WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; assessment of primary psychiatric injury; appeal against assessment of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) classes in respect of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning and concentration, persistence and pace; Appeal Panel found error in the assessment of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning and concentration, and persistence and pace; worker re-examined; review and re-examination did not lead to a different result and should not be interfered with (Robinson v Riley); Held - Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

1. On 1 April 2025 Anna Deegan (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 11 March 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. The appellant suffered a psychological injury in the course of her employment with Central Coast Council (the respondent) deemed to have occurred on 10 September 2024.
2. The appellant commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) claiming 26% whole person impairment (WPI) pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of a psychiatric and psychological disorder injury deemed to have occurred on 10 September 2024.
3. The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 13 February 2025. The Medical Assessor assessed 7% WPI as a result of the injury deemed to have occurred on 10 September 2024.

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. The appellant submits that noting the inadequacy of the history recorded by the Medical Assessor, the MAC cannot be rectified other than by further assessment
3. As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that there was a demonstrable error in the MAC and it was necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient evidence on which to make a decision.

1. The appellant did not rely on the availability of additional information as a ground of appeal in this matter. However, the appellant filed a supplementary statement dated 25 March 2025.
2. 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.
3. The admission of 'fresh evidence' into an appeal was considered by Deputy President Fleming in Ross v Zurich Workers Compensation Insurance [2002] NSWWCC PD7 (Ross). The principles set out in Ross are relevant and have been applied to the admission of fresh evidence by an Appeal Panel.
4. In Ross the Deputy President stated:

"A number of authorities have considered the tests at common law for the introduction of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings before the Courts. The relevant tests are firstly, that the evidence which is sought to be admitted on appeal was not available to the Appellant at the time of the original proceedings or could not have been discovered at that time with reasonable diligence, and secondly that the evidence is of such probative value that it is reasonably clear that it would change the outcome of the case (Wollongong Corporation v Cowan [1955] HCA 16; (1955) 93 CLR 435; McCann v Parsons [1954] HCA 70; (1954) 93 CLR 418; Orr v Holmes [1948] HCA 16; (1948) 76 CLR 632). These tests are addressed to the underlying principle of the need for finality in litigation and the importance of the ability of the successful party to rely on the outcome of the litigation. They are also addressed to the fundamental demands of fairness and justice in the instant case."

1. It has been established that evidence should not be admitted by a Medical Appeal Panel unless it is of "substantive prima facie probative value". In Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operation Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 112 at [78] Hodgson JA said:

"...in my opinion it would be reasonable for an AP not to admit evidence raising such a dispute unless that evidence had substantial prima facie probative value, in terms of its particularity, plausibility and/or independent support. Otherwise, simply by raising such a dispute, going to a matter relevant to the correctness of the certificate, a worker could put the AP in a position where it had to have a further medical examination conducted by one of its members. I do not think this would be in accord with the policy of the WIM Act."

1. The appellant seeks to admit the following evidence:

(a) Supplementary statement of the appellant dated 25 March 2025.

1. The appellant submits that the request to admit late evidence is distinguishable from the principles and general presumption against new evidence outlined in Petrovic v BC Serv No 14 Pty Limited and Ors [2007] NSWSC 1156. The appellant submits that the late evidence is a supplementary statement that addresses an apparent misunderstanding and/or miscommunication between the appellant and the Medical Assessor. Further, this evidence is discrete to a single issue and directly relevant to the PIRS assessment.
2. The respondent does not object to the further statement sought to be adduced by the appellant dated 25 March 2025. However, the respondent submits the probative value of that additional evidence is otiose given within it, the appellant makes no attack upon the history recorded by the Medical Assessor relative to the assessment of impairment under the PIRS save in one respect.
3. This supplementary statement clearly was not available and could not have been reasonably obtained before the examination by the Medical Assessor as it is evidence concerning what occurred in the examination by the Medical Assessor.
4. This supplementary statement, in our view, does not have such substantial prima facie probative value as is necessary to be admitted as fresh evidence in this case. Further, the admission of such a report, which, in effect, cavils with the history and examination findings made by the Medical Assessor, would undermine the need for finality in litigation.
5. The Appeal Panel determines for the reasons given above that the following evidence should not be received on the appeal:

(a) Appellant's supplementary statement dated 25 March 2025

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 Douglas Andrews of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the worker on 20 August 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. The appellant's submissions include the following:

(a) Ground 1 - incomplete and inaccurate history. The history obtained by the Medical Assessor is incomplete, confusing, lacks clarity and does not provide a logical or coherent "path of reasoning" to understand the conclusions drawn. Intervention by an Appeal Panel is appropriate and justified where an unsupportable reasoning process can be shown (Ferguson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887).

(b) In Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43), the Court considered the function of a medical panel. In Wingfoot the Court held: "The statement of reasons must explain that actual path of reasoning in sufficient detail to enable a Court to see whether the opinion does or does not involve any error of law...If a statement of reasons fails to meet that standard, that failure is itself an error of law on the face of the record of the opinion".

(c) The history obtained by the Medical Assessor is confusing and difficult to comprehend. Numerous phrases, both by themselves and in context with surrounding text, do not make sense. It is difficult to be satisfied that a correct or complete history has been obtained by the Medical Assessor. Moreover, it is difficult to follow a path of reasoning by the Medical Assessor in reaching the PIRS assessments. The writing style and method of recording information by the Medical Assessor is difficult to understand and frequently does not make sense.

(d) The Medical Assessor has drawn particular attention to "improvement" in the appellant's condition. The Medical Assessor repetitively states that relationships are better or have been better (page 4 of the MAC). The Medical Assessor also states that "... it is very pleasing" at page 5 of the MAC. At page 10 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor states "she is a lot better with the grandkids, getting better".

