1. On 27 June 2025 Kim Gualdi (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Peter Honeyman, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 12 June 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 sustained an injury to her lumbar spine in the course of her employment with Endeavour Group Limited (the respondent) on 17July 2022 (deemed).
2. The appellant filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) dated 10 December 2024.
3. In a Certificate of Determination - Consent Orders dated 10 February 2025, Senior Member Kerry Haddock remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of permanent impairment as a result of injury to the lumbar spine during the period from

11 July 2022 to 15 August 2022, with deemed date of injury of 17 July 2022 (first date of incapacity). 4. The matter was referred to Dr Peter Honeyman, Medical Assessor, for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) of the lumbar spine. 5. The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 2 June 2025. 6. The Medical Assessor assessed 7% WPI of the lumbar spine.

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 there was a demonstrable error in the MAC and the appellant should undergo a further medical examination because there was insufficient information upon which to make a determination.

1. The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

1. Medical Assessor Robert Kuru of the Appeal Panel conducted an examination of the appellant on 27 October 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 - misdirection as a result of a wrong conclusion regarding medical history. There has been practical injustice in this matter because the Medical Assessor came to a false conclusion that the appellant did not complain of any referred pain in either leg;

(b) the basis of the appellant's claim is that she suffers from radiculopathy and therefore has an assessment permanent impairment in accordance with DRE lumbar category III. The statement made by the Medical Assessor that the appellant has not complained of any referred pain in either leg is entirely inconsistent with the repeated complaints contained in the clinical records and IME reports of Associate Professor Papantoniou and Dr Paul Robinson;

(c) it is unclear from the MAC if the Medical Assessor asked any questions or made any enquiry of the appellant about symptoms of radiculopathy in her right leg. There is no description of any enquiry made, nor what response was provided. Under the heading of "Present Symptoms" at page 2, the Medical Assessor provides a very brief summary of the symptoms, but in that description notes a complaint from the appellant of "cramps in her right leg";

(d) as noted by her general practitioner (Report of Dr Christian Skulina dated 14 March 2024) and Dr Robinson, the cramping is associated with nerve pain or shooting pain. It may be a matter of semantics, however, the appellant clearly conveyed symptoms in the right leg to the Medical Assessor which she attributed to her back injury. This description of symptoms in the right leg is consistent with what has been conveyed to other doctors but does not appear to have been investigated or generally taken into account by the Medical Assessor;

(e) the Medical Assessor, in this matter, appears to have failed to undertake an assessment of impairment that was caused and/or materially contributed to by the accepted injury to the right lower limb as he has made the erroneous assumption that there was never any complaint of referred pain in the right leg. This caused him to misdirect himself and ignore the appellant's claim that she suffered from radiculopathy in the right lower limb;

(f) the references to referred pain in the right leg in the evidence before the Medical Assessor, includes various certificates of capacity

(1 August 2021 and 27 June 2024), the clinical notes of Mona Vale Medical Centre (20 August 2023, 3 December 2023), report of

Dr Christian Skulina dated 14 March 2024, CT lumbar spine report dated 20 August 2023 and CT lumbar spine report dated 22 August 2023;

(g) accordingly, it was not correct for the Medical Assessor to have indicated there was no evidence or complaints of radiculopathy into the lower limbs. There is evidence demonstrating same, and the appellant relayed to him a description of symptoms in the right leg, associated with the back injury which are described as "cramps", during the examination with the Medical Assessor;

(h) as a result, the Medical Assessor misdirected himself in relation to the claim for radiculopathy, which affected the way he assessed WPI;

(i) ground 2 - failure to properly examine the appellant - the misdirection caused him to neglect to properly test for radiculopathy;

(j) the Medical Assessor was required to conduct his physical examination in accordance with cl 4.27 of the AMA Guides [sic], to correctly assess any impairment relating to radiculopathy;

(k) the Medical Assessor failed to properly test for radiculopathy. The Medical Assessor appears to have failed to conduct investigations including tests for reflexes, muscle weakness, impairment of sensation, nerve root tension and muscle wasting;

