WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether the Medical Assessor's (MA) ratings of the respondent's impairment in social and recreational activities due to matters unrelated to his injury; Held - the MA did not explore whether respondent's impairment in social and recreational activities due only to matters unrelated to his injury which was an error on part of the MA; respondent re-examined; Appeal Panel rated the respondent's impairment in social and recreational activities the same as the MA had rated it; MAC confirmed.

1. On 24 February 2025 the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Clayton Smith, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 28 January 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. Glen Thomas Canham, the respondent, suffered a psychological injury due to the work he performed as a senior correctional officer in his employment with the Department of Communities and Justice. In accordance with s 26(1) and Part 1 Schedule 1 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013, the appellant is the employer of the respondent.
2. The respondent claimed compensation from the appellant for a permanent impairment he had from his injury. He contended that was to the order of 17% whole person impairment (WPI), relying on a report of psychiatrist Dr Harward Napper dated 23 February 2024.
3. The insurer of the appellant denied his claim based on a report it received from psychiatrist Dr Alan Doris dated 1 May 2024. Dr Doris had assessed the degree of the respondent's permanent impairment from his injury was 7% WPI, and by virtue of s 65A(3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), that was insufficient for the respondent to receive compensation for permanent impairment from his injury.
4. The insurer's denial of the respondent's claim for compensation led to the respondent initiating proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). A delegate of the President of the Commission referred his claim to the Medical Assessor to assess the degree of his permanent impairment from his injury. The Medical Assessor conducted an examination on 14 January 2025 in order to carry out that assessment and, as said, issued the MAC in response to that referral on 28 January 2025.
5. In that he certified he assessed the degree of the respondent's permanent impairment from his injury is 19% WPI. His assessment was done in accordance with the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) that is detailed within paragraphs 11.11-11.12 of the Guidelines. The Medical Assessor rated the respondent's impairment as Class 2 in self-care and personal hygiene, Class 3 in social and recreational activities, Class 2 in travel, Class 2 in social functioning, Class 3 in concentration, persistence and pace, and Class 5 in employability. The Medical Assessor observed that the median of those class scores is 3. He observed that the aggregate of the scores is 17. Consistent with Table 11.17 that median and aggregate score equated to 19% WPI.
6. The appellant in his appeal against the MAC has challenged the Medical Assessor's rating of the respondent's impairment in the PIRS category of social and recreational activities. The reasons the Medical Assessor provided in the PIRS Rating Form within the MAC for rating the respondent's impairment as Class 3 in this scale were as follows:

"Mr Canham rarely goes to social events and has a limited social network which has reduced over time. His activities are mostly solitary or supervised by others, such as his trainer. He has few recreational activities other than those he feels obliged to do as

part of his treatment, has trouble enjoying activities, and modifies them with safety behaviours. He is hypervigilant and uneasy in many social settings. He is intolerant, uneasy in crowds, sensitive to loud noise and prefers to isolate himself at home. He can socialise with his immediate family."

1. Within the body of the MAC the Medical Assessor also recorded that the respondent is uneasy and hypervigilant outside of his house. The Medical Assessor recorded that the respondent startles easily and feels uneasy in crowded spaces and has employed various safety behaviours to make socialising bearable, such as, firstly, positioning himself in the back of a venue where he has a clear view of where escape may be easy and, secondly, arriving at a venue during quiet times.
2. The Medical Assessor noted that prior to the respondent suffering his injury he enjoyed football, spending time with his family, playing lawn bowls and regularly going to the gym. The Medical Assessor recorded that the respondent pushed himself to see a personal trainer every Monday at the Mt Innan Leisure Centre and that, independently of that visit, he visited the centre twice weekly in the morning to train. The Medical Assessor noted that the respondent last attended a football match in March 2024 and that he had stopped catching up with friends at the pub. The Medical Assessor recorded the respondent reported that his friends were busy or had moved away. The Medical Assessor noted that the respondent has two sons whom he sees once a month. The Medical Assessor noted that the respondent last went out to eat with his sons before Christmas and that he may catch up at a venue with his sons every six weeks. The Medical Assessor noted that the respondent's social contacts are his sons and that the respondent's brothers and other family members rarely visit him, although he occasionally calls his brothers. The Medical Assessor noted that the respondent likes to sit at home and drink beer and may watch cricket, pop to the shops or go to the gym.
3. The Medical Assessor also noted within the history he detailed in the MAC that the respondent has "hearing problems".