(e) Relevantly, the Medical Assessor does not state over what period the improvement occurred. This is unclear and provides no meaningful way to compare the appellant's pre-injury and post-injury function by simply using phrases like "better" and "improving".

(f) The history obtained by the Medical Assessor is inadequate and does not satisfy the requirements outlined in Wingfoot.

(g) Ground 2 - errors in PIRS application - (i) Social and Recreational Activities. The Medical Assessor, at page 4 of the MAC, records that the appellant cannot go to the bush (presumably, this is a reference to bushwalking). The Medical Assessor also notes at page 5 of the MAC that the appellant cannot go camping. The Medical Assessor at page 10 of the MAC takes a history which appears to suggest that the appellant's involvement with Newcastle Pride isn't ongoing. The Medical Assessor otherwise takes no history of social and recreational activities.

(h) The nature of the history obtained, and the reasoning of the Medical Assessor are inadequate. The Medical Assessor takes a history of the appellant gardening, but gardening is not a social activity: Ballas v Department of Education [2020] NSWCA 86. The Medical Assessor has failed to obtain an adequate history of social and recreational activities. The Medical Assessor failed to clarify the nature and extent of any reduction in participation in social or recreational activities. Moreover, the Medical Assessor has blurred the distinction between PIRS categories and places weight upon social functioning when evaluating social and recreational activities. This also constitutes an error and use of an incorrect criteria.

(i) Ground 2(ii) Travel. The Medical Assessor takes no history of the appellant's capacity to travel at all other than that recorded in the PIRS summary at page 10 of the MAC. The one exception to this is at page 5 of the MAC where the Medical Assessor states "she is not able to ... go on the train".

(j) The history obtained by the Medical Assessor is inadequate in relation to travel. The categorisation of impairment in Table 11.8 should record conclusions after analysis of history, and competing evidence, rather than represent the only recording of the history itself. The Medical Assessor has also failed to consider whether the driving of a motor vehicle recorded at page 10 of the MAC is with a support person, nor considered examples or instances relevant to the classes within this PIRS category.

(k) The Medical Assessor has not considered the inability to travel by train in the PIRS categorisation. The Medical Assessor also failed to consider whether there are other means of public transport that the appellant is unable to utilise.

(l) Ground 2(iii) - social functioning. The Medical Assessor notes at page 5 of the MAC "... a core group of friends in Sydney, Newcastle that she is comfortable with and may (emphasis added) visit. She gets together with her friends and family over Christmas and birthdays". Presumably, although it is not clear from the history, the appellant did see friends and family on more occasions than just Christmas and birthdays. The Medical Assessor takes no history of whether relationships are strained, whether there is tension and arguments with her partner or close family, whether there is a loss of friendships or whether the appellant has difficulty forming relationships.

(m) The history obtained by the Medical Assessor is inadequate and does not provide a path of reasoning sufficient to justify or understand the PIRS assessment for this category.

(n) Ground 2 (iv) concentration, persistence and pace. The Medical Assessor, at Table 11.8 again records an unanalysed history as a conclusion that is not otherwise recorded in the history. Nevertheless, the Medical Assessor does note the appellant has brain fog, struggles to organise and plan things and struggles with order and organisation. Further, the Medical Assessor notes the appellant was only able to make sourdough bread after following a recipe and after a few attempts.

(o) Relevant to the PIRS criteria, the Medical Assessor takes no history that the appellant can undertake a basic re-training course, or a standard course at a slower pace. The Medical Assessor obtains no history that the appellant can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for periods of up to 30 minutes, even if feeling fatigued.

(p) The history obtained by the Medical Assessor suggests the Appellant struggles to follow a recipe, make a window, go on a train, struggles to organise and plan things and struggles with order and organisation.

(q) On the confused and incomplete history provided by the Medical Assessor, it is submitted Class 3 is a better and more appropriate fit.

1. The respondent 's submissions include the following:

(a) The medical assessor did not apply incorrect criteria nor make a demonstrable error within the ambit of s 327(3)(c) and (d) of the 1998 Act and therefore the appeal should be dismissed and the medical assessment certificate confirmed.

(b) Ground 1 - the appellant in her further statement does not challenge the history recorded by the Medical Assessor relative to his assessment of impairment under the PIRS save in one respect addressed, and so the Appeal Panel must infer the history obtained by the Medical Assessor, however awkwardly expressed or recorded in its syntax, is both accurate and correct.

(c) Further, criticisms attacking the Medical Assessor's paths of reasoning simply cannot arise where the appellant does not go into evidence (despite adducing a further statement) in which alleged errors in the history recorded are explicitly identified.

(d) It is tolerably clear, despite the unusual syntax and expression used, that a complete and detailed history was recorded by the Medical Assessor and therefore ground 1 is not made out.

(e) Ground 2 - With respect to appeal ground 2, the respondent refers to cl 11.6 of the Guidelines. Further, the Guidelines also provide at [1.6] that an assessment of 'permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of the assessment taking account of the claimant's relevant medical history and all available relevant medical information'.

(f) The appellant's submissions identify no relevant error in the history obtained by the Medical Assessor which infects his reasoning, nor indeed any error in his assessment of the PIRS categories, such that there is no basis to conclude the assessment was based upon incorrect criteria. Campbell J in Ferguson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887 at [23] cited with approval the following passage at [33] of the decision of the Appeal Panel in NSW Police Force v Daniel Wark [2012] NSWWCCMA 36: "... The pre-eminence of the clinical observations cannot be understated. The judgement as to the significance or otherwise of the matters raised in the consultation is very much a matter for assessment by the clinician with the responsibility of conducting his/her enquiries with the applicant face to face ..."

