WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; whether the ratings of the Medical Assessor (MA) of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities, travel, concentration, persistence and pace accorded with the evidence and the history the MA obtained; Held - Appeal Panel found no error with the MA's ratings of appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities, but found the MA's ratings of the appellant's impairment in travel and in concentration, persistence and pace did not accord with the evidence; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked

1. On 30 October 2025 Wayne Gibbs, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Patrick Morris, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 2 October 2025.
2. The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
   • the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
   • the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
3. The delegate is satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has conducted a review of the original medical assessment but limited to the ground(s) of appeal on which the appeal is made.
4. Rule 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the PIC Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 - Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes set out the practice and procedure in relation to the medical appeal process under s 328 of the 1998 Act. An Appeal Panel determines its own procedures in accordance with r 128(1) of the PIC Rules.
5. The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed

1. The appellant worked as a police officer for the State of New South Wales, the respondent, between December 1989 and November 2022. Due to several incidents that occurred during his employment he suffered a psychological injury.
2. The appellant claimed compensation from the respondent's insurer for permanent impairment resulting from his injury and also for pain and suffering from his impairment. With respect to his claim for compensation for permanent impairment, he relied on a report his solicitors obtained from psychiatrist Dr Glen Smith dated 30 April 2024, wherein Dr Smith advised he assessed the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 24% whole person impairment (WPI).
3. The insurer disputed the appellant had any entitlement to compensation for permanent impairment, and notified him of that in accordance with s 78 of the 1998 Act on

31 January 2025. It advised its reason for disputing his claim was that the degree of his permanent impairment from his injury is not at least 15% WPI. It relied on a report its solicitors obtained from psychiatrist Dr Peter Whetton dated 4 December 2024, who assessed the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 10% WPI. 4. The appellant then initiated proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) by filing an Application to Resolve a Dispute dated 12 August 2025. Following the respondent filing a reply to that, a delegate of the President of the Commission referred the medical dispute between the parties relating to the appellant's degree of his permanent impairment from his injury to the Medical Assessor to assess. To that end the Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 24 September 2025. In the MAC he issued on 2 October 2025 he certified he assessed the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 10% WPI. That comprised 8% WPI the Medical Assessor assessed the appellant has by reference to the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), as detailed in Chapter 11 of the Guidelines, and 2% WPI he added to that pursuant to paragraph 1.32 of the Guidelines. 5. The Medical Assessor expressed his opinion in the MAC that there had been substantial improvement in the appellant's permanent impairment due to the appellant being treated with Sertraline 100mg daily since late 2024. It was for that reason, that the Medical Assessor engaged paragraph 1.32 of the Guidelines. 6. The Medical Assessor indicated in the MAC that he derived the facts on which he based his assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment from his interview with the appellant during his examination of the appellant and the content of the documents the Commission provided to him. 7. In his appeal against the medical assessment the appellant has challenged the Medical Assessor's ratings of his impairment in several of the PIRS categories, specifically social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning and concentration persistence and pace (CPP), with respect to which the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment respectively as Class 2, Class 2, Class 2 and Class 3. For completeness the Appeal Panel notes that the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment in the other two categories as Class 2 for self-care and personal hygiene and Class 5 for employability. 8. Within the PIRS rating form in the MAC the Medical Assessor provided the following summary of his reasons for his rating of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities:

"Moderate impairment. Mr Gibbs meets up with friends for a coffee and chat at a café and is able to take the train by himself to attend the gathering. He goes by himself to

a gym and this can vary from 2-3 times a week to missing up to 3 weeks at a time. He can go with his wife to a shopping centre and have a coffee with her there. He occasionally goes with his wife to visit a friend."