(l) unlike Associate Professor Papantoniou and Dr Robinson who conducted investigations relating to reflexes, muscle weakness and impairment of sensation, the Medical Assessor did not properly investigate and assess for radiculopathy. Had the Medical Assessor conducted the required examinations, he would have found the presence of radiculopathy;

(m) ground 3 - evidence of radiculopathy not taken into account in assessing WPI. Even on his limited examination, there was sufficient evidence for radiculopathy;

(n) on page 3 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor stated that he found that, "she had a spasm on both sides of the paralumbar muscles, more on the low right" and in reference to the CT scan dated 22 August 2023 "there is mild encroachment on the origins of the S1 nerve roots". If the Medical Assessor was not under the misapprehension that there was no complaint of radiculopathy, he should have assessed the appellant in accordance with DRE lumbar category III as the test pursuant to cl 4.27 of the AMA Guides, 5th Edition [sic], was satisfied in respect to a major criteria and a minor criteria;

(o) ground 4 - incorrect criteria - the Medical Assessor did not correctly assess the appellant's WPI because of the demonstrable error outlined above, that being his determination that there was no radiculopathy affecting the appellant's lower limbs;

(p) by failing to understand the nature of the claim due to the misdirection regarding the complaint of radiculopathy, the Medical Assessor did not apply the correct criteria in assessing the appellant and in particular, assessing for radiculopathy;

(q) the above errors are material, and

(r) the Appeal Panel can find that the criteria for radiculopathy has been made out and certify the appellant's WPI in accordance with DRE lumbar category III. Alternatively, should the failure to properly assess the appellant require a reassessment, then such a reassessment in person should be ordered. The Medical Assessor's MAC ought to be revoked and a new Certificate issued.

1. The respondent's submissions include the following:

(a) on a commonsense evaluation/review of the MAC, it is clear that the Medical Assessor was aware of the need for him to carefully determine whether his assessment of WPI should include a 'portion' for radiculopathy;

(b) the appellant's numerous submissions to the effect that the Medical Assessor should have found her to have radiculopathy because of her complaints of referred pain into the lower limbs in the past are irrelevant. It is well-established that a worker's presentation when examined by a Medical Assessor is relevant for WPI purposes, and not how the worker presented in the past. The Guidelines state that the impairment is to be considered as at the day of assessment and that assessment contrary to that is an error of law. This position is confirmed in a number of cases for example Warwick Campbell v Star Electrical Co Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] NSWSC 1341 (24 October 2024 and Zoric v Secretary, Department of Education & Ors [2024] NSWSC 131);

(c) the appellant's submission at paragraph 16 that it is unclear from the MAC if the Medical Assessor asked any questions or made any enquiry of the appellant about symptoms of radiculopathy in her right leg is misguided and cannot be supported given the Medical Assessor's comment under the heading 'Present symptoms' on page 2, 'She has constant low back pain. She has no weakness, numbness or referral down either leg or in the bladder or bowel'. It is true that the Medical Assessor in the MAC has not actually stated that he asked the appellant about her symptoms. However, by his response, it is clear that the Medical Assessor asked the appellant about her present symptoms;

(d) similarly, the appellant's submission that it was not correct for the Medical Assessor to have indicated there was no evidence or complaints of radiculopathy into the lower limbs is also misguided. The Medical Assessor was able to say there was no evidence or complaints of radiculopathy into the lower limbs because, following his examination of the appellant and after making enquiries with the appellant, this was his professional opinion, and

(e) the Appeal Panel should confirm the MAC.

1. The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
2. In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons. Where there are disputes of fact it may be necessary to refer to evidence or other material on which findings are based, but the extent to which this is necessary will vary from case to case. Where more than one conclusion is open, it will be necessary to explain why one conclusion is preferred. On the other hand, the reasons need not be extensive or provide a detailed explanation of the criteria applied by the medical professionals in reaching a professional judgement.
3. The Appeal Panel reviewed the MAC and the evidence in this matter.