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 absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural Direction PIC7.
3. As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that the respondent should undergo a further medical examination. This is because the Appeal Panel, for reasons explained below, found that the MAC contains a demonstrable error and, in order to correct that error, the Appeal Panel would need further clinical data that it could only obtain from further examination of the respondent. The Appeal Panel appointed one of its members who is a Medical Assessor to conduct that examination, namely Dr John Lam-Po-Tang. He did so on 5 May 2025 and subsequently presented his report to the Appeal Panel, which the Appeal Panel has copied below under the heading "Findings and Reasons".
4. At its preliminary review of the medical assessment the Appeal Panel also considered whether it should receive into evidence a report that the respondent's treating psychologist, namely Ms Katrina Langhorn, provided to the respondent's solicitors by email on

23 December 2024. 5. Within the written submissions the respondent's solicitors lodged with respondent's reply to the appellant's appeal, they advised that their offices were closed for the Christmas break on 23 December 2024 and that they had attempted to file the report of Ms Langhorn with the Commission on 13 January 2025 when they reopened their office, but the Commission rejected lodgement of the report. Hence, the Medical Assessor did not receive that document prior to his examination of the respondent on 14 January 2025 and the issue of the MAC on 28 January 2025. 6. The respondent's solicitors noted within their submissions that the respondent sought to rely on a specific passage from Ms Langhorn's report that started approximately half-way down page 39 of her report and concluded in the upper part of page 40 of her report. That passage contained treatment goals that the respondent's psychologist recommended for the respondent and also contained what the respondent had reported to Ms Langhorn regarding his anger, arguments with his ex-wife and siblings, and various places he had visited. 7. Insofar as that passage relates to the psychologist's treatment goals for the respondent, and bearing in mind that treatment goals are not evidence of the respondent's current capacity, that evidence is irrelevant to what the Appeal Panel has to consider in order to determine the appeal. Insofar as that passage relates to the respondent's report on his anger, and arguments with his siblings and ex-wife and the places he visits, it is in essence a repeat of what he has said within a statement he signed on 25 September 2024, which statement was before the Medical Assessor. Rule 128(1) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 permits an Appeal Panel to conduct and determine the proceedings in accordance with the procedures it determines. The Appeal Panel considers that report of Ms Langhorn is either not relevant to the issue it must consider or a repeat of the evidence already before it and for that reason, and in accordance with Rule 128(1), the Appeal Panel declines to accept the report into evidence.

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 Medical Assessor's rating of the respondent's impairment in social and recreational activities is inconsistent with the history the Medical Assessor recorded and also the history that his qualified expert, Dr Doris, detailed in his report of 1 May 2024 on which the appellant relied to deny the respondent's claim for compensation. The appellant noted that Dr Doris had recorded in his report that the respondent maintained a number of friends in his local area whom he met regularly at the pub and also maintained contact with some of his former colleagues. The appellant highlighted that Dr Doris also had recorded that the respondent goes for a walk in his local area. The appellant highlighted that Dr Doris also had recorded that the respondent goes out for something to eat with his sons and his partner occasionally and that he will infrequently meet a friend of his ex-wife to socialise. The appellant highlighted that Dr Doris had noted that the respondent is not as sociable as he was and is not currently involved with the rugby league club as he had been in the past, and that he had not played lawn bowls in over a year.
3. The appellant noted the Medical Assessor had recorded at page 3 of the MAC that the respondent had reported avoiding social outings partly due to his hearing and partly due to his having discomfort in public places and further highlighted that the Medical Assessor had recorded that the respondent had reported ceasing catching up with his friends at the pub because they were busy and had moved away.
4. The appellant submitted that in accordance with Chapter 11 of the Guidelines "only behavioural consequences of the work-related psychiatric disorder are to be considered" when assessing the degree of a worker's permanent impairment from an injury. The appellant highlighted the respondent had a hearing problem. The appellant submitted the Medical Assessor has "partly made his assessment based on behavioural consequences of [the respondent's] non-related hearing condition". The appellant further submitted that the Medical Assessor also made his assessment on the basis that the respondent does not attend social activities due to his injury whereas the history revealed that the respondent ceased contacting his friends because they were busy and moved away.
5. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor ought to have rated the respondent's impairment as Class 2, rather than Class 3, in social and recreational activities.
6. In reply, the respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor is not bound by the opinion of Dr Doris. The respondent submitted that his poor hearing is only one of the reasons why he avoids social outings and noted that he led a busy social life prior to his injury despite his reduced hearing.
7. The respondent submitted that the evidence confirmed that he requires ongoing prompting from his treatment providers to improve his function and that "the availability of his friends is irrelevant" with respect to his impairment in social and recreational activities. The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor "took a very diligent approach and took into account the entire history in making his assessment of the respondent's injury".

