1. On 29 September 2025 Peter James Lynch, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 1 September 2025.
2. The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
   • availability of additional relevant information (being additional information that was not available to, and that could not reasonably have been obtained by, the appellant before the medical assessment appealed against);
   • the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
   • the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
3. The delegate is satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground for appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has conducted a review of the original medical assessment but limited to the ground(s) for 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 commenced employment on 17 January 2022 as a customer success specialist with Till Payments Solutions Pty Ltd, the respondent. He was promoted to the position of customer support team leader on 1 April 2022. He last worked for the respondent on 25 August 2022.
2. Due to incidents that occurred in the appellant's employment from 1 April 2022 until his last day of work, he suffered a psychological injury. He claimed compensation from the respondent's insurer for permanent impairment from that injury. He relied on a report his solicitors obtained from psychiatrist Dr Glen Smith dated 1 October 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 respondent's insurer did not accede to the appellant's claim. It notified him of that by way of writing to him on 16 June 2025. It advised him its decision was based on a report it received from Dr Tessa Daws, who had examined the appellant on 22 April 2025 and who in a report, assumedly issued on that date, advised that she considered the appellant had not achieved maximum medical improvement relating to his injury. She formed that view because she considered it was reasonable for the appellant to trial a combination of antidepressants. In other words, Dr Daws was not satisfied at the time she examined the appellant his permanent impairment from his injury was fully ascertainable.
4. The appellant then initiated proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission), by filing an Application to Resolve a Dispute dated 24 June 2025. Following the respondent lodging a reply to that, a delegate of the President of the Commission issued a referral to the Medical Assessor on 21 July 2025 requiring the Medical Assessor to assess various medical disputes between the parties relating to the appellant's claim for compensation.
5. The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 15 August 2025 to conduct that assessment, and as said issued the MAC on 1 September 2025. The Medical Assessor certified in the MAC that the appellant's impairment is permanent and that the degree of his permanent impairment is fully ascertainable. No issue has been raised in the appellant's appeal against the medical assessment regarding those elements of the Medical Assessor's assessment.
6. The Medical Assessor also certified she assessed the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 7% WPI. The Medical Assessor's assessment was done by reference to the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), detailed in chapter 11 of the Guidelines. Insofar as the appellant relies on the grounds for appeal listed in

s 327(3)(c) and (d), the appellant has challenged the Medical Assessor's ratings of his impairment in the PIRS categories of self-care and personal hygiene, in regards to which the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment as Class 2, social and recreational activities, in regards to which the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment as Class 2, travel, in regards to which the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment as Class 1, and concentration, persistence and pace (CPP), in regards to which the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment as Class 1. 7. The reasons the Medical Assessor provided in the PIRS rating form, forming part of the MAC, for rating the appellant's impairment in self-care and personal hygiene as Class 2 are:

"Mr Lynch reported that he showers once or twice a week as he does not have motivation to do things and feels exhausted. He is not able to do household chores

as he struggles to even get out of bed. He reported that his wife left for Turkey in August last year for 3 weeks and he only ordered take away during that time.

He has put on about 30 to 40 kg. He said that he used to weigh about 105 kg before the incidents had worked and he now weighs around 150 kg."

1. The Medical Assessor noted in the history she detailed in the MAC that following the appellant's onset of injury he had a decreased appetite and experienced a loss of weight of about 10-15 kg. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant's "appetite has slightly improved than before", which the Appeal Panel infers is the Medical Assessor contrasting the appellant's present situation from what she detailed regarding the appellant's decreased appetite and a loss of weight following his injury. The Appeal Panel also notes that preceding his injury, the appellant's general practitioner recorded the appellant's weight as 128 kg on 11 March 2018 and as 131.6 kg on 13 July 2020.
2. The Medical Assessor observed that her rating of the appellant's impairment in self-care and personal hygiene differed from the assessment Dr Smith made.
3. The Medical Assessor provided the following reasons in the PIRS rating form for her rating of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities:

"Mr Lynch previously enjoyed going out in nature fossil collection, gaming with his friends, including DNDs, board games and computer games and was quite hands-on. He is able to continue playing games but does not play in depth games including strategy and role playing.