1. As said, the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment in this category as Class 2, which the Appeal Panel observes is a mild impairment and not a moderate impairment. A Class 3 impairment is a moderate impairment. Hence, on its face, there is an inconsistency between the Medical Assessor rating the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 2 and his description of the appellant's impairment within the summary of his reasons for his rating as being moderate. In the Appeal Panel's view, the Medical Assessor's reference to a moderate impairment in the summary of his reasons is of the nature of typographical error or a proofing error. It is apparent from the reasons he provided and also from his calculation in the PIRS rating form of the median of his ratings of the appellant's impairment in all PIRS categories and his calculation of the aggregation of his ratings, that his assessment of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities is Class 2, and not Class 3.
2. Relevant to his rating of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities, the Medical Assessor also recorded within the MAC that the appellant becomes anxious and jittery when talking to other ex-police officers and, as a consequence, he avoids meeting ex-police officers and avoids police reunions where possible. The Medical Assessor also recorded that the appellant had lost interest in walking and riding his push bike and prefers to remain at home. The Medical Assessor also recorded that when the appellant attends a gym he works out by himself and does not interact with other people there.
3. The Medical Assessor observed that Dr Smith had rated the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 3. The Medical Assessor commented that he rated it as Class 2 because the appellant is able to travel by train to meet up with friends for coffee and socialisation at a café.
4. The summary of the reasons the Medical Assessor provided in the PIRS rating form for his rating of the appellant's impairment in travel is:

"No impairment. Mr Gibbs reports no significant problems in being able to drive by himself and does not avoid any locations because of anxiety. He was driving from his home in Sydney to Queensland to visit his son, including sometimes by himself, until this stopped recently due to a breakdown in his relationship with his son."

1. The Medical Assessor observed that Dr Smith had assessed the appellant's impairment in travel as Class 2. The Medical Assessor commented that he rated the appellant as Class 1 because the appellant reported no problems with being able to drive wherever he needs to go and does not avoid locations because of anxiety.
2. The Medical Assessor provided the following summary of his reasons in the PIRS rating form for his rating of the appellant's impairment in social functioning:

"Mild impairment. Mr Gibbs reports that his relationship with his wife has been strained by his psychological symptoms including in the past increased anger outbursts, irritability and reduced motivation. However, there have been no separations or domestic violence incidents. He reports a good relationship with his daughter but has lost contact with his son. He does not socialise with ex-Police Officer friends now because it triggers unpleasant emotions for him, but he still remains in contact with other friends."

1. The Medical Assessor recorded in the MAC that the appellant has had no contact with his son since early June and that the appellant is unsure why his son cut off contact with him.
2. The Medical Assessor also observed that Dr Smith had rated the appellant's impairment in social functioning as Class 3. The Medical Assessor, by way of commenting on that, repeated the substance of the reasons he provided in the PIRS rating form for his rating.
3. The Medical Assessor provided the following summary of his reasons in the PIRS rating form for his assessment of the appellant's impairment in CPP:

"Moderate impairment. Mr Gibbs complains of poor concentration and being forgetful. He said he can only read less than a paragraph before losing concentration and needing to re-read the material. However, he said that he is able to follow the storyline of films that he watches. He cannot follow complex instructions to make repairs now. He was able to focus for the 60 minute duration of the assessment."

1. The Medical Assessor observed that Dr Smith rated the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 4. Noting that he assessed the appellant's impairment as Class 3, the Medical Assessor considered that there may have been an improvement in the appellant's condition since Dr Smith assessed him as a consequence of the appellant increasing his daily dose of Sertraline from 50mg to 200mg late in 2024. The Medical Assessor also observed

Dr Whetton assessed the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 4.

1. The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural Direction PIC7.
2. As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the worker to undergo a further medical examination. This is because the material before the Appeal Panel is sufficient for the Appeal Panel to deal with the appeal.