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. If the appellant, by his submission that "only behavioural consequences of the work-related psychiatric disorder are to be considered", is contending that a worker's impairment in any of the PIRS categories must be exclusively the result of a work-place injury in order that a classification of the severity of the impairment can be rated, then the Appeal Panel rejects this submission. There is nothing within the Guidelines that stipulates that. Further, there is no provision within the 1998 Act or the 1987 Act that requires that. There is no provision within either of those acts that requires an apportionment of a worker's permanent impairment between the consequence of a work injury and any other factor that has contributed to the permanent impairment, excepting in the circumstance where a proportion of a worker's permanent impairment is due to a previous injury, pre-existing condition or pre-existing abnormality in which case s 323(1) requires there to be a deduction made for the proportion of a worker's permanent impairment that is due to that previous injury, pre-existing condition or abnormality.
4. A worker's permanent impairment may be due to both a work injury and other non-work related factors. In such cases common law principles will apply when assessing the degree of permanent impairment that a worker has resulting from the work injury that the worker suffered.[1] Thus, and assuming a circumstance where s 323(1) cannot be engaged, where both a work injury and the non-work related factor inextricably combine to cause a worker's permanent impairment there will be no deduction or apportionment on account of the non-work related factor when assessing the degree of a worker's permanent impairment from the work injury. If the worker's work injury has contributed inextricably in a material way to the worker's overall permanent impairment, then the worker's permanent impairment will be attributable to the worker's work injury. It will only be in the circumstance where a non-work related factor has resulted in a worker having a discrete psychiatric impairment that that separable impairment would be disregarded when assessing the degree of permanent impairment from the worker's psychiatric injury.
5. Whilst the Appeal Panel does not accept that particular submission of the appellant, the Appeal Panel nevertheless considers that the Medical Assessor did not explore whether the respondent's functioning in social and recreational activities is due only to his hearing problems or the fact that his friends have moved away. That was an error in the Appeal Panel's view on the part of the Medical Assessor, such that the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
6. In order to correct that error, and as noted above, the Appeal Panel considered it needed to re-examine the respondent so as to obtain the necessary data to determine whether his psychiatric injury does make a material contribution to his impaired functioning in social and recreational activities. As said, Medical Assessor Lam-Po-Tang was appointed to undertake that task and having completed it he provided to the Appeal Panel the following report:

Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Services NSW)

1. The workers medical history, where it differs from previous records

1. Additional history since the original Medical Assessment Certificate was performed

Mr Canham was assessed on 14 January 2025 by Medical Assessor Clayton Smith, at which time he was an inpatient of the South Coast Private Hospital. This was his third admission to this hospital. He explained he was admitted to the mood and anxiety program of the hospital. He stated that whilst this admission was in progress, the dose of his antidepressant medication, fluoxetine, was reduced from 30 mg daily to 20 mg daily, where it remains today. Also during this period of hospitalisation, he was prescribed another medication, propranolol 10 to 20 mg as needed, for anxiety. He has continued to take this medication to date, on an as needed basis.

Following discharge from hospital, Mr Canham returned to his home in Camden. He has continued to consult his psychiatrist, Dr Paul Stewart, and his psychologist, Ms Katrina Langhorn. Additionally, he has continued to consult his new general practitioner, Dr Jonathan Grimshaw in Picton, whom he began to see at the very end of 2024, following the retirement of his former general practitioner, Dr Ron Campbell.

Following discharge from hospital in January 2025, Mr Canham describes ongoing heavy alcohol consumption, drinking four days a week on average. He estimates he may have four to five full-strength stubbies of beer per day (6 - 7.5 standard drinks) and one to two large glasses of wine (1.5 - 3 standard drinks) and one to two spirits after that at times, either whiskey or vodka. He explained he commences drinking around 16:00, and may consume alcohol until 20:30. He explained he has been advised to reduce his alcohol intake by his general practitioner and psychiatrist. He reports experiencing a hangover the following day "basically every time". When asked about amnestic episodes occurring in the context of alcohol intoxication he replied, 'That rarely happens, but it's more times I regret than forget'. He reported falling over once or twice, but denied injuring himself. He denied misplacing personal effects and objects. He advised he may have passed out unintentionally sitting outside his home, but he could not recall the last time this occurred. He admitted to drinking more than initially planned, and he reported attempting to reduce his intake on a number of occasions. He reported getting into arguments whilst intoxicated with alcohol. He stated this occurred 'probably last week... I can't even remember, just a local thing, I lost me shit really'. He explained 'I was in a coffee shop in Camden', and had had a few drinks of alcohol prior to this, before running into an acquaintance. He advised he has been consuming alcohol at this level for an extended period of time.

