollably, experiencing marked difficulties with her sleep and constantly ruminating about work and about her symptoms which she appears to have experienced as something of a failure in herself. Certainly, she described profound feelings of shame mixed with feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness. She had brief periods of suicidal ideation, associated with feelings of hopelessness. As her mood dropped, she also experienced anxiety and occasional panic attacks. Her appetite dropped although at times she used food as a form of comfort. She attended her general practitioner, and he referred her to a psychologist whom she began consulting every week or two. He also discussed with her the possible use of antidepressant medication, but she felt that this would be unhelpful and was concerned about possible side-effects and so did not initiate medical treatment. She has persisted with her unwillingness to undertake medical treatment, except for a period when she used melatonin (5mgs/night) for sleep. After a period of treatment with little change in her symptomatology, she initiated a Workers Compensation Claim and as a result was referred to a new SIRA accredited psychologist, Ms Susan Stern. She began consulting Ms Stern somewhere toward the end of 2023. She said that she consulted her for about 12 - 15 months on a weekly or fortnightly basis. Toward the end of 2024 she decided to switch psychologists and began consulting Mr Russell Cook as she felt that Ms Stern was not effectively addressing the traumatic quality of her disorder. She has consulted Mr Cook now for just under 12 months, consulting him on a fortnightly basis.

Despite her reasonably intensive, evidence-based psychological treatment she feels that there has been little improvement in her overall symptomatology and even questioned whether her symptoms might be worse. Despite this however she feels that psychology has been helpful in that it has given her strategies to better manage her symptoms and this has resulted in an improvement in her capacity to manage both her symptoms and impairment.

[CBE] continues to consult her psychologist, Mr Cook, on a fortnightly basis although can see him more frequently if needed. From her description Mr Cook is using evidence based treatments such as CBT, mindfulness as well as debriefing and crisis management. She continues to consult her general practitioner approximately every month. Besides attending to the administrative needs of her compensation claim he provides support. She no longer takes melatonin as she feels that it ceased to be efficacious. She does not take any other psychotropic medication and has no plan to in the future. She has never been hospitalised nor had other physical treatments such as to the TMS.

[CBE] continues to have significant symptoms of depression. She feels down and regularly experiences a sense of being overwhelmed. Whilst her tearfulness has reduced she continues to be intermittently, uncontrollably tearful. She continues to have significant sleep disturbance with both initial and interval insomnia, so that she only manages a few hours of uninterrupted sleep each night. She is fatigued throughout the day and sometimes resorts to daytime napping. Generally, she described a lack of energy and very limited motivation. Her appetite fluctuates in that sometimes she misses meals but at other times she eats for comfort - this combined with her lack of activity has led to considerable weight gain. She complained of significant difficulties with focus, memory and persistence. She describes feeling helpless, worthless and in particular, experiences significant feelings of shame. She described a sense of having little future for herself, although she denied currently experiencing suicidal ideation.

She experiences considerable levels of anxiety marked by rumination which is repetitive and distressing. This is associated with avoidance of groups of people, sometimes even her family because of feelings of shame and concern about being questioned about her illness. Occasionally, approximately once every three months, she has a panic attack although at other times has panicky feelings such as heightened anxiety, sweating and tremor with significant abdominal discomfort. These are worsened during periods of rumination.

[CBE] was seen via videoconference. She had no difficulty using the application and the quality of the streaming was good so that I was able to undertake a satisfactory examination. [CBE] was supported throughout the interview by her husband [CLU] who remained outside of camera shot throughout the interview and did not engage with me at any time.

At the beginning of the interview [CBE] made it very clear to the commission staff, who was still online, that under no circumstances would she accept the details of her appeal being published and available for public viewing. She expressed very considerable concern about being harassed by previous work colleagues and stated that she would prefer to forgo the Appeal rather than endure the risk of publication. This required review and reassurance by senior staff. The interview lasted 1 hour and 20 minutes, including the time clarifying the issue of public availability of the MAP afterwards. As a result of these exchanges, which took about 15 minutes [CBE] was somewhat agitated and distressed at the beginning of the interview.