Ground 1 - Misdirection as a result of a wrong conclusion regarding medical history

1. The appellant submits that there has been practical injustice in this matter because the Medical Assessor came to a false conclusion that the appellant did not complain of any referred pain in either leg.
2. The Appeal Panel accepts that at page 2 of the MAC under the heading "History Relating to Injury" the Medical Assessor stated:

"Her medical journey started with an initial review by a general practitioner. She says she has been reviewed by specialists including a neurologist. She has not complained of any referred pain in either leg."

1. Under "Present symptoms" on page 2 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor wrote:

She has constant low back pain. She has no weakness, numbness or referral down either leg or in the bladder or bowel. She says some days at the end of the day when she lies down, she gets cramps in her right leg.

1. Associate Professor Papantoniou, orthopaedic and spinal surgeon, in a report dated

17 April 2024 recorded: "The pain radiates down both lower limbs at various times in an L5 and S1 distribution". 2. Dr Paul Robinson, orthopaedic surgeon, in a report dated 14 December 2023, wrote:

"The pain she points to is in the lower central region of her lumbar area. There has been no radiation of such. There has been no symptom of paraesthesia.

She saw her local practitioner and was placed on restricted duties. She was ordered

physiotherapy and analgesia and this settled her symptoms to a mild extent until she had a further 'flare-up' at work with standing and twisting talking to another

employee. This increased her pain again without any radiation and without any paraesthesia."

1. Under "Present Condition" Dr Robinson wrote: "She states she has intermittent pain pointing again to the lower lumbar region. This intensifies with any attempt at lifting or bending. Rest in bed produces relief. There is still no radiation of pain and no paraesthesia".
2. In a report dated 28 August 2024, Dr Robinson wrote:

"...The pain does not radiate and there is no evidence in her clinical history of paraesthesia extending down into her lower limbs. She does however complain of a cramp particularly at night time passing down to her right leg. This is a sharp, shootingtype pain but not in any definitive nerve root distribution.

I note that Dr Papantoniou in his report stated the pain radiated into an area which he states was in an L5 and S1 distribution. I could not establish this on questioning Ms Gualdi on my examination."

1. The Appeal Panel accepts that Dr Robinson reported a history of referred pain in the right leg, as did Associate Professor Papantoniou. However, the Appeal Panel notes that Dr Robinson found that the cramp or pain was not in any definitive nerve root distribution.
2. The appellant referred to the Certificates of Capacity dated 1 August 2022 and

27 June 2024. The Appeal Panel accepts that both of these certificates refer to "Right buttock pain referred pain". However, there was no reference to "right buttock referred pain" in the various certificates issued after 1 August 2022 until the certificate dated 27 June 2024 which refers to "31 May 2024. Ongoing issues. Back pain and lower limb radiculopathy with lying flat." There appears to be no further reference to ongoing radiculopathy or referred pain in the certificates after 31 May 2024 review. 3. Dr Lachlan McArthur, general practitioner, in the clinical notes of Mona Vale Medical Centre dated 20 August 2023 noted that the appellant had a reaggravation of her back injury and had "nerve pain and cramps right leg". In an entry dated 3 December 2023, Dr McArthur noted that the appellant reported "right leg pins and needles, cramping but no saddle paraesthesia, no weakness". 4. Dr Christian Skulina, treating neurologist and neurophysiologist, in a report dated

14 March 2024, noted that symptoms started after the work injury in July 2022 and by February 2023 the appellant had noticed intermittent tingling and pins and needles in the right leg as well as worsening back pain. She wrote: "She now presents with disabling lower back pain as well as occasional tingling in the right leg." 5. In a CT lumbar spine report dated 22 August 2023, Dr Paul Lowenstein, radiologist, noted under "Clinical History": "Back pain with right leg radiculopathy." 6. In an MRI lumbar spine report dated 27 November 2023, Dr Kushlan Aluwihare, radiologist reported a history of "Encroachment on nerve roots lumbar spine" but concluded there was no evidence of neural impingement identified. 7. The Appeal Panel accept that the appellant had made complaints of referred pain into her right leg in 2023 and 2024, and the Medical Assessor erred in stating that the appellant not complained of any referred pain in either leg. 8. This ground of appeal is made out.

