WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appeal by employer from 17% assessment in psychological injury claim; whether Medical Assessor (MA) failed to consider evidence before him in psychiatric impairment rating scale categories of social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence & pace; whether ratings given compatible with facts found by the MA; Held - contemporaneous records from treating psychiatrist and psychologist revealed social and recreational activities (e.g. playing soccer over two years, continuing to coach his son's soccer team) not considered by MA and inconsistent with his class 3 rating; activities described by the MA (e.g. involvement with local RSL subbranch, setting up and taking down barbeques) not generally class 3 activities; social and recreational activities classification revoked; MA reasons for concentration, persistence and pace adequately explained; Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

1. On 17 September 2025 the appellant, State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Wayne Mason, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 20 August 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 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed (AMA 5). "WPI" is reference to whole person impairment. "Baseline WPI" is a reference to the total WPI assessed before deduction for the effect of pre-existing injury, condition or abnormality pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.

1. On 22 July 2025 this matter was referred for an assessment of psychiatric and psychological disorders which occurred on a deemed date of 16 February 2023.
2. The respondent Mr Mills was employed as a Senior Constable. He was attested as a Police Officer in 2004 and last worked on 4 April 2023.
3. During his career he was exposed to multiple traumatic events as a first responder.
4. In February 2023 he was involved in a motor accident with a female probationary constable which resulted in them both almost drowning. He became unwell and has been diagnosed as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and exacerbation of pre-existing alcohol use disorder.
5. He was assessed at 17% WPI.

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. The appellant employer submitted that a re-examination was not required, in response to which Mr Mills submitted that a re-examination would be required if error had been established. However, in view of the issues raised with regard to the evidence that had not been considered by the Medical Assessor, a re-examination would not have assisted the outcome, as that evidence related to contemporaneous independent documentation.

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. The parts of the medical certificate given by the Medical Assessor that are relevant to the appeal are set out, where relevant, in the body of this decision.

1. Both parties made written submissions which have been considered by the Appeal Panel.

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. 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.
3. The appeal is limited to a challenge to the ratings in the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) categories of social and recreational activities and concentration, persistence and pace.

1. In taking a general history, the Medical Assessor said:[1]

".... Finally from the beginning of 2024 he consulted with Dr Josephine Cannon who provided EMDR treatment in addition to supportive counselling. He found the treatments helpful. He said he initially saw her weekly and subsequently fortnightly. He said there was a deterioration in his condition 1 month ago when he became depressed so the sessions were increased again to weekly. When asked what had happened, he said he had attempted to do much do too much socially."

1. Under the heading "General Health," the Medical Assessor noted:

"Leisure activities prior to the work injury consisted of playing soccer and coaching a number of soccer teams which included children's teams and a local representative team. He enjoyed going camping with his family usually on the south coast every few months. He said he had also enjoyed landscaping, gardening and home renovation and improvement activities. He did not enjoy reading but regularly watched European and English soccer games."

1. In considering Mr Mills' present symptoms, the Medical Assessor noted:[2]

"... He described himself as being antisocial and said he avoids people. Anxiety remains a problem but he said it is not as bad as it once was. He experiences intermittent panic attacks but said they do not occur every day. When he is anxious he is unable to go to the shops and at those times he is cognitively less capable. .... When the anxiety is bad he is unable to go to the café and unable to do any shopping at Woolworths because of the crowds or the risk of meeting people he knows."

1. The Medical Assessor noted that Mr Mills was "set off" by triggers such as "sirens or seeing a motor accident."
2. The Medical Assessor noted: [3]

"Leisure activities prior to the work injury consisted of playing soccer and coaching a number of soccer teams which included children's teams and a local representative team. He enjoyed going camping with his family usually on the south coast every few months. He said he had also enjoyed landscaping, gardening and home renovation and improvement activities. He did not enjoy reading but regularly watched European and English soccer games."