Throughout the interview, while it was clear that [CBE] was attempting to engage with the questions, she clearly at times, it appeared to me, became frustrated and irritable sometimes bordering on dismissive. She denied this when I mentioned it, stating that she was merely anxious and distressed by the interview. The interview itself presented difficulties as she tended to be quite particular in clarifying her answers and concerned, she said because of previous interviews, that I might misrepresent or misunderstand her.

She presented as a woman of stated age, her hair was in a bun, and she was dressed neatly and cleanly. Her affect although predominantly anxious, was sad and at times sullen. There was no clear-cut flattening of affect. She did not express suicidal ideation and specifically denied it on questioning although she did present something of an air of hopelessness and expressed feelings of concern about her future.

She was anxious but not overwhelmed by her anxiety at any time during the interview but as mentioned sometimes this appeared to express itself in irritation and tendency to cavil. There was no evidence of hallucinations, delusions or formal thought disorder. She sometimes struggled with her focus and concentration in the interview and at times had difficulties with the chronology of events. At other times she was somewhat overinclusive and was difficult to refocus.

I note that Dr Dawes in her report raised the issue of Abnormal Illness behaviour in relationship to her refusal of medications, I did not feel that this was accurate or fair and that [CBE]'s decision, while not in line with standard medical advice was nevertheless a considered decision.

[CBE] presented overall as an honest witness who attempted to comply with the demands of the interview.

Using DSM-5,TR Criteria, [CBE] suffers from Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress.

This diagnosis is made because she continues to experience a depressed mood persistently, present on most if not all days. This is marked by, loss of interest and reduced pleasure, disturbed sleep both initial and interval insomnia, fatigue, low energy and loss of motivation as well as feelings of hopelessness worthlessness and significant shame. Her depression is coloured by the experience of significant agitation and anxiety symptoms.

[CBE] complained of significant difficulties with focus, distractibility and memory and to varying degrees this was evident in my interview with her.

Contrary to the MAC she said that she has not read a book for many months if not longer. She said that she generally does not read except for scrolling through posts on Facebook or Instagram, as she does not have the focus or persistence to read more complicated material. She said that prior to her injury, she read novels regularly.

She does watch TV but is unable to persist through a movie usually viewing only short light entertainment shows lasting from 30 to 60 minutes maximum.

I asked her specifically about the statement, dated 5 June 2025 that she had prepared, and which I have noted was both lengthy and dense in its material. She said that she had prepared this with the assistance of her husband, and that it had taken many weeks. She had also referred to previous documentation already available from the original investigation. She said that she only persisted in working on it, at any one time, for a limited period, and was exhausted afterwards.

She denied managing her family finances. She said that she can pay a bill but i is unable to undertake anything more complex. For example, she said that they had purchased a new coffee machine a few months back and that she was unable to follow the instructions to set up and use the machine - her daughters had to help her with the process. I also asked about the technical reports mentioned in the MAC. She said that her husband previously had worked undertaking technical reports related to workplace injuries. She had proof-read these reports, but this had occurred only prior to her injury. She denied doing any such work since her injury and in fact said that her husband has ceased this form of work. Similarly, she said that whilst she used to be able to assist her daughters with their essays for school, such as proof-reading and giving advice on grammar et cetera, that she was no longer able to do this because she lost focus and became muddled and so her children now usually ask their father.

[CBE] describes significant ongoing depression. She is anxious around people and generally avoids groups of people as far as possible. She is anxious and irritable and often feels a great deal of shame related to her injury and subsequent illness. She has considerable difficulties with her capacity to concentrate, focus and persist. She has not worked since leaving her position in 2023, following her injury, nor has she engaged in voluntary activity or other courses. I do not believe that she is able to work at all currently or in the foreseeable future.

7. Additional history since the original Medical Assessment Certificate was performed

There have been no significant changes since the original MAC undertaken in August. [CBE] said that her symptoms and level of impairment are unchanged. She said that there have been no further life events that have impacted on her illness.

8. Results of any additional investigations since the original Medical Assessment Certificate

There have been no further investigations or other interventions since the original MAC."

1. The Appeal Panel adopts the report and findings of Medical Assessor Blom.
2. The Appeal Panel make the following comments, to be read in conjunction with the above re-examination report.

1. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor failed to properly consider the evidence and failed to consider relevant factors in respect of the PIRS category of concentration, persistence and pace resulting in the incorrect class being assigned as well as a failure to provide adequate reasons.
2. The Medical Assessor assessed PIRS Class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace providing the following reasons in the PIRS table at page 19 of the MAC:

"The claimant said that she was reading much less than prior to the primary psychological injury. She said she could pay the bills and she still managed the family finances. She said she had made errors which were correctable. She was less interested in her hobbies."

1. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in assigning class 2 of the PIRS category of "concentration, persistence and pace." In the appellant's submission Class 3 should have been assigned.
2. Pursuant to the Guidelines psychiatric impairment is assessed using PIRS which assesses the behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder using six scales. Each scale evaluates an area of functional impairment. The fifth scale is "concentration, persistence and pace". Impairment in each area is rated using class descriptors of which there are five for each scale. The class descriptors for "concentration, persistence and pace" appear in Table 11.5 of the Guidelines. Relevantly the descriptors for Classes 2 and 3 are as follows:

"Class 2 Mild impairment: can undertake a basic retraining course, or a standard course at a slower pace. Can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for periods of up to 30 minutes, then feels fatigued or develops headache.

Class 3 Moderate impairment: unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (e.g. operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting."

1. In the appellant's submission the evidence relied on by the Medical Assessor is scant and does not disclose an ability to carry out and focus on intellectually challenging tasks that require concentration, the Medical Assessor does not indicate what books are being read and their complexity or otherwise, how long the appellant is able to attend to this task and whether she is unable to read for more than 30 minutes. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor also provides no information as to the complexity of the family finances which the appellant managed and in the appellant's submission the paying of bills is not a complex activity that requires extended concentration or persistence.
2. The Appeal Panel accepts that the Medical Assessor does not indicate what the appellant was reading, the complexity of what she was reading or for how long she read for. The Appeal Panel also accepts that the Medical Assessor provided no information as to the complexity of the family finances which the appellant managed.
3. The Medical Assessor relevantly recorded in respect to present symptoms:

"poor concentration with increased indecisiveness nearly every day as evidenced by the claimant not being able to assist her daughters with their travel to and from school, her diminished capacity to assist her daughters with their daily school related tasks as well as completion of family finances with her making errors whilst performing payment of family bills and finances."[4]

1. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor ignored the above symptoms. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor ignored the appellant's diminished capacity to assist her daughters with their daily school related tasks which in the appellant's submission would include homework. The appellant also referred to the inability of the appellant to edit her husband's reports for his business, a task which it was submitted she carried out prior to the injury.
2. In the respondent's submission the history obtained by the Medical Assessor was that the appellant had a diminished capacity to assist her daughters with their daily school-related tasks. This in the respondent's submission did not suggest that the appellant is completely unable to assist her daughters with their school related tasks (including homework), only that her capacity to do so has been reduced.
3. The Appeal Panel accepts that in assessing concentration, persistence and pace the Medical Assessor does not appear to have considered any diminished capacity in the appellant's ability to assist her daughters with their daily school related tasks. It is simply not referred to as part of the assessment. Whilst it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that her diminished capacity included being unable to assist with homework the Medical Assessor does not describe in detail the diminished capacity and what that included. In the opinion of the Appeal Panel there is insufficient information recorded by the Medical Assessor as to the nature of the diminished capacity.
4. The respondent submits that the appellant's alleged inability to assist her daughters with their travel to and from school is not a relevant factor. This is because the history obtained by the Medical Assessor indicates that the appellant's eldest daughter has obtained a P-plate driver's licence and in the respondent's submission it should be inferred that it is for this reason that the appellant no longer drives her daughters to and from school.
5. The Medical Assessor does record in respect to "Travel" that:

"The claimant said she was too low in her energy and depressed in her mood most mornings to get out of bed and drive her daughters to school. She said her eldest daughter held her P plate licence and had taken over the driving of herself and her younger sister to school."[5]

1. Whilst the respondent submits that it should be inferred that the appellant no longer drives her daughters to and from school due to the daughter obtaining a licence there is in the view of the Appeal Panel a lack of information.
2. In respect to "employability" the Medical Assessor stated:

"The claimant did not help her husband with his report writing as she had prior to the onset of this primary psychological injury. She said that she had worked as a proofreader for her husband on an ad hoc basis, however since the onset of this primary psychological injury this activity has ceased. The claimant said that her husband does not operate his small business at the time of this assessment."[6]