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. Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
2. In summary, the appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor's findings expressed throughout the MAC demonstrate that he has suffered "far worse than mild impairment" in social and recreational activities. The appellant referred to a statement he signed on

17 August 2025 where he described experiencing hypervigilance affecting his ability to engage in social activity, his avoiding attending social activities, and his only attending activities with his wife or someone else as a support person. 3. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor failed to provide adequate reasons to explain his assessment. The appellant submitted the Medical Assessor did not provide reasons why "the lower class rating was preferred in circumstances where a Class 3 rating was available". 4. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor did not afford the appellant procedural fairness because the Medical Assessor did not bring to his attention inconsistencies between his findings and the available documentary evidence. 5. With respect to travel, the appellant referred to Dr Smith's assessment of his impairment wherein Dr Smith referred to his not travelling overseas with his wife because of his anxiety and reduced motivation. The appellant submitted that this is clear evidence of some level of impairment. 6. The appellant submitted that visiting his son in Queensland does not demonstrate that he can travel to new areas without supervision because his trip to Queensland is a trip to an area that is familiar to him. The appellant submitted that the evidence indicates that all his trips on his own are to familiar areas. 7. The appellant referred to his statement wherein he said that he aspired to travel to new places including New Zealand and Tasmania but is unable to do so following his injury because he does not have the mental motivation "to solidify these plans". 8. The appellant submitted that the summary of the Medical Assessor's reasons in the PIRS rating form for the rating of his impairment in social functioning is consistent with a severity of impairment described by the examples for a Class 3 impairment. The appellant referred to his statement wherein he said that his relationship with his son has deteriorated because of his injury. The appellant also said in his statement that he thought at one stage the relationship with his wife was going to end due to his short temper and agitation. 9. The appellant submitted that the reasons the Medical Assessor provided for rating his impairment in CPP as Class 3 are more consistent with a Class 4 rating. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor failed to consider the evidence in his statement in which he expressed that reading instructions is daunting for him and that he suffered detriments in his memory. The appellant submitted that his evidence in his statement accorded with the reasons that Dr Smith provided for the rating Dr Smith made of his impairment in CPP. The appellant again submitted that the Medical Assessor failed to provide adequate reasons for his rating because he did not explain why he preferred a lower class rating when a Class 4 rating was available. 10. The appellant submitted that it was incumbent upon the Medical Assessor to question him more regarding his CPP in a circumstance where his clinical findings were not in accordance with the evidence before him. 11. In reply, the respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was not required to explain an opinion he did not reach. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was required to expose his reasons for the ratings he made, based on the appellant's presentation on the day and having considered the available evidence. The respondent highlighted that the Medical Assessor was aware of the assessments and conclusions of Dr Whetton and Dr Smith, given that the Medical Assessor referred to their assessments. 12. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor exposed his reasoning for his assessment of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities and he made his rating after his having considered the entirety of the evidence and "with evident salience given to first-hand account" the appellant provided during examination. 13. The respondent submitted that the Appeal Panel cannot substitute its assessment for the assessment the Medical Assessor made on the basis that the Appeal Panel's assessment is "more appropriate". The respondent submitted that the Appeal Panel can only alter the assessment of the Medical Assessor if the Medical Assessor's assessment was not justified. 14. The respondent submitted that it is unclear how the Medical Assessor could have brought to the appellant's attention the findings he made, given that the Medical Assessor's findings are only revealed when the MAC is issued. 15. The respondent submitted that the evidence revealed that the appellant had consistently been travelling to Queensland by himself. The respondent noted that the Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant said that he is able to drive wherever he needs to go. The respondent submitted that the examples in the Guidelines relating to a familiar area refers to places in a worker's local area. The respondent submitted that travelling interstate cannot realistically be interpreted as a familiar area. 16. The respondent highlighted that there had been no periods of separation between the appellant and his wife and that the appellant maintains a good relationship with his daughter. The respondent highlighted that the Medical Assessor had recorded that the appellant was unsure of the reason why his son had cut off contact with him. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was entitled to rely on the information provided to him during the assessment to make his rating of the appellant's impairment. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor's rating of the appellant's Class 2 impairment in travel "is entirely appropriate". 17. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor considered both the appellant's evidence relating to his concentration and also the Medical Assessor's own clinical observations to rate the appellant's impairment in CPP. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor's findings relating to the appellant's CPP during examination provides "the most current and up to date evidence to this point in existence".