In February 2025, Mr Canham stated he heard a noise whilst walking down the main street of Camden, that he described as 'Bang! Bang! Bang!'. He stated he looked around after he heard this sound, and said it reminded him of the sound of prisoners kicking steel doors in their cells. There was no obvious source of the sound.

Mr Canham was unable to clarify whether he heard an actual sound, or whether this was a re-experiencing symptom. He questioned 'whether it's in my head from all the years of hearing it'. He mentioned no further similar experiences.

Since discharge from hospital in January 2025, Mr Canham advised he has been attending a personal training session, typically on a Monday with a trainer at the Mount Annan Leisure Centre. He has recently changed this to Wednesdays. He stated these sessions were typically 30 minutes in duration. With respect to exercise outside of the personal training sessions, he advised he had been going to the gym by himself 'bugger all, really', and did not think he had attended the gym by himself in the month leading up to the assessment, and may have done so once in the two months leading up to the assessment. He reported that he does not undertake exercise at home. He stated he tried to go for a walk on Friday 2 May 2024, but turned around after around 10 minutes and returned home.

Mr Canham stated he has been booked in to the South Pacific Private Hospital to be admitted in July 2025, for what he believes is a four-week program. He stated that this program is the second part of a post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) program, explaining he undertook the first part of this program in August 2024.

Mr Canham stated that since January 2025, he has not been diagnosed with any new medical or surgical conditions, sustained a head injury resulting in loss of consciousness or concussion, nor been involved in any serious accidents. He denied presenting to a hospital for any medical conditions. He denied any history of deliberate self-harm since January 2025.

Mr Canham advised that he remains employed by the Department of Communities and Justice, and that within the last two weeks prior to the assessment, had been contacted by a staff member regarding his intentions. He recounted, 'She's asked me if I've thought about medical retirement... I asked, 'What does that mean?''. He stated that he has spoken to solicitor about this, but does not want to speak to his union about this matter, even though he remains a fee paying member of the union. He advised he has not yet made a decision on this matter.

Mr Canham presented as a Caucasian man of stated age, wearing glasses, and casually dressed. He appeared mildly overweight based on his facial appearance (being assessed by video conference). He made good eye contact through the video conferencing platform. No obvious psychomotor agitation or retardation was observed. His speech was spontaneous, and normal in rate and form. There were occasional pauses prior to answering some questions, but he did not display consistent increase in latency of speech. His affect was restricted in range, smiling only very occasionally and briefly. He was not labile or tearful on any occasion. His affect was congruent with subject matter. Subjectively, he described his mood as depressed as well as anxious. Objectively, he did not present as irritable, elevated or apathetic in mood. His thoughtform was logical and sequential, with no formal thought disorder. He expressed his ideas with an appropriate degree of elaboration and detail, with no obvious poverty of ideation. No delusional thought content was expressed or elicited. He stated that whilst he has thought about suicide, that this was in a broader context, including reflecting on the suicide of two former colleagues who worked in the prison system with him. He stated he could not impose a burden on his sons by committing suicide.

Mr Canham presented as alert and oriented throughout the assessment. He did not appear drowsy at any point, no fluctuation in level of consciousness was observed. He was able to maintain the pace of the interview for 95 minutes.

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

At the time of the assessment Mr Canham described his mood as sad and low, rating it as 3/10 on a 10-point scale, where 0/10 represents a profoundly depressed mood, and 10/10 represents a very cheerful mood. As noted, he reported thinking about suicide, but denied suicidal intent per se. He reported elevated anxiety, 'All the time', and reported thoughts such as, "What have I done to deserve this? What do people think of me?'. He reported a subjectively irritable mood, but this was not objectively evident in the assessment. He reported difficulty motivating himself.