He said that he occasionally plays board games with his children. He plays Candy Crush on his phone. He reported that he meets up with his close friend, whom he meets up once every couple of months. He said that his friendships dissolved away as he did not care about them.

He said that if his friends come over then he interacts with them which happens at least once monthly. He said that he is able to sit and interact and have tea with them. He is also able to leave the house on his own."

1. The Medical Assessor observed, when commenting on the consistency of the appellant's presentation that the appellant, was able to focus on computer games for hours at a time.
2. The Medical Assessor observed that her rating of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities again differed from the assessment Dr Smith had made.
3. The Medical Assessor provided the following reasons in the PIRS rating form for her rating of the appellant's impairment in the domain of travel:

"Mr Lynch leaves his house for medical appointments and local shopping and drives there. He has visited his mother in Kempsey which was a 5-hour drive, and he was able to drive on the highway. His partner drove him to Melbourne in August 2024 to visit a museum and they stayed there for 2 days."

1. The Medical Assessor again observed that her rating of the appellant's impairment in travel was different from the assessment Dr Smith made. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant feels anxious if he must leave his house, finding his house to be a safe place.
2. The Medical Assessor's reasons, as detailed in the PIRS rating form, for her rating of the appellant's impairment in CPP are:

Mr Lynch reported that he has poor attention and is unable to finish reading books. He added that he is able to read for about 10 minutes but then gets distracted.

He said however he is able to spend "hours altogether" on phone.

He would play mobile games for about 1 to 2 hours and then take a break and then again start playing. He said that he often plays Candy Crush and puzzle games and has been gaining levels in these games."

1. The Medical Assessor detailed within the body of the MAC that the appellant had been diagnosed with ADHD when he was nine years of age and that for a period of one and a half years following that diagnosis he took Dexamphetamine. The Medical Assessor commented that the appellant engaged well during her examination of him, which was done by a video link. The Medical Assessor noted that throughout her examination, the appellant's thoughts were logical and goal directed and that she observed no evidence of any manic, psychotic or perceptual abnormalities. The Medical Assessor commented that the appellant had good insight into his condition and that his judgment was intact and that he remained focused throughout the interview with no obvious cognitive defects.
2. The Medical Assessor also considered there was some inconsistencies between the appellant's report of symptoms and her findings from her examination of him in that, on the one hand, the appellant reported significant difficulties in attention and becoming distracted after reading a book for 10 minutes and being unable to focus while having conversations, whereas, on the other hand, the appellant was able to focus well during the entire duration of her assessment without any evidence of distractibility. The Medical Assessor also noted the appellant reported difficulties with his concentration and ability to focus which she considered was inconsistent with his ability to focus on computer games for hours at a time and improving his level at playing these games.
3. The Medical Assessor considered that the appellant's ADHD is well managed and does not contribute to his current impairment.
4. The Appeal Panel notes at this juncture that the Medical Assessor in making her assessment took into account the interview she conducted with the appellant, her mental status examination of him and the documents that the Commission had provided to her. The Medical Assessor did not indicate in the MAC that she had any concern or issue regarding her interview with the appellant or her mental status examination of him, such that the clinical history she composed to assess the appellant's permanent impairment was not sufficient for her to conduct an assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment.