1. In detailing Mr Mills' activities of daily living, the Medical Assessor divided his consideration in terms of the categories of the PIRS. So far as social and recreational activities were concerned, he said:[4]

"...Mr Mills said his psychologist has encouraged him to coach a local junior soccer team. In the past he was able to coach a district representative team as well as teams involving his own children; he does not do that now. He said he is involved in the local RSL sub-branch; the president has been supportive of him. He said he does help set up a barbecue and pack up afterwards but does not participate in the social activity. He attends monthly meetings and helps out 1 day per month at the local drop-in centre. The local DVA advocate works from that centre. He said he does not see any friends regularly and does not attend social engagements such as barbecues or parties. He said he has seen only one friend from work during the last year. He does not attend social events organised by his wife or family. He does not go out to restaurants, cafés, hotels or clubs. He said he had attended one concert with his wife. He is moderately impaired."

1. In considering Mr Mills' concentration, persistence and pace, the Medical Assessor said[5]:

"Mr Mills said he struggles to maintain concentration because of the impact of panic attacks and absences. He said he was never really a reader. With regard to television he watches EPL soccer but needs to take breaks. He tends to avoid the news and advertising on television because it is triggering. He was questioned about the construction of a shed on his property. He acknowledged this had been completed but said it took him nearly a month whereas in the past he would have been able to do it in a week because he could not get organised. He said he has difficulty retaining information. He is unable to do a full grocery shop with a trolley in a supermarket because of anxiety. He is moderately impaired."

1. At [10c] of the MAC the Medical Assessor surveyed the opinions that were before him. He agreed with the opinion of psychiatrist Dr Abdal Khan, save as to his rating of another an unrelated category.
2. The Medical Assessor considered the opinion of psychiatrist, Dr Mukesh Kumar, who had assessed a total of 6%. The Medical Assessor said relevantly:[6]

"...... In my opinion social and recreational activities were moderately impaired because he had not returned to going on regular camping trips Concentration persistence and pace was moderately impaired because of his experience of regular absences and lack of awareness of his social environment....." (As written).

1. The Medical Assessor repeated his findings in the body of his report when giving his reasons under the Table 11.8 rating form.

1. The appellant employer referred us to the uncontroversial authority regarding the definition of both incorrect criteria and demonstrable error, then addressed the two categories it was challenging.

1. The criteria for social and recreational activities are contained at Table 11.2 of the Guides as follows:

"Mild impairment: occasionally goes out to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg 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 appellant employer submitted that the Medical Assessor had failed to give due and proper regard to the available evidence. We were referred to another Medical Appeal Panel case of Zucca v Frasers Property Australia[7] and the appellant employer contrasted the reasons in that determination with the subsequent decision of Stern AJ in Botha v Secretary Commune NSW Department of Customer Service[8].
2. The appellant employer submitted that in any event there was evidence before the Medical Assessor that demonstrated that Mr Mills attended multiple social events, as was documented in the clinical records of Josephine Cannon, which included camping for seven days at Depot Beach, which was about four hours away from his home in Cootamundra.
3. That event occurred, it was observed, in April 2025 "shortly before the medical assessment" (which occurred on 19 August 2025).
4. It was submitted that this activity would be in the same frequency as Mr Mills had been doing pre-injury, as the Medical Assessor recorded that he would go camping with his family every few months.
5. The appellant employer submitted that in overlooking that material the Medical Assessor had made a demonstrable error.
6. We were referred to the opinion of Dr Kumar of 13 January 2025, who recorded that Mr Mills was attending social netball with his wife and camping at least once a month.
7. Further, the Medical Assessor referred to a report from the treating psychiatrist Dr Bench of 16 June 2025, where it was noted that Mr Mills was coaching a kids soccer team, playing soccer and had finished building a garden shed.
8. We were referred to Chapter 1.6a of the Guides regarding the requirement that a claimant be assessed as he/she presented on the day of assessment, taking into account the claimant's relevant medical history and all available relevant medical information.
9. This, it was argued required the Medical Assessor to have a proper regard to the factual material referred to him.
10. Additionally, the appellant employer submitted that on the material commented on by the Medical Assessor in the body of his MAC, he had erred in assessing a class 3 for this category.
11. The Medical Assessor had reported that Mr Mills:
    • coached a local junior soccer team;
    • was involved in the local RSL sub-branch;
    • helped to set up a barbecue and pack up afterwards;
    • attended monthly meetings;
    • helped one day per month at the local drop-in centre, and
    • attended a concert with his wife.
12. These separate activities, it was submitted, were inconsistent with the Medical Assessor's reasons, which found that Mr Mills did not go to events such as barbecues or did not go to events organized by his wife, when had earlier specifically confirmed that Mr Mills did.
13. It was irrelevant, it was submitted, for the Medical Assessor to have found that Mr Mills did not go to hotels, restaurants, cafes or clubs, when Mr Mills nonetheless attended multiple other social and recreational activities in other arenas. It submitted that the activities to which it had referred were social or recreational activities.
14. We referred to a further Medical Appeal Panel case, Electrical Home Aids Pty Limited v Kumar[9] and the factual situation in that case.