(g) The Medical Assessor had regard to all relevant facts relating to the appellant's functioning during his examination and that his path of reasoning for concluding the appellant ought be assigned a category 2 on the PIRS domains social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence and pace, and a class 1 on the PIRS domains travel and social functioning is evident from the observations set out in the MAC and summarised in table 11.8 on page 9 onwards.

(h) In Glen William Parker v Select Civil Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 140 at [66], where Harrison AsJ held that: "In relation to classes of PIRS, there has to be more than a difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ to establish error in a statutory sense." In circumstances where no application of incorrect criteria or demonstrable error is demonstrated in the expressed reasons of the Medical Assessor, no error has been established and so the appeal should be dismissed and the MAC 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.

1. The appellant submits that the history obtained by the Medical Assessor is incomplete, confusing, lacks clarity and does not provide a logical or coherent "path of reasoning" to understand the conclusions drawn.
2. Under "Present symptoms" on page 4 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:

"Ms Deegan currently lives with her partner Sarah and her chickens.

Ms Deegan told me that she is still hypervigilant. She cannot go to the bush if she sees volunteers on weekends then she starts to question and think about what happened at work. She stated that her attention to detail is impeccable. Ms Deegan stated that she is mostly angry. She has lost the opportunity of the job in which she wanted to retire. She stated that she used to be really handy. She could make a window and now she could not work out. She could not plan how to do it. She struggles to measure as well. She described her mood as flat and frustrated and feels that she cannot move forward. She stated that she needs things to do in her day and she needs purpose and that is what she enjoys. Her son and grandchildren live close by. She tries to be involved in their care. She has two grandkids aged two and a half and six. She will take the younger one from preschool and spend time with her grandchild. She would go around in the garden and show things around. She enjoys the time that she spends with her grandkids. She has also started to swim in the rock pool. She is slowly getting to it. She feels happy with her family and friends and feels sad when she is by herself and there is nothing to do and there are days when she is really low. Ms Deegan stated that she is still hypervigilant when she is out. She stated "I do not want to talk about it. I may go to Newcastle or out of area in the bush but not in the local area as I tend to avoid people I work with. I still look for a number plate of car to find any resemblance."

Ms Deegan described her relationship with her grandchildren, with her son and partner better. Her relationship with her partner has been better. She stated we have been together for 30 years. She still does not feel confident to do things. She may second guess herself and she needs to learn to trust people. She stated that it is in her head where it starts to think random stuff. She cannot put things in order. She reported that her appetite is dreadful and the sleep can be an issue. She was drinking a lot at one point. She never had an issue with alcohol. However, she was drinking two to three glasses of wine every night and then she spoke to her GP about this and a liver function test was starting to get abnormal. Her GP advised her to stop drinking. She stopped it last year. She is a non-smoker and does

not use any illicit drugs. She reported that she is quite physical around her yard".

1. Under "Social activities and ADLs" on page 405 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:

"Ms Deegan stated that there is no time for her to shower. She may shower late at night but she is not dirty. She does not care about her look. She cannot do cooking.

However, it is mostly Sarah who does it. She needs to have a recipe to follow through. She is trying to brain train herself. She has a plan in her head to do things but may not do it. It chops and changes. She has been out in the garden and there is a lot of stuff in the garden and it is very physical, it is very pleasing. Her motivation and energy change every day. She has a core group of friends in Sydney, Newcastle that she is comfortable with and that she may visit. She gets together with her family and friends over Christmas and on birthdays. She is not able to still go to the bushland or go on the train and not gone for camping by herself, which she wants to do".

1. Under "Findings on Mental Health Examination" on page 5 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:

"Ms Deegan was seen over a video conference over team's meeting. She had her partner present in the background. Ms Deegan stated that her partner is not going to talk during the assessment, but she would like to have her as a support person. Ms Deegan appeared clean. She was wearing glasses. She was casually dressed. She showed her clothes and said that she was in the garden and at times she will go to the shops in the same clothes and may not change. She maintained good eye-to-eye contact and a rapport was established. She had a spontaneous speech with normal rate, tone and volume. She reported at times she struggles to organize herself and do things that she wants to do in her day. She was teary at times, however, she smiled few times as well. She stated she has been helping Sarah's parents in their garden. She described her mood as low and flat with bouts of anxiety and I found her affect to be reactive.

Her speech was normal in tone, rate, rhythm, volume and prosody. She was repeatedly concerned about how her work treated her and how she was a high performer and high achiever and people did not like her at work. She at times feels helpless. She at times needed to be redirected to the questions asked and would speak a lot in detail and then would ask whether she had replied back correctly. However, then she would answer the question promptly. She denied having any active or passive suicidal thoughts, intents or plans and there were no thoughts of harming others. She did not describe any grandiosity, racing thoughts or increased energy levels. There was no evidence of formal thought disorder, no delusional pattern of thinking and no perceptual abnormalities. She described her attention and concentration as up and down. She had a reasonable insight and her judgment was intact".

1. The Medical Assessor made a diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder.
2. The appellant made various criticisms of the history taken by the Medical Assessor submitting that numerous phrases, both by themselves and in context with surrounding text, did not make sense. The appellant argued that it is difficult to be satisfied that a correct or complete history has been obtained by the Medical Assessor and it is difficult to follow a path of reasoning by the Medical Assessor in reaching their PIRS assessments.
3. Six specific examples are referred to by the appellant in her submissions as follows:

(a) At page 4 "she is slowly getting to it". The appellant submits that the sentence of itself has no meaning and even from the surrounding text, it was unclear what the Medical Assessor was referring to.

The Appeal Panel considers that this should be read in the context of the whole paragraph and as such suggested that the applicant was slowly managing a swim in the rock pool. The Appeal Panel considers that the fact one sentence in the section describing her present symptoms was ambiguous does not detract from the details of the other symptoms recorded in the MAC.