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 appellant to undergo a further medical examination. This is because the material before the Appeal Panel is sufficient for it 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, given the history the Medical Assessor obtained, which included that he showers once or twice a week and is unable to do household chores because he struggles getting out of bed, the Medical Assessor erred by rating his impairment in self-care and personal hygiene as Class 2. The appellant submitted that he is unable to care for himself adequately without regular support because he does not shower adequately and does not prepare his own meals. The appellant submitted that his impairment in self-care and personal hygiene should have been rated as Class 3.
3. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor's reasons for rating his impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 2 are totally inconsistent with a Class 2 impairment. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor did not consider whether he is able to leave his house to engage in social and recreational activities. The appellant submitted that it is unclear from the Medical Assessor's reasoning the extent to which he is actively involved with social and recreational activities. The appellant submitted that his impairment in social and recreational activities ought to have been rated as Class 3.
4. The appellant submitted that the reasons the Medical Assessor provided for rating his impairment as Class 1 in travel reveal that his impairment is Class 2, that is a mild impairment. The appellant submitted that while he can travel without a support person "there is no suggestion that he does so in unfamiliar areas". The appellant submitted that "whilst he is able to drive on the highway this would not appear to preclude him from being placed in Class 2". The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor ought to have obtained further history regarding the regularity with which he is able to travel on certain trips.
5. The appellant submitted that based on the history the Medical Assessor obtained and the other evidence before the Medical Assessor his impairment in CPP could not "possibly be ranked as Class 1". The appellant referred to his being unable to finish reading books and being only able to read for 10 and then becoming distracted. The appellant submitted that whilst he "can spend hours on the phone, there is nothing to suggest this requires any significant degree of concentration". The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor did not obtain a history to indicate the difficulty of the games he plays or whether he plays these games without interruption or lapses in concentration. The appellant referred to the history that Dr Smith obtained and who rated the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 4. The appellant submitted that it was "incumbent" on the Medical Assessor to address why his rating differed so vastly from the rating Dr Smith made of his permanent impairment in CPP.
6. The appellant submitted generally that the Medical Assessor did not obtain a sufficient history and provided insufficient reasons for her assessment and did not afford him procedural fairness.
7. The Appeal Panel notes that the appellant did not in his submissions detail how it was the Medical Assessor denied him procedural fairness. The Appeal Panel also notes that with his application to appeal the medical assessment the appellant lodged a statement he signed on 29 September 2025 and two letters his treating psychiatrist, Dr Namrata Shetty, wrote to his general practitioner dated 25 August 2025 and 11 September 2025. The appellant also did not make any specific submission relating to the ground for appeal listed in s 327(3)(b), on which he relied. It would seem that these three documents contain the additional relevant information that he contends substantiates this ground for appeal. The Appeal Panel notes that the appellant did not detail in his written submissions how the information contained in these documents meet the terms of s327(3)(b) of the 1998 Act.
8. In reply, the respondent submitted that the Appeal Panel ought not receive into evidence the appellant's statement dated 29 September 2025 or the correspondence of Dr Shetty dated 25 August 2025 and 11 September 2025 because, firstly, what the appellant said in his statement is evidence that was available to him before the medical assessment and could reasonably have been obtained before the assessment, and secondly, what the appellant has said in his statement merely extends on what has previously been reported regarding his ability in the several PIRS categories. With respect to the correspondence of Dr Shetty, the respondent submitted that this has no relevance to the matters the appellant has raised in his appeal. The respondent also submitted that the content of Dr Shetty's correspondence would not have been likely to lead to a different result.
9. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor did not err in her assessment of the appellant's impairment in self-care and personal hygiene because the Medical Assessor exercised her clinical judgment with her findings at the time she made the assessment and she had regard to the evidence that was before her. The respondent submitted that the appellant demonstrated an ability to live independently relying on take-away food while his partner was overseas for three weeks. The respondent submitted that this supports a Class 2 rating.
10. The respondent submitted that whether the appellant leaves his house to participate in social and recreational activities ought not affect the rating to be made of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities and that what is important is whether the appellant participates in a particular activity. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor appropriately assessed the appellant's impairment in regards to social and recreational activities weighing all considerations. The respondent submitted that whilst the appellant has withdrawn from some recreational activities in which he previously participated, such as fossil collecting, dungeon and dragons, the respondent submitted that the appellant still sees friends regularly and plays online games and board games with his children.
11. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor did not err in her assessment of the appellant's impairment in travel because she exercised her clinical judgment based on her findings made at the time of assessment and because she had due regard to the evidence that was before her. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was entitled to prefer the history she obtained at the time of examination and attribute more weight to that than other evidence.
12. The respondent referred to a note the appellant's treating psychologist, namely Ms Bismal Baktoo, made of a consultation she had with the appellant on 13 May 2024, wherein Ms Baktoo recorded that the appellant had told her he had been reading a lot more than he usually does and has been enjoying his time reading. The respondent also referred to the finding the Medical Assessor made from her examination of the appellant that he was focused during the whole time of her assessment of him without any evidence of distractibility and with no obvious cognitive defects, which the Medical Assessor said was inconsistent with the appellant's report of experiencing difficulties in concentration and spending hours on the phone playing mobile games.
13. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor had regard to all relevant evidence relating to the appellant's functioning in CPP. The respondent also referred to the Medical Assessor noting that the appellant played mobile games for one to two hours before taking a break and then playing the games again. The respondent submitted that "this seems to suggest that the appellant can concentrate on these games for a couple of hours before losing concentration".
14. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor exposed her path of reasoning for the rating she made regarding the appellant's impairment in CPP. The respondent submitted that her rating was based on her clinical interview, mental status examination and documentation, which included the report of the appellant's IME.