1. The descriptors for this category are provided in Table 11.5 of the Guidelines as:

"Class 2 - 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.

Class 3 - Moderate impairment: Unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (eg operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting."

1. The focus of the appellant employer's submissions was that the Medical Assessor had questioned Mr Mills about the construction of a shed on his property. It was submitted that the construction of a shed was a task that was not consistent with a finding of a moderate impairment. The fact that Mr Mills is able to consistently work on that construction which, was it was submitted, an intellectually demanding task, meant that a class 2 rating should have been applied - irrespective of whether Mr Mills thought he would have previously completed it faster. A class 3 rating, the appellant employer argued, would need to be based on a finding that it was difficult to follow complex instructions, including building plans and manuals. Mr Mill's ability to build his own shed in his backyard with no assistance was thus inconsistent with a class 3 rating, it was argued.
2. We were referred to another Medical Appeal Panel case, Webster v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited[10], the facts of which were said to be similar.
3. The appellant employer argued that not only did Mr Mills watch soccer, but he was able to coach a local under 16's junior soccer team on the material before the Medical Assessor, and also to play in his own team.
4. Mr Mills would require to be able to concentrate for well over 30 minutes in those instances the appellant employer said, noting that there would be training involved as well.
5. The appellant employer submitted that on the Medical Assessor's own findings and examination as well as the history taken, a class 2 assessment was appropriate.
6. A class 3 was so "glaringly improbable" that it was erroneous.

1. Mr Mills began his submissions by protesting against the appellant employer's submission that the appropriate relief would be to reduce each of the impugned categories without there being a re-examination. This would be contrary, he submitted, to the "usual procedure" delineated by s 328 of the 1998 Act.
2. Moreover, such a result would be contrary to the objects of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, the 1987 Act and the 1998 Act. To not have a re-examination, it was submitted, would amount to a finding by the Panel that the Medical Assessor had simply made a mere "slip".
3. The appellant employer's submissions involved "no small degree of cherry-picking" Mr Mills continued.
4. He submitted firstly that the appeal should be dismissed but secondly that if error had been found then he should be re-examined.
5. Again, Mr Mills submitted that the findings made by the Medical Assessor were supported by the material before him. We were referred to Mr Mills' statement to the Assessor that there had been a deterioration in his condition one month ago when the sessions with Dr Josephine Cannon were accordingly increased because he had attempted to do too much socially.
6. Mr Mills submitted that the appellant employer had "completely ignored this in its submissions." Mr Mills noted that the appellant employer had acknowledged that Chapter 1.6 of the Guides required a Medical Assessor to assess a claimant as he appeared on the date of assessment. Mr Mills observed that the events relied on by the appellant employer were dated more than one month prior to the assessment.
7. Mr Mills submitted that the appellant employer was attempting to use his attempts in good faith to better himself under clinical supervision as a "cudgel against him".
8. We were referred to the uncontroversial authority that the descriptors within the PIRS were examples only, and we were referred to Chapter 11.6 of the Guides, which Mr Mills submitted the Medical Assessor had complied with.
9. Mr Mills then turned his attention to the two impugned categories.