(b) At page 4 "Ms Deegan described her relationship with her grandchildren, with her son and partner better". The appellant submits that it is unclear what this statement means.

The Appeal Panel accepts that there is some ambiguity but not such that a proper assessment cannot necessarily be made in terms of social functioning.

(c) At page 5 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor states "she has been out in the garden and there is a lot of stuff in the garden and it is very physical, and is very pleasing". The appellant submits that the sentence does not make sense and the context does not help to understand this sentence.

However, the Appeal Panel notes that in Table 11.8 under "Social and recreational activities", the Medical Assessor noted: "Ms Deegan stated that she has been a lot out in the garden and does a lot of stuff there. It is very pleasing". On balance the Appeal Panel does not accept that this does not make sense. It is clear that the appellant has been out in the garden a lot doing "stuff there" and finds such activity pleasing. The sentence should be read in the context of the whole MAC and Table 11.8.

(d) At page 4 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor states "she could make a window and now she could not work out". The appellant submits that the meaning of this sentence is unclear and the context of the surrounding text does not provide any real assistance in understanding the meaning of this sentence.

The Appeal Panel again considers that this sentence needs to be read in its full context, i.e. "She stated that she used to be really handy. She could make a window and now she could not work out. She could not plan how to do it. She struggles to measure as well." The meaning of the phrase is clearly that she can no longer make a window as she cannot work out how to it in terms of planning and measuring.

(e) At page 4 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor states "she stated that her attention to detail is impeccable". The appellant notes that elsewhere in the MAC, the Medical Assessor takes a detailed history that is inconsistent with this statement.

The Appeal Panel accepts that parts of the MAC clearly record the appellant as having problems with planning, with attention and concentration and organisation. At page 5 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor states "she at times needed to be redirected to the questions asked and would speak in a lot of detail ...". The Appeal Panel accepts that the other history in the MAC does not support a conclusion the appellant's attention to detail is "impeccable" and the sentence in question makes sense if it was intended to state that the appellant's attention to detail was (past tense) impeccable.

(f) The Medical Assessor has drawn particular attention to "improvement" in the appellant's condition. The Medical Assessor repetitively states that relationships are better or have been better (page 4 and page 10 of the MAC). It is unclear why the Medical Assessor has focused on and drawn particular attention to the terms "better" and "improvement". Relevantly, the Medical Assessor does not state over what period the improvement occurred.

The Appeal Panel accepts that there is some ambiguity concerning when the improvement had occurred but overall, the history was such as to suggest some improvement since the work injury.

1. In terms of the general argument put by the appellant concerning the failure to record a coherent and logical history capable of being understood, the Appeal Panel considers that the history was, in the main, capable of being understood although there was some ambiguity. The fact that certain sentences or phrases may be ambiguous does not detract from the balance of the reasoning.
2. The Appeal Panel will consider below the question of whether the Medical Assessor erred by failing to obtain a history sufficient to provide adequate reasons for the PIRS ratings applied when dealing with the grounds of appeal in each of the PIRS categories appealed.
3. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that failure by the Medical Assessor to consider the majority of examples within the PIRS criteria is not an error. by Garling J in Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633 ("Jenkins") at [64] who held that the examples given in the tables in the Guidelines were neither the sole, nor the minimum, basis for assessment of a person's impairment as falling within a particular class. Rather, his Honour said, at [60]:

"Those examples attempt to explore the ways in which a psychiatric condition impacts upon the activities of daily living of an individual, and their capacity to function in the areas described."

1. The appellant submits that the nature of the history obtained, and the reasoning of the Medical Assessor are inadequate. In particular, the appellant argues that gardening is not a social activity and the Medical Assessor and places weight on social functioning when evaluating social and recreational activities, blurring the distinction between evaluating social and recreational activities and social functioning. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to clarify the nature and extent of any reduction in participation in social and recreational activities.
2. The examples under Table 11.2 for "social and recreational activities" in the Guidelines are:

"Class 2: Mild impairment: occasionally goes out to such events e.g. without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (e.g. dancing, cheering favourite team).

Class 3: Moderate impairment: rarely goes out to such events, and mostly when prompted by family or close friend. Will not go out without a support person. Not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn."

1. The Medical Assessor assessed the appellant as Class 2 for social and recreational activities. In the PIRS Rating Form, the Medical Assessor wrote:

Ms Deegan stated that she has been a lot out in the garden and does a lot of stuff there. It is very pleasing. She has the motivation, but her motivation and energy may change and on some days it may be low. She has a core group of friends in Sydney and Newcastle that she visits and that she is comfortable with. She will see her family and they get along very well and also the in-laws and we are all (sic) and she stated that they are all together. She stated that her family and friends will come together on birthdays and Christmas and celebrate together. She would go to Newcastle to visit her buddy's house and may go out for dinner as well. She still would not go to bushland, would not go on a train and not going for camping by herself which she would like to do one day. She has slowly started to do

rock pool swimming. She will take out her grandkids in the garden and spend time with them."

1. In her statement dated 21 March 2024, the appellant wrote:

"I am a lot less social than I used to be. I have historically loved community activities

and enjoyed chatting to everyone that I meet but these days I cannot leave the house without suffering heightened anxiety. I cannot face the thought of talking to people. I used to enjoy snorkelling but won't do that now. I find myself in my garden or on my iPad a lot of the time. I don't go to the movies or theatres anymore. I don't go out to movies or theatres (sic), I don't go to coffee shops and I don't go to the markets or many op shop in particular areas, which I once enjoyed doing. I am unable to go to national parks anymore, or to many beaches. Anywhere in the Gosford LGA is now a no-go zone for me. I tend to avoid social interactions and will rarely, if ever, go out without my partner. On a recent occasion, when I did go out, I was constantly in phone contact with my partner and was very anxious and had a panic attack."