Mr Canham stated he was able to enjoy food to a degree. He advised his weight had increased to 108 kilograms, and noted that a couple of years prior to the current assessment, he used to weigh less than 100 kilograms. He described his energy levels as "very lethargic", and reported napping during the daytime. He stated he typically retires around 22:30, falling asleep around 23:30. He states he will wake up consistently in the middle of the night for one or two hours, eventually getting back to bed, and sleeping till around 09:00. He described poor quality sleep, and said it was not refreshing. He reported experiencing distressing dreams and nightmares about work-related matters, estimating these occurred once every couple of weeks.

Mr Canham reported recurrent memories of work related incidents and work related traumatic incidents. He commented, 'I think about things most days, I guess'. He reported unsuccessful attempts to suppress distressing memories of traumatic incidents. He stated, 'I try to change what I'm doing to get my mind away from that'. When asked to elaborate on what he specifically does, he states he may move from one part of his apartment to another. He reported a degree of hypervigilance, for example, he reported being mindful about people walking behind him, often stepping aside to let them pass. He reported feeling discomfort and threatened when others walk behind him. He states he is vigilant of his environment. He stated, when inadvertently approached from behind, 'I jump... I react'. He added, 'Obviously. It's all innocent' but he found himself unable to not react in this way,

Mr Canham lives independently in a rental apartment in the main street of Camden, just outside of Sydney. He has been living in his current residence for over seven years. He is obviously able to live independently. He reported that he bathes 'not all the time' disclosing that he last bathed two days prior to the assessment, on Saturday, 3 May 2025. He states he brushes his teeth, 'once a day, if at all', and changes his clothes after showering. He goes to a local barber every two to three months. He organises his own meals, sometimes cooking a steak on the barbecue, often buying takeaway. He estimated he typically ate one to two meals per day.

Mr Canham states he undertakes his own housework commenting, 'I look after myself as best as I can'. When asked how often he cleans, he replied, 'Not too often'. He then showed me his apartment using the video camera, which showed unwashed dishes and utensils in his kitchen, as well as two bags of groceries sitting on top of his stove top. He goes shopping for food every two or three days, walking to local shops in Camden.

Mr Canham has his own vehicle, and estimated he drives around three times a week. He confirmed he is able to leave his place of residence without a support person present, either by car or on foot. He stated he may drive to Campbelltown or to Picton to get to his general practitioner, and can drive to Wollongong to see his psychiatrist, as well as within the local area.

Mr Canham stated he catches public transport "very rarely, if at all" but said he may occasionally catch a bus to Campbelltown. He reported no domestic travel within the last few years, and had no plans to do so. He reported no international travel within the last few years, and had no plans to do so.

Mr Canham has Facebook and Instagram accounts, and said he is able to access these in a passive way: 'I look at them, I guess, I see what's on there, most days, I guess'. He advised he does not post content or photos. He states he uses the internet very rarely, though may check the weather. He confirmed he was able to send and receive emails. He manages his own finances and has a credit card. He is able to access account details, either online or using a phone application. He stated he maintains responsibility for bill payments, but stated most of these are organised for automatic debits.

For leisure, Mr Canham has a Netflix and a Foxtel subscription. He states he mainly maintains his Foxtel subscription to be able to watch the rugby league. He watches different programs on Netflix, describing his viewing as 'old stuff'. He stated he has recently been watching a TV series on Netflix, 'Psych', and has in the past watched 'Game of Thrones'. He states he occasionally reads the paper, including a local periodical, stating he can read for up to 20 minutes.

Mr Canham described his concentration as 'not real good... I sort of tend to wander'. He denied locking himself out of his apartment, and stated he did not misplace items due to poor concentration. When asked about near misses whilst driving, he admitted that this had happened, 'a few different times', but he was unable to provide an estimate as to when this last occurred. He stated at some relatively recent point he tried to fix the clock on his microwave, but got distracted and stated it took him around two hours to complete the task.

Mr Canham states he watches the rugby league on TV, especially on the weekends. He estimated he may watch four or five of the scheduled eight games over the weekend. He states he continues to follow the Manly Sea Eagles team, but has never been a club member. He said he has not attended any rugby league games since 2023.

Mr Canham has two sons, both of whom live in the Illawarra area. The eldest son has visited Mr Canham twice in 2025, estimating he spends around two hours at a time.

