1. On 21 October 2025 Daniel Nwaigwe, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Ankur Gupta, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on

23 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): * 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 worked as a youth support worker for Mackillop Family Services Ltd, the respondent. On 9 August 2023 one of the clients of the respondent assaulted the appellant. This caused the appellant to suffer a psychological injury.
2. The appellant claimed compensation from the respondent's insurer for permanent impairment from his psychological injury. He relied on a report his solicitors obtained from psychiatrist

Dr Abdal Khan dated 21 August 2025, wherein Dr Khan advised he assessed the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 15% whole person impairment (WPI). 3. The insurer disputed the appellant was entitled to compensation for permanent impairment from his psychological injury. It relied on a report it obtained from psychiatrist Dr Venkata Ramakrishnan dated 1 July 2025, wherein Dr Ramakrishnan advised he assessed the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 7% WPI. 4. The appellant then instituted proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking the Commission determine his claim for compensation for permanent impairment. A delegate of the President of the Commission referred the matter to the Medical Assessor on 20 August 2025 and in response to that the Medical Assessor examined the appellant on

8 September 2025. In the MAC he issued on 23 September 2025 he certified the degree of the appellant's permanent impairment from his injury is 6% WPI. 5. That assessment the Medical Assessor conducted was done by reference to the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS), detailed within Chapter 11 of the Guidelines, and by reference to which the Medical Assessor rated the appellant's impairment in all domains as Class 2, that is a mild impairment. In his appeal against the medical assessment, the appellant has challenged the Medical Assessor's ratings of his impairment in the domains of social and recreational activities, CPP and employability. 6. In the PIRS rating form, which forms part of the MAC, the Medical Assessor provided the following summary of his reasons for rating the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 2:

"As described in the main body of the report, there is mild impairment. He avoids going out, but can go to the local shops independently. He can also go to the restaurants for meals. He has stopped playing football. His friends try to keep in touch, but he refuses

invitations to go out. He was able to travel to Nigeria on December 24 and met up with his friends there."

1. Within the body of the MAC the Medical Assessor also detailed that the appellant reported he played a lot of football prior to his injury. The Medical Assessor also noted that the appellant's anxiety levels increased when he was outside of his house and that the appellant does not go out much in general. The Medical Assessor also noted that the appellant has stopped going to his local gym for fear of encountering the respondent's client who assaulted him.
2. The reasons the Medical Assessor provided in the PIRS rating form for rating of the appellant's impairment in concentration persistence and pace (CPP) as Class 2 are:

"As described in the main body of the report, there is mild impairment. He stopped studying because of reduced concentration. He has made mistakes at work, but not in the last few months. He has been able to focus on tasks at work appropriately."

1. Within the MAC the Medical Assessor noted that before suffering his injury the appellant had completed a bachelor degree in business administration and Certificate 3 and Certificate 4 diplomas in community sector. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant completed a course in IT system management subsequent to his suffering his injury which, was done over a three-day period in a virtual classroom. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant had reported that his concentration is not the same, meaning not the same as before his injury. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant commenced a Certificate IV in workplace health and safety in October last year but was unable to manage the course work and ceased the course six weeks after commencing it.
2. The reasons the Medical Assessor provided in the PIRS rating form for rating the appellant's impairment in employability as Class 2 are:

"As described in the main body of the report, there is mild impairment. He can work more than 20 hours per week in a similar role. He will not be able to return to work in his pre-injury role."

1. In the body of the MAC the Medical Assessor noted that the appellant remained off work following his injury until January 2025 and returned working for a rehabilitation provider in the disability sector. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant sometimes takes on extra shifts beyond 40 hours a fortnight, but rarely so. The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant wants to leave the industry but feels stuck.