1. At the end of her statement after describing her work and achievements in the past, the appellant wrote: "Today I cannot go beyond the safety of my front gate without support"
2. In a report dated 15 August 2024, Dr Glen L Smith, consultant psychiatrist assessed the appellant as Class 3 for social and recreational activities and provided the following reasons:

"Ms Deegan described marked withdrawal from activities due to anxiety and reduced motivation. She has been out with her partner for a walk on a beach on one occasion. She tries to restore antique furniture alone but she finds this task difficult to maintain due to the 'brain fog'."

1. Dr Brendan Smith, consultant psychiatrist, in his report dated 6 October 2022 did not provide an assessment of whole person impairment. However, he noted: "She noted that she has been socialising much less than usual and not engaging in camping, a regular hobby of hers.
2. In particular, the appellant argues that gardening is not a social activity and the Medical Assessor placed weight on social functioning when evaluating social and recreational activities, blurring the distinction between evaluating social and recreational activities and social functioning. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to clarify the nature and extent of any reduction in participation in social and recreational activities.
3. In Botha v Secretary, NSW Department of Customer Service [2024] NSWSC 781, Sterna JA considered the proper construction of "social and recreational" scale and said:

"As to context, it is clear that the aim of table 11.2 is to provide a tool for trained psychiatrists to assess a worker's impairment as regards social and recreational activities. Whether particular activities should be assessed as involving no, mild, moderate, or more severe impairment is a matter of judgment and degree for such a psychiatrist, having regard both to their training and to the examples in the Guidelines. It is unlikely in those circumstances that the Guidelines were intended to be proscriptive as to whether activities within or outside of a worker's home could be taken into account in making such assessments. Further, there are separate PIRS in the Guidelines for assessing impairment in relation to travel and social functioning. This suggests that the intention in table 11.2 is not to provide a tool for assessing a worker's ability to travel outside the home, nor for assessing their ability to sustain friendships. Rather, the intention in table 11.2 is to provide a tool for assessing the worker's ability to engage in activities that are properly characterised as social or recreational."

1. The Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor has not erred in his characterisation of the gardening activities undertaken by the appellant as fitting within "social and recreational activities".
2. The Appeal Panel noted that the Medical Assessor reported that the appellant had a core group of friends in Sydney and Newcastle that she visits and that she is comfortable with and would see her family and family and friends would get together on birthdays and Christmas and celebrate together. He noted that she would go to Newcastle to visit her buddy's house and may go out for dinner as well.
3. The Appeal Panel noted however that the Medical Assessor made no reference to the appellant's statement and her evidence of being less social, no longer snorkelling, and no longer gong to the theatre, movies, coffee shops, markets, op shops and national parks. The Appeal Panel also notes that the Medical Assessor did not adequately consider whether the appellant requires a support person when going out.
4. The Appeal Panel noted that the Medical Assessor provided no reasons as to why his opinion differed from Dr Glen Smith, who assessed Class 3 for social and recreational activities.
5. The Appeal Panel noted that the Medical Assessor made no reference to the clinical notes and records of the treating general practitioner. For example, on 4 March 2024, Dr Luseane Tuiraki noted that the appellant had an unexpected encounter with a former colleague which triggered a panic attack. Dr Tuiraki noted that the appellant found enjoyment in gardening, providing a therapeutic outlet.
6. In those circumstance, the Appeal Panel concludes that the Medical Assessor failed to provide sufficient reasons for rating the appellant as Class 2 for social and recreational activities and such failure was a demonstrable error.

1. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor takes no history of the appellant's capacity to travel at all other than that recorded in the PIRS summary at page 10 of the MAC. The one exception to this is at page 5 of the MAC where the Medical Assessor states "she is not able to ... go on the train".
2. The appellant submits that the history obtained by the Medical Assessor is grossly inadequate in relation to travel. The categorisation of impairment in Table 11.8 should record conclusions after analysis of history, and (potentially) competing evidence, rather than represent the only recording of the history itself. The Medical Assessor has also failed to consider whether the driving of a motor vehicle recorded at page 10 of the MAC is with a support person, nor has he considered examples or instances relevant to the classes within this PIRS category.
3. Further, the appellant argues that the Medical Assessor has not considered the inability to travel by train in the PIRS categorisation and also failed to consider whether there are other means of public transport that the appellant is unable to utilise.
4. The examples under Table 11.3 for "Travel" in the Guidelines are:

"Class 1 No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: Can travel to new environments without supervision.

Class 2 Mild impairment: Can travel without support person, but only in a familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour.

Class 3 Moderate impairment: Cannot travel away from own residence without support person. Problems may be due to excessive anxiety or cognitive impairment".

1. The Medical Assessor assessed Class 1 in relation to travel noting:

"Ms Deegan stated that she is very comfortable in driving locally. However, she is worried of driving far distance where she is worried that she gets tired and then she

loses her concentration. She will go and pick up her grandkids from school but she also stated that she makes sure that she is okay. She stated that she can

drive to Sydney and Newcastle but she has to plan it and she is a good driver. She needs to be aware that she is tired. She would not pass certain areas still when

she drives and reported some amount of anxiety. She would not go to the coffee shop near her office or would not go near her workplace."

1. In her statement dated 21 March 2024, the appellant wrote:

"I won't travel on public transport and try to avoid being around people. I feel safer in a car but I struggle to concentrate when driving. Recently I had a minor accident when not focusing. I won't drive in and around the Gosford area or anywhere near my workplace...

Today I cannot go beyond the safety of my front gate without a support.".