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 question an Appeal Panel must ask itself when considering whether the ground for appeal provided in s 327(3)(b) of the 1998 Act is established is whether the additional information would lead the Appeal Panel to a different conclusion from that reached by the Medical Assessor.[1] Further the additional information must be something other than a worker's criticisms of the manner by which a Medical Assessor made his or her assessment. That is, the additional information would not include information that relates to how the Medical Assessor carried out his or her examination of a worker, including the questions the Medical Assessor asked of the worker or the Medical Assessor's interpretation of the worker's answers.[2]
2. The additional information on which the appellant relies is that contained in his statement of

1 September 2025 and the letters of Dr Shetty dated 25 August 2025 and

11 September 2025. As noted earlier, the appellant did not in the written submissions he lodged with his application to appeal the medical assessment make any specific submission regarding this ground for appeal. It would seem, as far as the Appeal Panel can tell, that the appellant is contending that the content of his statement reveals the Medical Assessor did not afford him procedural fairness during her examination of him because the Medical Assessor's clinical interview of him was limited to around 45 minutes and because he felt the Medical Assessor conducted her interview with an unrelenting pace and the Medical Assessor did not provide him an opportunity to finish his thoughts or sentences. Further, it seems that the appellant also contends, as a consequence of what he perceived to be the shortness of the interview and the pace at which it was conducted, that the Medical Assessor did not obtain a correct history regarding some of the matters relevant to her evaluation of his impairment in the several PIRS categories. 3. The matters the appellant detailed in his statement of 1 September 2025 related to a diagnosis of ADHD that was made when he was a child, his ability to travel, the intimacy in his relationship with his partner, his ability to concentrate, his interaction with a close friend, and his playing board games and phone games. 4. As said earlier, the Medical Assessor did not reveal in the MAC that she experienced any difficulty in interviewing the appellant or that the time over which she did so was insufficient. The Appeal Panel notes in any event that there is no time limit by which a Medical Assessor must conclude a clinical interview of a worker that has been referred for assessment. It is apparent too from the findings the Medical Assessor recorded from her examination of the appellant that she did not consider the appellant to be rushed or that he experienced difficulty in answering her questions or providing information to her. 5. The Appeal Panel notes too that the Medical Assessor is an experienced specialist medical practitioner, and infers that she has substantial skill in interviewing a person afflicted with mental illness so as to compose a relevant clinical history for that person. There is nothing within the evidence to indicate the appellant has any clinical experience, and the Appeal Panel infers he does not. 6. A Medical Assessor must of course obtain a history relevant to a worker's injury so that the Medical Assessor can assess the impairment of the worker from the injury. The process of obtaining a history involves a Medical Assessor questioning a worker to elicit information directly from the worker. It also involves a review of all relevant medical data relating to the worker that may be contained in whatever documentation is available to the Medical Assessor. The Medical Assessor's questioning of the worker will be done against the background of that data. Saying that somewhat differently, a medical history is obtained to reveal all necessary information relevant to the worker's injury and the impact the injury has had on the worker. The history is compiled both from information elicited from the worker and other relevant data within the available documents. With respect to a psychiatric injury, the history the Medical Assessor composes will in general include details about the worker's medical history, past treatment, present treatment, the medications the worker is taking and the symptoms that the worker is experiencing which will include the worker's ability to function in each of the several PIRS categories. 