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.

1. The Appeal Panel rejects the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor erred by not rating his impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 3. The history the Medical Assessor obtained revealed that the appellant is regularly involving himself in activities, specifically meeting friends for a coffee and chat, having a coffee with his wife and going to the gym. He does not require prompting to engage in any of these activities. That squarely accords with a severity of impairment depicted by the examples provided in Table 11.2 of the Guidelines for a Class 2 impairment. The social and recreational activities in which the appellant currently engages is not such that his level of impairment accords with that described by the examples provided for a Class 3 impairment.
2. Insofar as the appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor ought to have assessed his impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 3 because Dr Smith had done so, the Appeal Panel also rejects that submission. The Medical Assessor was required to exercise his own clinical judgment to determine the degree of severity of the appellant's impairment in the various PIRS categories. Further, Dr Smith examined the appellant more than a year prior to the Medical Assessor examining the appellant. The task of the Medical Assessor was to determine the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment at the time he assessed him, and not based upon how he presented to Dr Smith more than 12 months prior.
3. The Appeal Panel also rejects the appellant's submission to the effect that the Medical Assessor failed to provide adequate reasons because the Medical Assessor did not explain why he assessed the appellant has a Class 2 impairment when a Class 3 rating was available. Based on the history the Medical Assessor obtained, and the reasons the Medical Assessor explained for his assessment, a Class 3 impairment was not available. Further, the Medical Assessor has clearly articulated his reasons for rating the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 2. Further still, the Medical Assessor was not required to explain an opinion he did not form - that is, he was not required to explain why he did not assess the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 3, or any other class other than Class 2 (that being his opinion).
4. The Appeal Panel also rejects the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor did not afford him procedural fairness because the Medical Assessor did not bring to his attention supposed inconsistencies between the available documentary evidence and the findings the Medical Assessor made. The Medical Assessor's ratings of the appellant's impairment was based on the history he obtained. The Medical Assessor noted in the MAC that the facts on which he based his assessment were derived from his clinical interview with the appellant and the information contained within the documents the Commission provided him. In other words, the history that the Medical Assessor composed, and which he obviously considered was the relevant history for the purpose of assessing the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment, was composed in the context of the Medical Assessor having read the material the Commission provided him. The Medical Assessor was entitled to give pre-eminence to the history he composed regarding the appellant's current function and impairment, over the description by someone else of those matters contained within the documentary material before the Medical Assessor.[1] The Medical Assessor was of course required to afford procedural fairness to the appellant, but that obligation did not require the Medical Assessor to disclose how he would be assessing the appellant's impairment and his reasons for his assessment.[2] In other words, the Medical Assessor was not required to inform the appellant during the assessment process the history by reference to which he would be rating the appellant's impairment for and he was not required to inform the appellant of his reasons for whatever ratings he would be making.
5. Further, and in any event, the appellant has not identified what he contends are the inconsistencies between the Medical Assessor's findings and the available evidence.

1. The Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor did make an error with his rating of the appellant's impairment in travel. This is because relevant parts of the evidence were not included in the history the Medical Assessor obtained, by reference to which he rated the appellant's impairment in travel. The evidence in the form of a statement the appellant signed on 17 August 2025 detailed the appellant is unable to travel to New Zealand or Tasmania because he cannot find the motivation to do so. Further, as Dr Smith recorded in the history he obtained, the appellant cannot travel with his wife to Greece because of anxiety and reduced motivation.
2. Given the appellant has limitations in terms of his ability to travel overseas, the appellant has a deficit in travel and, in the Appeal Panel's view, that deficit is not attributable to the normal variation of the general population. It represents a mild impairment in travel. Whilst he is able to drive without support for long distances, as indicated by the fact that he was able to drive to Queensland to visit his son, the fact that he cannot motivate himself or becomes anxious to travel to overseas destinations reveals he has an impairment that is more than minor.
3. The Medical Assessor made an error by not finding so.