1. In his report dated 15 August 2024, Dr Glen L Smith assessed the appellant as Class 2 for travel and provided the following reasons:

**"**Ms Deegan drives alone but only in the local area. She does not travel on trains. She stated that she has a "code" with her partner as a safety device if she were to see Mr Smith in public. She travelled to Canberra with her partner for a weekend six weeks ago, "I was so hypervigilant, I saw a bonsai exhibition, he was a bonsai nerd, I looked at every plaque to see if I could find his name".

1. The appellant submits that the history obtained by the Medical Assessor is grossly inadequate in relation to travel. The Appeal Panel accept that it is not clear whether the appellant requires a support person with her when she drives long distances as noted by Dr Glen Smith.
2. The Appeal Panel notes that the Medical Assessor made no reference to the clinical notes and records of the treating general practitioner. For example, on 24 October 2023, Dr Tuiraki noted that the appellant had just come back from Fiji and on 27 November 2023 Dr Tuiraki noted that the appellant was due to go on holiday. Details of such holiday travel are relevant to the assessment in this scale.
3. The Medical Assessor rated the appellant Class 1 for travel, that is, she had no deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population.
4. The Medical Assessor provided no reasons as to why his opinion differed from Dr Glen Smith, who assessed Class 2 for travel.
5. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the evidence as a whole is inconsistent with the appellant having no deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population in this scale. The Appeal Panel was satisfied that this is a demonstrable error in the MAC in relation to the ratings in the PIRS category of. travel.

1. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor takes no history of whether relationships are strained, whether there is tension and arguments with her partner or close family, whether there is a loss of friendships and whether the appellant has difficulty forming relationships. The appellant argues that the history obtained by the Medical Assessor is inadequate and does not provide a path of reasoning sufficient to justify or understand the PIRS assessment for this category.
2. The examples under Table 11.4 for "social functioning" in the Guidelines are:

"Class 1: No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: No difficulty in forming and sustaining relationships (e.g. a partner, close friendships lasting years).

Class 2: Mild impairment: Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.

Class 3: Moderate impairment: Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children.

1. The Medical Assessor assessed Class 1 in relation to social functioning noting:

"Ms Deegan stated that she has been together with her partner for the last 32 years. They have a son who is 36. He was born in 1998. She has a good relationship

with her partner and her son and daughter-in-law and her grandkids and their family. She is now more aware of what was happening. She is a lot better with the

grandkids, getting better. It is stated that the other day she taught her granddaughter how to snorkel in the swimming pool."

1. The Medical Assessor wrote on page 5 of the MAC under "Social activities/ADL":

"She has a core group of friends in Sydney, Newcastle that she is comfortable with and that she may visit. She gets together with her friends and family over Christmas and birthdays".

1. In her statement dated 21 March 2024, the appellant stated:

"There is a level of strain and damage to my personal relationship. My social network is much smaller than it used to be. I have been able to maintain what I perceive as being good relationships with my family and a close circle of friends, although this has taken considerable effort and has come at a measure of cost. My daughter in law has asked me about my ability to concentrate and maintain schedules when looking after my granddaughters. To have my reliability questioned is devastating. My granddaughters mean the world to me I have taken any and all steps to ensure that I record every appointment and check my calendar entries multiple times a day. I expend an enormous amount of mental energy to try and be cognisant of time with my granddaughters and to ensure that my family feel safe".

1. In his report dated 5 May 2023, Dr Glen L Smith assessed Class 3 for social functioning and provided the following reasons:

"Ms Deegan described marked strain in the relationship with her partner and she noted, 'we nearly separated'."

1. In his report dated 6 October 2022, Dr Brendan Smith noted under "Current symptoms" that the appellant had significant stress within her romantic relationships.
2. In the clinical records dated 28 April 2023, Dr Tuiraki noted: "has talked to partner, Sarah, not sure if should stay or leave, causing crisis at home life as gets anxious..." In an entry dated

8 January 2024, Dr Tuiraki noted: "lengthy talk about next option as she is not happy, affecting her marriage and relationship with her children and grandchildren..." 3. The statement of the Medical Assessor that "Her relationship with her partner has been better", in the view of the Appeal Panel, makes it clear that her family relationships "had been better historically". 4. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the Medical Assessor properly failed to take into the account the clinical notes of the general practitioner and the statement of the applicant. The loss of friendships, some degree of stain in her relationship with her partner are matters that should be taken into account when making an assessment in this scale. 5. The Medical Assessor provided no reasons as to why his opinion differed from Dr Glen Smith who assessed Class 3 for social functioning. 6. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the evidence as a whole is inconsistent with the appellant having no deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. The Appeal Panel was satisfied that this is a demonstrable error in the MAC in relation to the ratings in the PIRS category of social functioning.

1. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor at Table 11.8 notes the appellant has brain fog, struggles to organise and plan things and struggles with order and organisation. Relevantly, the Medical Assessor notes the appellant was only able to make sourdough bread after following a recipe and after a few attempts.
2. The appellant submits that relevant to the PIRS criteria, the Medical Assessor takes no history that the appellant can undertake a basic re-training course, or a standard course at a slower pace. The Medical Assessor obtains no history that the Appellant can focus on intellectually demanding tasks for periods of up to 30 minutes, even if feeling fatigued.

1. The examples under Table 11.5 for "concentration, persistence and pace" in the Guidelines are:

"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. The Medical Assessor assessed the appellant as Class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace. In the PIRS Rating Form, the Medical Assessor wrote:

"Ms Deegan stated that she has the brain fog and she struggles to organize and plan things. She has become quite concentrated on stuff. She wants to build her brain. She recently made sourdough bread after following recipes and after a few attempts. She still struggles with the order and organization."

1. Under "Findings on Mental State Examination" the Medical Assessor wrote:

"She reported at times she struggles to organize herself and do things that she wants to do in her day. She was teary at times, however, she smiled few times as well. She stated she has been helping Sarah's parents in their garden. She described her mood as low and flat with bouts of anxiety and I found her affect to be reactive.