7. If a worker, with a psychiatric injury, and who because of the psychiatric injury may experience difficulty communicating detail during an interview, wishes to a ensure a Medical Assessor is aware of a particular aspect of his or her functioning, then it is incumbent on the worker to express those aspects of their functioning in a statement lodged with the application the worker makes to the Commission. That will ensure the Medical Assessor will be cognisant of those aspects at the time of interview, and thereby will be alerted to those aspects and can determine whether they are relevant to the clinical history he or she will compose relating to the worker. 8. An experienced psychiatrist will observe whether an interviewee is struggling to respond to questions or express themselves clearly. Such observations will be recorded in the mental state examination and the difficulty accommodated for during the interview. The Medical Assessor made no such observations. That the appellant wishes he had responded differently or would like an opportunity to elaborate on his responses, after the interview is concluded, is not evidence of a lack of procedural fairness. 9. Bearing in mind, firstly, the content of the MAC and the lack therein of the Medical Assessor expressing any difficulty conducting her assessment and, secondly, the clinical expertise of the Medical Assessor, the Appeal Panel is of the view that what the appellant has said in his statement does not substantiate any contention he makes that the Medical Assessor did not afford him procedural fairness by not providing him with a proper opportunity to answer any questions the Medical Assessor posed to him or the chance for him to convey to her information that he considered may be relevant to the assessment she was to conduct. In other words, with respect to that issue, the Appeal Panel finds that the appellant's statement would not lead the Appeal Panel to a different conclusion from that the Medical Assessor reached. 10. The Appeal Panel also observes that a lot of what the appellant said in his statement has no direct relevance to the Medical Assessor's evaluation of his impairment in the several PIRS domains. For example, the appellant having made a prior workers compensation claim relating to his physical injury and his current financial circumstance, have no relevance. Those elements of his statement consequently do not meet the terms of s 327(3)(b). 11. Insofar as the appellant details in his statement his function within the various PIRS categories, such as his ability to travel, his playing board or video games, his ability to concentrate, the intimacy in his relationship with his wife, these are all matters that were known to him before the medical assessment. His statement consequently does not qualify as additional information. That is, it does not meet the terms of s 327(3)(b) of the 1998 Act.[3] 12. The Appeal Panel also finds that the content of Dr Shetty's correspondence has no relevance to the appellant's function in the PIRS categories. Consequently, it does not meet the terms of s 327(3)(b). It would not in any event lead the Appeal Panel to a different conclusion 13. The Appeal Panel finds that the appellant has not established this ground for appeal.

1. The examples of activities provided in Table 11.1 of the Guidelines for a Class 2 impairment in self-care and personal hygiene are:

"Mild impairment: able to live independently; looks after self adequately, although may look unkempt occasionally; sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food".

1. The examples provided for a Class 3 impairment are:

"Moderate impairment: Can't live independently without regular support. Needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. Does not prepare own meals, frequently misses meals. Family member or community nurse visits (or should visit) 2-3 times per week to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition."