Ground 2 - Failure to properly examine the appellant - the misdirection caused him to neglect to properly test for radiculopathy

1. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor was required to conduct his physical examination in accordance with cl 4.27 of the Guides, to correctly assess any impairment relating to radiculopathy. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor failed to properly test for radiculopathy and appears to have failed to conduct investigations including tests for reflexes, muscle weakness, impairment of sensation, nerve root tension and muscle wasting.
2. In the MAC under "Findings on Physical Examination", the Medical Assessor wrote:

"On examination she was about 165cm tall, 84kg. She looked well but walked slowly with care. Throughout the interview, she displayed no pain behaviours.

She had a regular lumbar lordosis. She was able to forward bend and rotate evenly to both sides. Straight leg raising was to 90°.

She had a spasm on both sides of the paralumbar muscles, more on the low right."

1. The Medical Assessor noted that examination of the neck showed markedly restricted movement in every direction with side bending and rotation less to the right than the left.
2. Under "Details and Dates of Special Investigations" the Medical Assessor wrote:

22/8/23 CT Lumbar There is mild encroachment on the origins of

22/8/23 MRI Spondylotic changes in the lumbar spine. No evidence of neural impingement is identified.

28/3/24 EMG studies There is no electrophysiological evidence of significant large fibre neuropathy in this study.

13-12-23 & 31/1/24 & 28-8-24 Dr P Robinson IME degenerative changes of lumbar spine aggravated by work. No suggestions of radiculopathy. He has rated her DRE category 2 with 10% deduction for existing degenerative changes.

17/4/24 Prof Papantoniou suggests 2 level disc disease with poor prognosis that will require fusion within 3 years as well as extensive facet joint injections. He has rated her DRE3 based on referred pain."

1. Under "Reasons for Assessment", the Medical Assessor wrote: "Aggravation of degenerative changes in the lower lumbar spine."
2. At Part 10 a of the MAC the Medical Assessor wrote:

"The lumbar spine is assessed by the DRE method, as set out in T15-3 p 384. She has marked muscular spasm in her lower back. She had no findings to support radiculopathy, both on physical exam and other studies. This attracts DRE2 of 5% WPI."

1. At Part 10 c of the MAC the Medical Assessor wrote:

"I am in broad agreement with Dr Robinson on DRE category. Prof Papantoniou suggests referred pain which was unsupported by my exam or the EMG studies.

1. The Guidelines at page 27, paragraph 4.27 provide:

"Radiculopathy is the impairment cause by malfunction of a spinal nerve root or nerve roots. In general, in order to conclude that radiculopathy is present,two more of the following criteria should be found, one of which must be major (major criteria in bold).

• loss or asymmetry of reflexes
• muscle weakness that is anatomically localised to an appropriate

• reproducible impairment of sensation that is anatomically localised to

• positive nerve root tension (AMA 5 Box 15-1, p 382)
• muscle wasting - atrophy (AMA 5 Box 15-1, p 382)
• findings on an imaging study consistent with the clinical signs (AMA 5, p 382)."

1. The Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor did not clearly identify his findings which supported his conclusion that the appellant had no radiculopathy. In particular, the Medical Assessor did not refer to the criteria in the Guidelines at 4.27. It follows that without specific reference to the criteria in the Guidelines at 4.27, the path of reasoning is not clear. The Medical Assessor did not properly set out his findings in terms of any neurological abnormalities and merely concluded that there was no radiculopathy. This approach does not explain properly the basis for his conclusions including the particular findings made on examination which resulted in those conclusions. The Appeal Panel noted that the MAC provided no details in relation to wasting, reflexes or sensory changes. The Medical Assessor gave quite brief reasons for rejecting or accepting other medical opinions. The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the Medical Assessor made a demonstrable error in failing to provide sufficient details and reasons in respect of his examination findings. This ground of appeal is made out.