Her speech was normal in tone, rate, rhythm, volume and prosody. She was repeatedly concerned about how her work treated her and how she was a high performer and high achiever and people did not like her at work. She at times feels helpless. She at times needed to be redirected to the questions asked and would speak a lot in detail and then would ask whether she had replied back correctly. However, then she would answer the question promptly. She denied having any active or passive suicidal thoughts, intents or plans and there were no thoughts of harming others. She did not describe any grandiosity, racing thoughts or increased energy levels. There was no evidence of formal thought disorder, no delusional pattern of thinking and no perceptual abnormalities. She described her attention and concentration as up and down. She had a reasonable insight and her judgment was intact.".

1. In her statement dated 21 March 2024, the appellant stated:

"My ability to concentrate on the simplest of tasks has diminished frighteningly. I can no longer follow the plot of a movie or show, although I still enjoy kid's movies and appreciate the sense of escapism which they provide. I find that the plots are easier to understand and I get loss (sic) confused. I used to enjoy reading historical and personal biographies but don't do this now and can't concentrate sufficiently to read a full book or novel. I get very easily distracted and will often fall asleep. I am unable to read and absorb information in emails and documentation, finding that I cannot process the details or maintain a line of thought. It's equally difficult for me to express myself succinctly or clearly. I can't manage banking tasks or related information and rely upon my partner to do this for me. I now find it difficult to remember pathways or recall file locations, when using a computer. What used to take minutes to do now takes a comparatively long time".

1. In his report dated 5 May 2023, Dr Glen L Smith assessed Class 4 for concentration, persistence and pace and provided the following reasons:

"Ms Deegan presented with marked difficulties with thinking and concentration and she noted that she has difficulty writing documents on the computer. Concentration deficits were evident in brief conversation."

1. Dr Brendan Smith in his report of 6 October 2022 noted that current symptoms included poor concentration.
2. In the clinical records dated 5 April 2024, Dr Tuiraki noted: "Experiencing brain fog, suspected due to depression, doing volunteer work max at least 5h a day but even not sure if should be as struggles to write up report and makes her more frustrated." On examination, Dr Tuiraki noted that her thought process was slow, stammering but no memory issues. He reported that the appellant kept looking at Sarah as not understanding or quickly forgetting what was discussed.
3. The Appeal Panel accepts that the history obtained by the Medical Assessor suggests the appellant struggles to follow a recipe, make a window, struggles to organise and plan things and struggles with order and organisation.
4. The Appeal Panel accepts that the Medical Assessor made no reference to the appellant's statement dated 21 March 2024 and the evidence in that statement concerning memory, focus and concentration was not addressed by the Medical Assessor in the MAC. In particular, the Appeal Panel noted that the appellant stated that she was unable to read and absorb information in emails and documentation and she could no longer manage banking tasks and relied on her partners to do this.
5. Based on the evidence before the Appeal Panel, and for the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor in the MAC, the Appeal Panel considered that the reasoning process was not sufficiently clear in the assessment of concentration, persistence and pace. The Appeal Panel considers that the descriptors for the Class 2 rating given by the Medical Assessor are inconsistent with the history taken by the Medical Assessor.
6. The Appeal Panel was satisfied that this is a demonstrable error in the MAC in relation to the ratings in the PIRS category of concentration, persistence and pace.
7. The Appeal Panel, having found error, concludes that it was necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient evidence on which to make a determination in respect of an assessment of the four PIRS scales appealed.
8. As noted above Medical Assessor Douglas Andrews of the Appeal Panel examined the appellant on 20 August 2025. Medical Assessor Andrews provided the following report:

1. The worker's medical history, where it differs from previous records

Ms Deegan is a 63-year-old woman who had been employed as a bush care officer with the Central Coast Council. She commenced in 2010 and continued with them after 2016 when they amalgamated with the Wyong Council. Problems first started in the workplace in 2013/14, and she noticed a decline in her mental health from about 2019. She left work in May 2022 (the deemed date of injury) and was terminated by the Council on 1 March 2024.

She lives at Wyongah with her long-term partner, Sarah Whitely. Ms Whitely works about three days a week at TAFE.

There have been no significant changes for her in the five months since her assessment by the MA.

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

Ms Deegan is cared for by her general practitioner, Dr Luseane Tuirake, and a psychologist, Ms Eleni Michael.

She is sensitive to medication and limits their use. Her only psychiatric medication is quetiapine, of which she uses a fraction of the lowest dose to assist with sleep at night.

She has used or had trials of sertraline, escitalopram and agomelatine.

She saw a psychiatrist briefly but found her unhelpful.

Ms Deegan is usually fit and well. She has recently had bronchitis and is taking a short course of prednisolone for this.

After her work injury occurred, she started drinking more than usual, about three standard drinks daily. She never developed an alcohol use disorder and stopped this when advised to.

She described her diet as erratic, with excessive sugar. Her current weight is 110 kg; at 168 cm, her BMI is 35.4, in the obese range. I note that in 2023, her GP recorded her weight at 105.2 kg.

Ms Deegan described her mood as flat, rating it usually at 4/10 (on a scale where 1/10 is the worst possible mood and 10/10 the best). She does not have anhedonia; she enjoys contact with her grandchildren and the birds that visit her yard.

She is anxious and avoids situations where she fears running into people from her former workplace, including the volunteers that she supervised. She has lost confidence and worries excessively about what other people think.

She has lost patience, is irritable and prone to anger.

She has subjective problems with concentration, attention and memory. These have been distressing, and she sought a consultation with a neurologist, fearing that she had dementia.

Ms Deegan spends most time at home. She showers every couple of days and washes her hair every few days. She shares housework with her partner, who does most of the cooking. Ms Deegan occasionally has bursts when she "can be meticulous" regarding home chores.