1. The examples of activities provided in the several PIRS Tables are just that: examples. They are not prescriptive. They illustrate some of the matters a Medical Assessor might consider to evaluate the degree of severity of a worker's impairment in a particular PIRS domain, and thereby assist the Medical Assessor to rate the worker's impairment. A worker may exhibit impaired conduct that correlates with an example listed in one of the class ratings available for a Medical Assessor to make of a worker's impairment within a PIRS category, but the worker may also exhibit other impaired conduct that correlates with an example listed for another of the class ratings for that particular PIRS category. The fact that a worker may exhibit conduct described in one class rating, does not compel a Medical Assessor to rate the worker's impairment within that class. The particular example can be surmounted by other relevant facts.[4]
2. A Medical Assessor must evaluate all the material before him or her to compose a relevant clinical history by which to determine what level of impairment a worker has in a particular PIRS category and it is not uncommon that every aspect of the worker's impairment within a PIRS category does not fall completely within one class. The Medical Assessor must weigh all relevant conduct of the worker relating to the particular PIRS category in order to evaluate the degree of the worker's impairment in the particular category. That involves exercise by the Medical Assessor of his or her clinical expertise and judgement. That will permit some latitude of opinion.
3. Bringing these general principles back to this case, the Medical Assessor was aware that the appellant showers only once or twice a week due to his lack of motivation. The Medical Assessor also had regard to the appellant not doing household chores because he struggles to get out of bed. The Medical Assessor also took into account that the appellant had put on weight after suffering his injury. The Medical Assessor said that the appellant had put on 30 to 40 kg of weight such that he now weighs 150 kg. That of course was based upon the appellant's self-report. The Appeal Panel notes however that the appellant's general practitioner recorded his weight as 128 kg on 11 March 2018 and as 131 kg on 13 July 2020 and hence, the appellant's impression of his weight gain may have been slightly embellished from the reality. The Appeal Panel also observes that the appellant in the statement he signed on 4 June 2025, which was only around two months before the Medical Assessor examined him, said that his partner does most of the domestic duties and meal preparation, the inference from this being that he is able to do some domestic duties and meal preparation but due to his lack of motivation from his injury his capacity to do so is diminished. The Medical Assessor also took into account that in the second half of 2024 for a three-week period the appellant's wife was in Turkey and that during that time the appellant ordered takeaway food for his nutrition. The Appeal Panel observes that the Medical Assessor stated that this three-week period occurred in August, whereas it in fact occurred in September 2024, but nothing hinges on that. Relevant however is that during that three-week period the appellant was able to look after himself, although he had to rely on takeaway food.
4. In all, the appellant's situation is such that his presentation meets some of the examples listed for a Class 2 impairment and some of the examples listed for a Class 3 impairment. The Medical Assessor evaluated the severity of appellant's impairment as being Class 2, that is a mild impairment.
5. Given that the appellant did reside on his own for a three-week period in the second half of 2024, the Appeal Panel considers that it was open to the Medical Assessor to rate the appellant's impairment in self-care and personal hygiene as Class 2. Other assessors or examiners may have rated it differently, but that would merely be a difference of opinion between clinicians, which does not amount to an error.
6. The Appeal Panel consequently finds that the Medical Assessor did not err with respect to her rating the appellant's impairment in self-care and personal hygiene as Class 2. The Appeal Panel also finds that the Medical Assessor applied the correct criteria to make her assessment of the appellant's impairment in this PIRS category, given that she utilised the criteria set out in chapter 11 of the Guidelines.

1. The examples provided in Table 11.2 of the Guidelines for a Class 2 and Class 3 impairment in SRA are:

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).

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 took into account that prior to suffering his injury, the appellant enjoyed participating in nature fossil collection, gaming with his friends, and doing board games and computer games. The Medical Assessor took into account that the appellant continues to play games but not at a level he previously did. The Medical Assessor also took into account that the appellant plays board games with his children and candy crush on his phone and that he meets up with a close friend every couple of months. The Medical Assessor also took into account that when the appellant's friends come to his place, which occurs at least once monthly, he sits and interacts with them and has tea with them. Those are all either social activities or recreational activities or a combination of both.
2. The appellant contended that the Medical Assessor erred by not considering whether he enjoys social and recreational activities outside of his house. The Appeal Panel considers that based on the reasoning the Medical Assessor articulated for rating the appellant's impairment as Class 3 she was aware that the appellant's current social and recreational activities occur within his home, whereas before suffering his injury the appellant enjoyed participating in one activity which necessarily occurred outside of his home, namely nature fossil collection. In other words, the Appeal Panel does not accept the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor was not cognisant of that matter.
3. In any event, in the Appeal Panel's view, as to where the appellant engages in social and recreational activities is irrelevant. What is relevant is the extent to which he is able to engage in social and recreational activities. What the Medical Assessor has detailed in explaining her reasons for her rating of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities reveals that the appellant's engagement in social and recreational activities is not as extensive as it was before he suffered his injury, but nevertheless it is more than rare. Her reasoning reveals that the appellant is actively engaged in board games and phone games and interacts socially with his friends and all this occurs without the need for support or prompting.
4. The Appeal Panel again considers that it was open to the Medical Assessor in the exercise of her clinical judgment to rate the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 2. Again, other examiners and assessors may have rated it differently but that merely amounts to a difference of opinion, rather than an error on the part of the Medical Assessor's judgment. The Appeal Panel again finds that the Medical Assessor made her assessment by reference to the correct criteria, given that she utilised the criteria detailed in chapter 11 of the Guidelines.