Ground 3 - Evidence of radiculopathy not taken into account in assessing WPI

1. The appellant submits that even on his limited examination, there was sufficient evidence for radiculopathy.
2. On page 3 of the MAC, the Medical Assessor stated that he found that, "she had a spasm on both sides of the paralumbar muscles, more on the low right" and in reference to the CT scan dated 22 August 2023 "there is mild encroachment on the origins of the S1 nerve roots".
3. The appellant submits that if the Medical Assessor was not under the misapprehension that there was no complaint of radiculopathy, he should have assessed the appellant in accordance with DRE lumbar category III as the test pursuant to cl 4.27 of the Guidelines was satisfied in respect to a major criteria and a minor criteria.
4. The Appeal Panel considers that the examination findings made by the Medical Assessor did not support a finding of radiculopathy under the criteria set out in cl 4.27 of the Guidelines. Spasm on both sides of the paralumbar muscles and a report of the CT scan dated

22 August 2023 that "there is mild encroachment on the origins of the S1 nerve roots" are both minor criteria. In order to conclude that radiculopathy is present, two or more of the following criteria should be found, one of which must be major criteria, that is**,** loss or asymmetry of reflexes or muscle weakness that is anatomically localised to an appropriate spinal nerve root distribution or reproducible impairment of sensation that is anatomically localised to an appropriate spinal nerve root distribution. The Medical Assessor did not find any of the three major criteria present on examination. 5. This ground of appeal is not made out.

1. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor did not correctly assess the appellant's WPI because of the demonstrable error outlined above, namely, his determination that there was no radiculopathy affecting the appellant's lower limbs. The appellant argues that by failing to understand the nature of the claim due to the misdirection regarding the complaint of radiculopathy, the Medical Assessor did not apply the correct criteria in assessing the appellant and in particular, assessing for radiculopathy.
2. The Appeal Panel considers that this has been dealt with above under Grounds 2 and 3. The Appeal Panel consider that the failure to provide sufficient details and reasons in respect of his examination findings, particularly in relation the criteria set out in cl 4.27 of the Guidelines.
3. 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 lumbar spine, and in particular whether the criteria in cl 4.27 were met.
4. As noted above Medical Assessor Kuru of the Appeal Panel examined the appellant on

27 October 2025. Medical Assessor Kuru provided the following report:

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

The history as given to me by Ms Gualdi was that she was working at BWS. Her Manager was on leave. In taking on the Manager's duties, she developed pain in her back over a 5 week period. She attributed this predominantly to pulling pallets of stock from the loading dock into the store. I note this history is consistent with that in her statement and further that recorded in her MAC of 12/06/2025.

Additional history since the original Medical Assessment Certificate was performed

With respect to current symptoms, Ms Gualdi reports ongoing pain in her back and cramping sensations in the backs of both legs. She is unable to lift any significant weight. She has difficulty walking up her driveway at home. She has moved in with relatives and has her sister help her make her bed. She is unable to vacuum. She has a whippet who she is unable to walk as it aggravates the pain in her back.

She is not currently undertaking anything in the form of an exercise-based rehabilitation program. She uses Palexia and Naprogesic. She has not had any injections into her back. She is awaiting review by a Pain Management Specialist.

On examination, she was obviously distressed with pain in her back. Trendelenburg's test was normal. Heel-toe stance was normal. Neurological examination of the lower limbs demonstrated symmetrical knee and ankle reflexes with down going Babinskis. Peripheral power was intact. Straight leg raise was to 90° in the sitting position without tension signs. Gastrocnemius circumference was 41cm and symmetrical. There was no sensory deficit consistent with a pattern of lumbar nerve root distribution.

Range of motion in the lumbar spine demonstrated restricted flexion, dysmetria rising from the flexed position and restricted lateral flexion.

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

I was able to review an MRI taken on 27/11/2023 on the PRP PACS site. It demonstrates degenerative disc disease L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1. There is no significant central, lateral recess or foraminal stenosis.