1. In the opinion of the Appeal Panel, it is unclear from the history recorded by the Medical Assessor as to why the appellant ceased working as a proofreader for her husband. Whilst the Medical Assessor states that the appellant had ceased proof reading since the injury the Medical Assessor does not explicitly record that it was due to the injury but does however record that her husband was no longer operating the business.
2. Having determined error, in circumstances where there was insufficient information available to determine the appeal, the Appeal Panel determined that a re-examination was necessary.
3. The Appeal Panel having considered the report provided by Medical Assessor Blom are of the view that the appeal is made out and that the assessment of the Medical Assessor contains a demonstrable error.
4. The Appeal Panel having considered the report provided by Medical Assessor Blom are of the view that the Medical Assessor erred in assessing "concentration, persistence and pace" as Class 2.
5. The Appeal Panel assess "concentration, persistence and pace" as Class 3 - the appellant reports that she is unable to read more than social media posts, that she is unable to persist with watching a movie usually watching light entertainment shows lasting 30 to 60 minutes, that she denied managing the family finances but pays bills, that she was unable to follow the instructions to set up and use a coffee machine, that she was no longer able to assist her daughters with their essays for school such as proof-reading and giving advice on grammar et cetera because she lost focus and becomes muddled.

1. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor failed to properly consider the evidence and failed to consider relevant factors in respect of the PIRS category of employability resulting in the incorrect class being assigned.
2. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor erred in assigning Class 4. In the appellant's submission Class 5 should have been assigned.
3. The class descriptors for "employability" appear in Table 11.6 of the Guidelines. Relevantly the descriptors for Classes 4 and 5 are as follows:

"Class 4 Severe impairment: cannot work more than one or two days at a time, less than 20 hours per fortnight. Pace is reduced, attendance is erratic.

1. In the appellant's submission the evidence recorded by the Medical Assessor was that:

• She was irritable;
• She exhibited a depressed mood with tearfulness and sadness;
• She had low self-esteem, self-doubt and fear;
• Her concentration was reduced resulting in an inability to carry out tasks such as proof reading, which she did for her husband prior to her injury;
• Her sleep was poor with insomnia every night and she had low energy and fatigue nearly every day;
• She declined invitations from her friendship circle because of her fatigue."

1. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor failed to consider the requirements of attending employment and retaining employment even on a part-time basis. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor did not consider what is required in real world employment.
2. In the respondent's submission a Class 5 rating is not supported by the medical evidence. In support of its submission the respondent referred to the opinion of Dr Richa Rastogi who in the respondent's submission assessed Class 3 in the category of employability, on the basis that the appellant had no capacity to work at the time of examination in November 2024, and could not work in pre-injury duties, but may be able to partake in a step-down, menial role with fewer demands. The respondent also referred to the opinion of Dr Tessa Daws, qualified on behalf of the respondent, who in the respondent's submission opined that it was likely that the appellant might recover capacity to work in a different role for a different employer.
3. Dr Rastogi, psychiatrist, who provided a forensic report to the appellant dated 27 November 2024 came to the opinion that the applicant had no capacity to work and that she would "need to partake a part-time step-down menial role in the future after she has received intensive treatment. Currently she has no capacity to work."[7]
4. Dr Daws, psychiatrist, provided a forensic report to the respondent dated 21 March 2025 reporting that in her opinion the appellant was "not fit for any type of work at present as a result of ongoing symptoms of depression and anxiety."[8] Dr Daws did consider "on balance of probabilities...it likely that she may recover capacity to work in a different role."[9] Dr Daws was of the opinion that the appellant had at that time not reached maximum medical improvement.[10]
5. In the view of the Appeal Panel the assessment by Dr Rastogi of Class 3 for employability was inconsistent with Dr Rastogi's finding that the appellant had no current work capacity. Assessments of impairment are performed as at the time of the examination. If there is potential for improvement, then it can be found that maximum medical improvement has not been achieved and the assessment of impairment deferred.
6. In the respondent's submission the Medical Assessor provided a well-reasoned explanation for his rating in this category.
7. In the opinion of the Appeal Panel the Medical Assessor does not explain how he came to the conclusion that the appellant could work one or two days per week. In the opinion of the Appeal Panel the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor are inadequate and do not explain the actual path of reasoning.[11]
8. Having determined demonstrable error, in circumstances where there was insufficient information available to determine the appeal, the Appeal Panel determined that a re-examination was necessary.
9. The Appeal Panel having considered the report provided by Medical Assessor Blom and his opinion that the appellant has no work capacity currently or in the foreseeable future accept the report and opinion of Dr Blom and are of the view that the Medical Assessor erred in assessing "employability" as Class 4.
10. The Appeal Panel assess "employability" as Class 5 - the appellant describing significant ongoing depression. Reporting that she is anxious around people and generally avoids groups of people as far as possible. Reporting that she is anxious and irritable and often feels a great deal of shame related to her injury and subsequent illness. Reporting that she has considerable difficulties with her capacity to concentrate, focus and persist. She has not worked since leaving her position in 2023, following her injury, nor has she engaged in voluntary activity or other courses.
11. The appeal is made out.