1. The examples provided in Table 11.3 for a Class 1 rating are, "no deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: can travel to new environments without supervision". The examples provided for a Class 2 rating are, "mild impairment: can travel without support person, but only in familiar areas such as local shops, visiting a neighbour".
2. The appellant's complaint relating to the Medical Assessor's reasoning for her assessing him as having a Class 1 impairment in travel is, in substance, that there was nothing within the evidence to reveal that he is able to travel to unfamiliar areas without a support person.
3. The matters the Medical Assessor detailed within her explanation for rating the appellant's impairment as Class 1, that is having no impairment or a minor deficit attributing to a normal variation of the general population, reveal that the appellant has no practical limitation in his ability to travel. He can travel locally for medical appointments and local shopping, and is able to undertake a five-hour drive on a highway to visit his mother, and is able to travel a much greater distance to Melbourne as a passenger. It seems to the Appeal Panel that the Medical Assessor has reasoned that, at worst, the appellant has a minor deficit in his capacity to travel that would be attributable to a normal variation in the general population. The Appeal Panel discerns from the Medical Assessor's explanation that the appellant would be able to travel to new environments without the need for supervision.
4. The Appeal Panel consequently considers that no error is demonstrated in the MAC by the Medical Assessor assessing the appellant's impairment as Class 1 in travel. Again, the Medical Assessor has applied correct criteria to make her assessment.

1. The examples provided in Table 11.5 for a Class 1 impairment in CPP are:

"No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. Able to pass a TAFE or university course within normal time frame."

1. The examples provided for a Class 2 impairment for CPP are:

"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."

1. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant had poor attention and is unable to finish reading books and reads for 10 minutes and then gets distracted. The Medical Assessor also explained that the appellant can play games on the phone for one to two hours, takes a break, and then can play again. She noted that the appellant achieves improvement in the games he plays. The Medical Assessor also found that the appellant was able to focus for the time in which she conducted the clinical interview of him without being distracted.
2. In the Appeal Panel's view, the appellant's ability to focus on phone games and puzzle games for periods of up to two hours and then to have a break and start again on those games in a circumstance where the appellant's concentration and persistence is such that he is unable to finish reading books and could only afford 10 minutes before becoming distracted, is a deficit in his concentration, persistence and pace that does not fall within a normal variation of the general population. His concentration and persistence are not such that he would be able to complete a basic retraining course or a standard course, even at a slower pace. In the Appeal Panel's view the Medical Assessor consequently erred by not rating the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 2. That error is such that the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
3. The Appeal Panel corrects that error by rating the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 2.
4. When that is done, the result, however, does not change. That is, the median of the appellant's score remains 2 and the aggregate of his scores is 14. That converts to 7% WPI, in accordance with Table 11.7 of the Guidelines. The Appeal Panel notes that the Medical Assessor made an error when aggregating the scores she rated for the appellant's impairment in the several PIRS categories, in that she tallied them to 14, whereas based upon her scores, the tally should have been 13. Neither party picked up that error in their respective submissions.
5. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on

[1] Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 929 at [13].

[2] Luck v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurers [2023] NSWSC 842 at [45] and [63_]_

[4] Rogers v Help Service Union NSW [2025] NSWSC 291 at [43] - [45].