Mr Canham has not driven to his son's home on the South Coast since early 2023. He stated his eldest son and he will exchange text messages about rugby league when the season is on. Of his younger son, Mr Canham stated he has also caught up with him twice in 2025, again at his home in Camden. Again he estimated the son spent around two hours visiting. He has also not visited his son on the South Coast since early 2023. He says he tends to message his younger son about once a week. He stated he no longer has any contact with his ex-partner, commenting, 'not at all, now' and advised this has been the case for 12 months. Mr Canham advised that he had contact with friends and acquaintances, 'very rarely... mainly if I'm walking around or walking to the shops', stating at times he actively avoids interacting with known persons, by walking across the road.

Mr Canham initially stated that he does not phone or message people, and that people do not ring or message him. That said, he estimated he had been to a local pub four or five times since the start of 2025 when 'someone has rarely rung me and said, 'Do you want to hang out for a chat?''. Mr Canham says that he has then attended the pub and spent a variable amount of time: 'It could be an hour, could be two hours'. On these occasions, he usually interacts with the one person who contacted him, but he added, 'people come and go'. He states he will occasionally stay long enough to have a meal whilst at the pub, estimating this has happened once or twice since the start of 2025. He stated he has been going to local cafes on the encouragement of his psychiatrist and psychologist, doing so once or twice a week by himself. He may spend up to 30 minutes at a cafe. Mr Canham is still technically employed by the Department of Corrections and Justice, but stated he thinks he will never return to work. When asked about whether he remains on leave or not, he stated he remains on a workers' compensation claim. He advised he is not undertaking any voluntary work or paid work for any other organisations.

Dr Jonathan Grimshaw, general practitioner, Picton: Mr Canham has been consulting Dr Grimshaw since late 2024, typically in person. He typically consults Dr Grimshaw monthly for consultations lasting up to 10 minutes. He stated the nature of consultations is 'basically a check-up to touch base', as well as complete workers' compensation documentation, prescribe medication and take observations such as blood pressure.

Ms Katrina Langhorn, psychologist, Camden: Mr Canham consults Ms Langhorn on a face-to-face basis every two to three weeks, estimating these consultations typically took over an hour. When asked to describe the nature of consultations, Mr Canham replied, "I tell her about my dreams", and also describes other psychiatric symptoms. He stated that they discuss a range of exercises, but when asked to elaborate on these, he was unable to do so other than to nominate breathing techniques. He confirmed he is not receiving Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR).

Dr Paul Stewart, consultant psychiatrist, Wollongong: Mr Canham has monthly consultations that last 30 minutes or longer. These are in person. Mr Canham stated these focus on 'What's happening, my sleep, my lack of sleep I should say, dreams' as well as prescription of medication.

zopiclone 7.5 mg nightly as needed (estimated four times per month)

propranolol 10 - 20 mg as needed (estimated three times per week)

Mr Canham is a 61 year old man currently not working in any paid or unpaid capacity, who has not worked since October 2022. He was formally employed as a prison officer by the Department of Communities and Justice, and the reason for ceasing work was being advised that a plan to transfer to a corrections facility in Wollongong was rejected on the basis of his hearing impairment. He describes symptoms consistent with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, as well as Alcohol Use Disorder, which are persistent despite receiving individual psychological treatment, and psychotropic medications."

1. The Appeal Panel considers that Medical Assessor Lam-Po-Tang has conducted a comprehensive examination of the respondent and the Appeal Panel consequently accepts his report on that examination.[2] Based on Medical Assessor Lam-Po-Tang's report the Appeal Panel is satisfied that the respondent's psychiatric injury, and his anxiety manifesting from that, has impaired his functioning in social and recreational activity to a moderate extent. Indeed, it is solely his injury, rather than his hearing loss or his friends moving away, that has impaired his capacity to engage in social and recreational activities. He is hypervigilant when people are around him. That is a consequence of his psychiatric illness. His social and recreational activities are now essentially limited to minimal online activities in the form of passive involvement in social media, watching rugby league and tv series on streaming services, occasionally reading a paper, occasional engagements with his sons, and occasional visits to his local pub where he may stay for an hour or two and may occasionally have a meal. That impaired functioning in social and recreational activities results from his work injury and not from hearing problems or from his friends having moved away.
2. Hence, although the Appeal Panel found that the MAC contained a demonstrable error, when the Appeal Panel corrects that error, the same result is achieved.
3. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on

[1] Secretary, NSW Department of Education v Johnson [2019] NSWCA 321 at [49]- [55]

[2] Coca-Cola Europacific Partners API Pty Ltd v Pombinho [2024] MSWCA 191 at [88].