For the reasons given above, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 14 May 2025 should be confirmed.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Murr
Respondent/Defendant:
Koudsy Body Works Pty Ltd atf Koudsy Body Works [2025] NSWPICMP 806;
Legislation Cited (2)
Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021
Cases Cited (4)
Murr v Koudsy Body Works Pty Ltd atf Koudsy Body Works [2025] NSWPICMP 806; (20 October 2025)
Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant refers to various aspects of the Guidelines, submitting that the Medical Assessor assessed on the basis of incorrect criteria when considering the left and right knees, as well as the lumbar spine. The appellant submits that when he determined that Mr El Murr did not suffer from radiculopathy, he failed to refer to the Guidelines or medical evidence relied on by the appellant. The appellant submits that there are inconsistencies between observations of the Medical Assessor and the assessment of permanent impairment. The Medical Assessor questions certain findings but did not seek any clarification. The appellant submits that if he had considered the medical evidence, and assessment of at least 11% would have been made.
The appellant also submits that the additional relevant information demonstrates deterioration in the left knee.
In reply, the respondent opposes the appeal, submitting that it is now explained how the findings made by the Medical Assessor are inconsistent with the Guidelines. The appellant's submissions are mere disagreement with the opinion of the Medical Assessor. The respondent also submits that the most recent MRI does not demonstrate any deterioration as contemplated in Riverina Wines v Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales[2007] NSWCA 149 (Riverina Wines).
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. The appeal raises all four grounds for appeal and challenges all body parts assessed by the Medical Assessor (although in oblique ways) but the consideration of the appeal is limited to the issues as set out in the appellant's submissions (per Basten JA in Queanbeyan Racing Club Ltd v Burton[2021] NSWCA 304 at [26]):
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.
The Appeal Panel will deal with the appellant's grounds as they appear in the 1998 Act (not in the order of submissions given). As discussed above, the additional relevant information (fresh evidence) relied upon by the appellant has been admitted pursuant to s 328(3) of the 1998 Act.