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 it to determine 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 history the Medical Assessor recorded demonstrates that his impairment in social and recreational activities is a Class 3 impairment. The appellant noted that the history the Medical Assessor obtained included that he did not leave his house due to elevated anxiety levels, he no longer played or watched football, and he no longer went to the gym. The appellant submitted that his travelling to Nigeria was not done "independently" and he did so to work on his marriage and it was not a social and recreational activity. The appellant submitted that the fact that he travelled to Nigeria ought not to have been considered under social and recreational activities but rather travel. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor did not have proper regard to the statement he signed on 7 May 2025 wherein he described rarely seeing his friends and not initiating contact or meetings with them. The appellant submitted that what Dr Khan and Dr Ramakrishnan respectively recorded in their reports differed from the history the Medical Assessor composed and that the difference was "stark". The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor ought to have put that difference to him so he could comment on it.
3. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor erred by not rating his impairment in CPP as Class 3. The appellant noted that that is what Dr Khan rated his impairment. The appellant submitted that the history the Medical Assessor detailed revealed he has cognitive difficulties that interfere with his learning and task completion. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor did not consider what he had said in his statement that before his injury he had a high level of concentration and no issues with the demands of his job, but that since his injury he has become forgetful and struggles to focus on tasks and struggles to read or watch television.
4. The appellant noted that he has returned to part time work for 20 hours a week. The appellant noted that Dr Khan assessed his impairment in employability as Class 3. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor erred by not rating his impairment in employability as Class 3.
5. In reply, the respondent submitted that the activities the Medical Assessor identified for rating the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities as Class 2 "collectively showcase" the appellant's efforts to involve himself in social engagements. The respondent submitted that the history the Medical Assessor obtained is similar to the history

Dr Ramakrishnan obtained relating to the appellant's participation in social and recreational activities. The respondent noted that the appellant reported that he can go out without a support person. 6. The respondent submitted that the appellant's cognitive ability to focus on tasks does not necessarily require memory but rather the ability to concentrate. The respondent submitted that the appellant's commencement of a Certificate IV course demonstrates his ability to read more than newspaper articles and that the appellant's completion of an IT system management course demonstrates he can undertake a basic retraining course or a standard course. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor's assessment of the appellant's impairment in CPP was based on the Medical Assessor's clinical judgment having regard to the history he obtained. The respondent submitted the Medical Assessor was entitled to rely on his clinical findings on the day of examination. 7. The respondent submitted that the history the Medical Assessor obtained revealed that the appellant can engage in employment for more than 20 hours a week and in duties that require comparable skill and intellect as his pre-injury role. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor based his assessment of the appellant's impairment in employability on his clinical judgment having regard to the history obtained and the available evidence.

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.
3. With respect to the Medical Assessor's rating of the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities, the Appeal Panel does not accept the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor's findings support a Class 3 rating, and that the Medical Assessor consequently erred by not rating his impairment as such. The Medical Assessor's findings revealed, that as a consequence of the appellant's injury, the appellant no longer plays football which the Medical Assessor noted the appellant usually played "a lot" before his injury. Further the Medical Assessor noted the appellant no longer goes to the gym. The Medical Assessor was aware that the appellant is refusing invitations from his friends.
4. The Medical Assessor however detailed that the appellant goes to restaurants for meals, which is both a social and recreational activity, and that he travelled to Nigeria in December 2024 both to meet up with friends in his native Nigeria and to work on his marriage.
5. The Appeal Panel does not accept the appellant's submission to the effect that the Medical Assessor took into account an irrelevant consideration when rating his impairment in social and recreational activities, as a consequence of the Medical Assessor having regard to the fact that the appellant travelled to Nigeria and travels to the local shops independently. This is because it seems to the Appeal Panel that the Medical Assessor's focus on these particular activities of the appellant, when rating the appellant's impairment in social and recreational activities, was not directed to the appellant's capacity to travel, but rather the fact that the appellant has the ability to travel outside of his home for social or recreational activities. That is, the appellant can travel to restaurants for social activity. The appellant's trip to Nigeria involved him enjoying a holiday and visiting friends in Nigeria.
6. The Appeal Panel also does not accept the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor was obligated to put to him what he described as the stark difference between the histories