I was able to review a CT scan of the lumbar spine on the Lumus PACS site dated 17/06/2025. The CT is consistent with the MRI of November 2023.

As per paragraph 13 of Ms Gualdi's submission, it is her claim that 'She suffers from radiculopathy and therefore has an assessment of permanent impairment in accordance with DRE Lumbar Category III'. The appellant maintains that the MAC issued by Assessor Honeyman on 12/06/2025 is incorrect in that Assessor Honeyman has documented 'She has not complained of any referred pain in either leg'.

At the time of my review, Ms Gualdi indeed complained of pain and cramping extending into both legs.

Paragraph 21 states 'The Medical Assessor, in this matter, appears to have failed to perform this task as he has made the erroneous assumption that there was never any complaint of referred pain in the right leg and this has caused him to misdirect himself and to essentially ignore the appellant's claim that she suffered from radiculopathy in the right lower limb'. It should be noted that SIRA, page 27, paragraph 4.28 states 'Radicular complaints of pain or sensory features that follow anatomical pathways but cannot be verified by neurological findings (somatic pain, non-verifiable radicular pain) do not alone constitute radiculopathy'. SIRA, page 27, paragraph 4.27 lists criteria for the diagnosis of radiculopathy. At my review, there was no evidence of loss or asymmetry of reflexes, muscle weakness anatomically localised to an appropriate spinal nerve root distribution, reproducible impairment of sensation that is anatomically localised to an appropriate spinal nerve root distribution, positive nerve root tension signs, muscle wasting, atrophy or findings on an imaging study consistent with the clinical signs. On this basis, Ms Gualdi does not have radiculopathy.

Whilst the MAC by Assessor Honeyman dated 12/06/2025 essentially details an unremarkable neurological examination, it does not specifically document the above to exclude radiculopathy.

I note the report by Dr Papantoniou dated 17/04/2024. At examination, Dr Papantoniou documents 'Neurological examination of the lower limbs revealed normal sensation to light touch, normal power, normal reflexes and she could straight leg raise to 90° on both sides. She has a negative sciatic stretch test'.

Despite documenting this in his examination, Dr Papantoniou goes on to assess Ms Gualdi as DRE Category III on the basis of 'dermatomal pain distribution. Two herniated discs that match dermatomal pain'.

The SIRA reference that the reporting of dermatomal pain does not qualify for radiculopathy has been noted above. Ms Gualdi does not have 'two herniated discs that match dermatomal pain'. Review of her imaging does not demonstrate compressive pathology. Dr Papantoniou has erred in assessing Ms Gualdi as DRE Category III and such an assessment is inconsistent with the examination he has documented.

With respect to the report by Dr Robinson dated 28/08/2024, I am in agreement with the assessment of the lumbar spine as DRE Category II and 2% WPI for restriction of activities of daily living. I note Dr Robinson has made some comments with respect to Dr Papantoniou's conclusions and treatment recommendations. I am in agreement with Dr Robinson's comments.

Whole person impairment for the lumbar spine is 7%."

1. The Appeal Panel adopts the report and findings of Medical Assessor Kuru. Medical Assessor Kuru on examination found no evidence of loss or asymmetry of reflexes, muscle weakness anatomically localised to an appropriate spinal nerve root distribution, reproducible impairment of sensation that is anatomically localised to an appropriate spinal nerve root distribution, positive nerve root tension signs, muscle wasting, atrophy or findings on an imaging study consistent with the clinical signs.
2. The Appeal Panel therefore finds that the appellant has an asymmetric restriction of movement in her lumbar spine but no radiculopathy. Therefore, the Appeal Panel assesses the appellant as having 5% WPI as she falls within DRE lumbar category II and adds 2% WPI for restriction of activities of daily living, which totals 7% WPI.
3. Therefore, the Appeal Panel is satisfied that the appellant does not meet the criteria for radiculopathy set out in paragraph 4.27 of the Guidelines and assesses 5% WPI of the lumbar spine.
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 12 June 2025 should be confirmed.