Mangion v Petraveller Pty Ltd [2026] NSWPICMP 19; (15 January 2026)

1. The respondent submits that the Medical Assessor assessed the applicant's impairment and combined the assessed impairments that were permissible under the AMA Guides. The respondent contends that the appeal discloses no error and the MAC should be confirmed.
2. The respondent also submits that the applicant's submissions are misplaced and misapprehend the text and intent of the AMA Guides and Guidelines. The AMA Guides and Guidelines identify which methods can and cannot be combined. The provisions in the AMA Guides and Guidelines are designed to prevent the combination of impairments derived from overlapping methods (including but not limited to ROM, muscle atrophy, strength, ankylosis, and nerve injury).
3. The respondent asserts that the Medical Assessor is to exercise clinical discretion in determining which method or combination of methods that most specifically and accurately captures the impairment present. The Medical Assessor's decision to rely on muscle atrophy as the most specific anatomical representation of impairment, and to exclude range-of-motion and nerve findings from combination, reflects a legitimate and orthodox approach.
4. The respondent refers to Table 17-2 of the AMA Guides which demonstrates that "Muscle Atrophy" and "ROM Ankylosis" fall within the closed-box categories, and indicate that they cannot be combined when assessing a single lower extremity impairment. The Medical Assessor correctly applied this prohibition and selected the impairment for muscle atrophy as the more appropriate anatomical representation of impairment. The Medical Assessor then selected the highest rating impairment for muscle atrophy of 8%.
5. The respondent submits that "ROM" and "Ankylosis" evaluate the same anatomical feature - the degree of movement available at a joint - along a continuum where ankylosis represents the complete loss of motion. The respondent adds that the inclusion of "ROM Ankylosis" in the same column in Table 17-2 of the AMA Guides reflects that these methods address the same functional domain, rather than separate impairments capable of being added together. The respondent adds that ankylosis is when the joint is immobile or fused - either naturally (due to disease or injury) or surgically (arthrodesis).
6. The respondent submits that the Medical Assessor's methodology was transparent, rational, and based on the SIRA approved framework. The Medical Assessor identified the specific clauses and tables to be applied and explained why ROM, atrophy and nerve impairment could not be combined, satisfying the standard of reasoning required. The respondent refers to Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43 and Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284.
7. The respondent submits that the appeal is without merit and no demonstratable error is disclosed. The MAC should be confirmed.

"There is discussion of 'demonstrable error' in Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 324 at [76]- [87]. The term has given rise to a deal of authority, much of which is summarised in that passage. The error must be 'contained' in the certificate, which is to say 'the error must be apparent in the certificate of the approved medical specialist': Vannini at [78]. While it is sufficient that the error be 'readily apparent from an examination of the medical assessment certificate' (Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission [2006] NSWSC 939 at [39]), that is not a necessary condition. While it is not defined, the error 'must be apparent in findings of fact or reasoning contained in the medical assessment certificate, although the error may be established in part by reference to materials that were before the approved medical specialist': Vannini at [86]."[4]

(1996) 185 CLR 259

(2019) 264 CLR 421