1. The Appeal Panel also considers that the Medical Assessor erred by rating the appellant's impairment in social functioning as Class 2 and not Class 3. This is because the appellant is now estranged from his son. The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant had reported he was unsure of the reason why his son cut off contact with him, but bearing in mind that the appellant experiences short temperedness and irritability due to his injury, the Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor was wrong not to draw the inference that the appellant's estrangement from his son is due to those symptoms he has from his psychological injury. That accords with the appellant's evidence at paragraph 67 of his statement, wherein he says that his relationship with his son has deteriorated as a result of his psychological work injury. The Appeal Panel considers that the estrangement of the appellant from a close family member, coupled with the fact that there is strained relationship with his wife, is such that the correct rating for his impairment in social functioning is Class 3.

1. The Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor made no error with his rating of the appellant's impairment in CPP.
2. The Medical Assessor had regard to both the appellant's statement and the report of

Dr Smith, and that is obvious because the Medical Assessor explained in the MAC that he derived the facts on which he based his assessment from the information he elicited from the appellant during examination and also the information contained in the documents the Commission forwarded to him. That included the appellant's statement and Dr Smith's report. In contrast to what Dr Smith found, the Medical Assessor did not find the appellant exhibited any concentration deficits in brief conversations. Indeed, the MAC reveals that the Medical Assessor found the contrary, in that he found the appellant was able to focus for the 60 minute duration of his assessment of the appellant, during which he was able to elicit relevant information from the appellant. The Medical Assessor found that the appellant's speech over that 60 minute period was of normal rate and flow. Simply put, the appellant exhibited no concentration deficits during a conversation with the Medical Assessor lasting 60 minutes. 3. The appellant's evidence in his statement that the thought of reading instructions is daunting for him and that he has detriments in his memory is not sufficient to raise the appellant's level of impairment to Class 4. When weighed against the facts that the appellant could focus for the 60-minute duration of the Medical Assessor's assessment and the appellant being able to follow the story lines of films that he watches, indicates that he does not have severe impairment with respect to concentration or persistence. The Medical Assessor did not err by assessing the appellant's impairment as Class 3.

1. The appellant has not established that the Medical Assessor made his assessment based on incorrect criteria. The Medical Assessor applied the criteria in Chapter 11 of the Guidelines. That is the correct criteria to assess the degree of permanent impairment of a psychological injury.

1. The Appeal Panel having found the Medical Assessor erred in his rating of the appellant's impairment in travel and in social functioning must correct those errors, and does so by rating the appellant's impairment as Class 2 and Class 3 respectively. That means that the median of the appellant's scores increases to 3 and the aggregate of his scores increases to 17, which correlates with a 19% WPI.
2. Given that the Appeal Panel's assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment is far higher than the assessment the Medical Assessor made, the Appeal Panel must consider afresh whether paragraph 1.32 of the Guidelines can be engaged. This is because there is a different starting point in the comparative exercise paragraph 1.32 requires.
3. The Appeal Panel considers that paragraph 1.32 cannot be engaged and this is because the appellant's long-term treatment of his illness has not resulted in a substantial or total elimination of his permanent impairment. The evidence indicates that his treatment has resulted in some improvement between his post-injury and pre-treatment impairment, but to repeat it has not resulted in a substantial elimination of it.
4. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on

2 October 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

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

The Appeal Panel revokes the Medical Assessment Certificate of Medical Assessor Patrick Morris 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)

[1] Cheers v MidCoast Council [2024] NSWSC 1553 at [29]- [31]; [52].

[2] Woolworths Ltd v Michelle Howarth [2015] NSWSC 1624 at [32].