1. The appellant has requested that this decision be de-identified. The respondent consents to the appellant's application.
2. Section 58(1)(a) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) requires the Commission to publish details of its decisions in accordance with the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (2021 Rules).
3. Rule 131(1) of the 2021 Rules provides that subject to r 132 details of a decision are to be published.
4. Rule 132 provides for the de-identification or redaction of publishable decisions. Pursuant to r 132(4) regard is to be given to the following matters when considering de-identification:

"(a) the objects of the PIC Act and enabling legislation and, in particular, the object that the Commission be open and transparent about its processes,

(b) the prevention of prejudice to the proper administration of justice,

(c) the safety, health and wellbeing of a person affected or named by the publishable decision,

(d) the views of any other party to the proceedings,

(e) whether it is necessary in the public interest for the direction to be given and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice."

(a) the objects of the PIC Act and enabling legislation and, in particular, the object that the Commission be open and transparent about its processes.

In the appellant's submission the requested de-identification of the appellant's name, children's name or husbands name, role/title, employer, work location and mention of any identifying details of the [redacted] within the subject decision will not adversely affect the transparency of the process.

In the opinion of the Appeal Panel the proposed de-identification will affect the Commissions object of being open and transparent about its processes however given the nature of the de-identification that impact is minimal in nature. Whilst this consideration ways against de-identification it does so lightly.

(b) the prevention of prejudice to the proper administration of justice

In the appellant's submission de-identification would not prevent the proper administration of justice.

The Appeal Panel has not identified any negative impacts that would occur to the administration of justice as a result of de-identification and accepts the appellant's submission.

This consideration does not weight against de-identification.

(c) the safety, health and wellbeing of a person affected or named by the publishable decision

In the appellant's submission a review of the decision would allow any observer to glean significant personal information permitting identification of the appellant which includes the following their age, sex, marital status, health and developmental history, role and name of their employer, work location which may raise a risk to the claimant's safety and may have a negative impact on the claimant's mental health including creating significant fear and concern for her own wellbeing and safety.

The Appeal Panel accepts that the publishing of the decision without de-identification may cause a perceived risk which may adversely impact the appellant's mental health.

This factor in the opinion of the Appeal Panel weighs substantially in favour of de-identification.

(d) the views of any other party to the proceedings

This factor weights in favour of de-identification.

(e) whether it is necessary in the public interest for the direction to be given and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice

In the appellant's submission the public interest in open justice would not be prejudiced by the de-identification.

In the view of the Appeal Panel, it is necessary in the public interest for the direction to be given so that the appellant is not prejudiced in accessing justice and this significantly outweighs the minimal impact on open justice caused by the de-identification.

1. In the view of the Appeal Panel the above considerations weight in favour of the application for de-identification being granted.
2. This decision is to be de-identified by the removal of any information which would allow the appellant or her family to be identified including but not limited to:

(a) the removal of the appellant's name;

(b) the removal of the appellant's role/title;

(c) the removal of the appellants employer at the time of the incident;

(d) the removal of the location of the appellant's employment;

(e) the removal of any identification of the appellant's residential address;

(f) the removal of the appellant's children's names, and

(g) the removal of the husband's name.

1. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 6 August 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 John Baker 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.

[1] See: Ferguson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887.

[3] Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43 (Wingfoot) at [55].