She picks up her grandchildren and some days during the week and brings them home to care for them while they wait for their mother.

She has two good friends in Newcastle and two in Sydney. They visit her house every couple of months ("because we have the room") when they share meals. She visits her Newcastle friends alone, about 45 minutes from her home, and her Sydney friends with Sarah. She occasionally goes to a local pub with Sarah, where they have a meal, but they choose a time when Ms Deegan believes the Wyong council employees won't attend. She enjoys family celebrations, for example, visiting her son's house for one of her grandchildren's birthdays. She recently took her granddaughter to a movie, and she takes her grandchildren to a local park.

She travelled to Fiji in 2023 with her son's family without Sarah. In August 2025, she travelled with Sarah and two friends to the Cook Islands, where they stayed eight days. Ms Deegan said

she felt "hypervigilant" at the airport but otherwise enjoyed the trips. Others did the travel arrangements.

There has been strain in her relationship with Sarah, but they remain loving and caring toward each other. This strain arises because of Ms Deegan's irritability. She has strong relationships with her son and his family, Sarah's parents who live next door and her four friends. He has had a recent falling out with one friend whom she criticised for having racist views, and she is disengaged from others, especially those associated with her previous workplace.

She reads articles and watches YouTube videos on her iPad. She follows the news on the ABC and SBS. She has recently started reading a book about the Duke and Duchess of York. She said this was the first book she had read in seven years. In the evening, she can read for about 30 minutes and during the day for up to 2 hours. She enjoys watching documentaries and occasional television serials. She has had a hobby of restoring antique furniture, but hasn't engaged in it lately.

She volunteers with Newcastle Pride. Initially, they asked her to do a grant application, but she found that she couldn't complete it without Sarah's help. She now does less demanding tasks, such as visiting schools and universities to talk about LGBT+ issues. She has recently been to Newcastle University and a venue at Muswellbrook. She is scheduled to volunteer two days, from 11 AM to 2 PM, in Newcastle in October.

I assessed Ms Deegan in her home via an audiovisual link for 80 minutes. The connection quality was adequate to do a comprehensive assessment. At the beginning, I explained the purposes of the examination and the limits of confidentiality. I mentioned that I was unable to give treatment advice and that it was not legal to record the assessment.

She presented casually attired with long curly hair and glasses. She appeared reasonably well-kempt.

Her mood was flat and her aspect mildly restricted, consistent with her mood and congruent with the interview content.

There was no abnormality of thought form or perception.

She provided a detailed history and sometimes got off track and needed redirection. There were no apparent problems with memory. My impression was that she was open and honest in her responses.

At the end of the interview, I reviewed my notes from the brief with her and asked if she had anything else to add. She said that she didn't know.

• Persistent depressive disorder with an ongoing major depressive episode

Ms Deegan has been unwell for more than three years with all five symptoms described in Criterion B for a persistent depressive disorder. She has more than five of the nine symptoms for a major depressive episode. The MA diagnosed a persistent depressive disorder, as did Dr Glen Smith, who also agreed with the major depressive descriptor. Dr Brendan Smith thought that she had an adjustment disorder with mixed anxious and depressed mood.

The claimant appealed on the grounds of error in the categories of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace.

• Self-care and personal hygiene - not appealed, as per the MA - Class 2

• Social and recreational activities - Ms Deegan has friends to her house and visits them in Newcastle and Sydney. On these occasions, they share meals. She occasionally goes out to a local club with her partner for a meal. She engages with her family for celebrations such as birthdays and other occasions. These are regular events and Ms Deegan is actively involved. She has gone out to movies and local parks. - Class 2

• Travel - Ms Deegan is independent with local travel. She also travels alone to Newcastle (1 hour 15 minutes) and to Sydney (1hour 25 minutes) with Sarah to see friends and has travelled to sites in Newcastle and Muswellbrook (2 hours) for her volunteer work. She travelled to Fiji with her family, without her partner, in 2022, and to the Cook Islands with her partner and friends in 2025. She had some anxiety at the airports but otherwise managed the trip. Anxiety is a symptom, but does not necessarily imply impairment. She is functioning within the normal range in the general population. - Class 1

• Social functioning - There has been some strain in Ms Deegan's relationship with Sarah due to Ms Deegan's irritability. Nonetheless, they remain caring and loving toward each other. She remains close to her son and his family, Sarah's parents, and at least four friends. She has lost some friends due to her social disengagement, and one friend after a disagreement. - Class 2

• Concentration, persistence and pace - Ms Deegan has significant subjective problems in this domain, so much so that she has sought reassurance from a neurologist. She struggled to complete a grant application for Newcastle Pride. However, she reads news articles on her iPad, watches YouTube videos and watches documentaries and occasional series on television. She can read for up to 30 minutes in the evening and two hours during the day. - Class 2

• Employability - not appealed, as per MA - Class 5

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

1. The Appeal Panel adopts the report and findings of Medical Assessor Douglas.
2. The Appeal Panel assesses the appellant as Class 2 for social and recreational activities, Class 1 for travel, Class 2 for social functioning and Class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace. The assessment Class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene, and Class 5 for employability was not appealed.
3. The Appeal Panel finds that the PIRS scales score 2 2 1 2 2 5, ascending order 1 2 2 2 2 5, median 2, aggregate 14 so that the WPI = 7%. The combined total WPI is therefore 7% WPI.
4. In summary, the assessment of total WPI by the Appeal Panel was the same as that made by the Medical Assessor. In those circumstances the Appeal Panel will confirm the MAC as the review has not led to a different result and should not be interfered with (Robinson v Riley [1971] 1 NSWLR 403).
5. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 11 March 2025 should be confirmed.