Dr Khan and Dr Ramakrishnan obtained and the history the Medical Assessor obtained. For a start, the histories are somewhat similar, only really differing by the Medical Assessor obtaining a history of the appellant going to restaurants. Secondly, the Medical Assessor obtained that detail from the appellant. A Medical Assessor is not required to reveal or indicate to a worker how he or she may rate a worker's impairment or the details on which he or she may rely to rate the worker's impairment or his or her reasons for the rating. Given that the appellant was the source of any detail in the history the Medical Assessor obtained relating to the appellant's functioning in social and recreational activities, that was in addition to or differed from that which Drs Khan and Ramakrishnan obtained, the Medical Assessor was not required to detail for the appellant the clinical history by reference to which he would be assessing the appellant's impairment. 7. In terms of the facts and reasons on which the Medical Assessor based his assessment, the Medical Assessor found that the appellant is able to engage in social and recreational activities of going to restaurants occasionally, that is more than rarely, and was aware that there are activities in which the appellant no longer engages, such as playing football and accepting invitations from his friends. 8. The Appeal Panel notes that Dr Ramakrishnan in his report of 1 July 2025 obtained a history that accorded with the history the Medical Assessor obtained of the appellant going to restaurants in that Dr Ramakrishan recorded the appellant goes out to see his friends and have lunches or dinners with his partner. 9. The purpose of the appellant's trip to Nigeria was to "see friends and work on his marriage." The Appeal Panel infers this means he spent time with his partner. He was in Nigeria, on holiday, for four weeks. This is both a social and recreational activity. 10. The Appeal Panel considers that there is no error in the Medical Assessor rating the appellant's impairment as Class 2. 11. The Appeal Panel considers the Medical Assessor erred by rating the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 2, rather than Class 3. The history the Medical Assessor obtained revealed that prior to his injury the appellant was successfully able to complete courses to an undergraduate degree level and a Certificate 4 level. Subsequent to his injury the appellant completed a three-day course that seems to have been conducted by his then employer in-house with the appellant in front of a screen. The appellant started but was unable to complete a Certificate 4 course and his failure to do so that is as consequence of his impairment in CPP. The appellant described in his statement that before his injury he had a high level of concentration and was able to multi-task and was able to focus throughout the day without getting distracted. He described that since his injury he has become forgetful and struggles reading and watching television. 12. The examples described in Table 11.5 for a Class 2 impairment include undertaking a basic retraining course or a standard course at a slower pace. In the Appeal Panel's view those examples do not encapsulate a brief in house day course that is essentially of the nature of an induction an employer undertakes to acquaint new employees to the employer's business. The examples within Class 2, in the Appeal Panel's view, describe something more substantive than that, that is, they describe a course of study necessary to qualify for a certificate or diploma or degree or some similar occupational qualification. 13. The appellant's situation, given that his injury impairs his CPP to an extent that he is unable to complete such a course, coupled with his struggling to read and focus on television, is such that the Medical Assessor was wrong to correlate the appellant's impairment in CPP with a severity of impairment described by the examples for a Class 2. The appellant's impairment is best correlated with a severity of impairment described by the examples for a Class 3 impairment. 14. The Appeal Panel does not accept the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor erred by rating his impairment in employability as Class 2. The appellant's submission was in substance that the Medical Assessor erred by not rating his impairment the same as

Dr Khan had rated it, that is Class 3. The reasons that Dr Khan provided for his rating were, "Mr Nwaigwe is able to work up to 20 hours per week in suitable employment with another employer". The history the Medical Assessor obtained included that the appellant obtained employment in January 2025 in the disability support sector and regularly works 40 hours a fortnight and also rarely takes on extra shifts. It is implicit from the history the Medical Assessor obtained that the job the appellant currently has requires him to dispense medication to the clients of his employer, in regards to which task the Medical Assessor noted that the appellant has made some errors although not in the few months before the Medical Assessor's examination of him. 15. That history reveals the appellant could work in the same position as he did preceding his injury, although with a different employer, and work at least 20 hours a week. His impairment in employability does not correlate with a level of impairment described by the examples of a Class 3 impairment, being that he cannot work at all in the same position, and can perform less than 20 hours a week in a different position which requires less skill. The appellant can work in the same position and he can perform at least 20 hours a week. His impairment best correlates with a severity of impairment described by the examples for a Class 2 impairment. Consequently, as said, the Medical Assessor made no error by rating the appellant's impairment in employability as Class 2. 16. The Appeal Panel also finds that the Medical Assessor applied the correct criteria to make the assessment of the appellant's permanent impairment, given that the Medical Assessor applied the criteria as specified in Chapter 11 of the Guidelines. 17. The Appeal Panel corrects the errors it has identified by rating the appellant's impairment in CPP as Class 3. 18. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on

23 September 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 Ankur Gupta 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)