1. Mr Mills submitted in effect that the appellant employer had conflated the one recorded instance of his camping in April 2025 with his evidence that before the injury he would go camping every few months. This was, it was submitted, illogical.
2. Mr Mills submitted that whilst Dr Cannon reported in January 2025 that he would go camping once a month, he observed that this was well before the recent deterioration reported to the assessor.
3. Mr Mills then relied on his expert witness Dr Khan, who sought to distinguish between activities that were social and recreational from activities that were therapeutic, as we understood the submission.
4. Mr Mills submitted that if the Medical Assessor's comments were read in full regarding his social activities, it would contradict the assertions made as to his engaging in barbecues and events organized by his wife.
5. Mr Mills argued that the evidence of his camping was in the context of his doing so with his family for therapeutic purposes and that the presence of his family constituted support within the terms of the descriptor.
6. Mr Mills also submitted that the findings by the Medical Assessor about engagement in sporting and clubs were all as a result of his being encouraged to do so by his medical advisers "for therapeutic reasons". There was a distinction, it was submitted, between setting up a barbecue and removing it afterwards and participation in the barbecue itself.

1. Mr Mills submitted that the descriptors in class 3 of the Guides did not require that complex instructions be impossible to follow but rather that they were difficult to follow That is what the evidence suggested in this case insofar as it concerned Mr Mills' construction of a backyard shed. The evidence was that previously Mr Mills could have done that within a week, whereas now it took him a month.
2. Moreover, it was submitted that it was factually incorrect to submit that Mr Mills had "consistently worked on the shed over the month." There was no evidence to that effect and in fact what was recorded was that Mr Mills could not get organised.
3. An inference followed was that indeed Mr Mills could not work consistently on the shed, which is part of the reason why it took longer than it might have done before his injury.
4. As to the submissions regarding Mr Mills' capacity to play and coach soccer, it was submitted that there was no evidence about whether or not he had breaks during these those activities. It was again submitted that we would be loath to disturb the Medical Assessor's findings without a re-examination
5. We were referred to a comment by Dr Khan that Mr Mills was doing basic coaching for one of his son's soccer teams, and to an undated email in which he related that he was being given high anxiety in doing the soccer draw.
6. Accordingly the category 3 rating was not "glaringly improbable" and was open to the Medical Assessor, Mr Mills said.
7. Mr Mills again argued that if the Panel were minded to revoke the MAC there would be an injustice unless there was a re-examination.

1. The Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) is established as the rating system for assessing psychiatric/psychological impairment, by virtue of Chapter 11 of the Guides. Chapter 11.11 sets out six categories of behaviour to be considered when rating the behavioural consequences of a psychiatric disorder. Each category is divided into five classes, ranging in seriousness from 1 to 5. Class 1 relates to a situation where there is no psychological deficit, or a minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. Class 5 pertains to a person who is totally impaired.
2. Chapter 11.12[11] provides:

"Impairment in each area is rated using class descriptors. Classes range from 1 to 5, in accordance with severity. The standard form must be used when scoring the PIRS. The examples of activities are examples only. The assessing psychiatrist should take account of the person's cultural background. Consider activities that are usual for the person's age, sex and cultural norms."

1. The Medical Assessor is required to classify each category, and to apply the resulting scores as set out in Chapter 11.[12]
2. The assessment of psychiatric disorder has been considered in a number of cases. In Ferguson v State of New South Wales[13] (Ferguson) Campbell J was concerned the case where the Medical Appeal Panel had revoked the MAC on the basis that the finding by the AMS had been glaringly improbable. His Honour found that the Panel had fallen into jurisdictional error. He said at [23]:

"[23] By reference to NSW Police Force v Daniel Wark [2012] NSWWCCMA 36, the Appeal Panel directed itself that in questions of classification under the PIRS:

'... the pre-eminence of the clinical observations cannot be underrated. The judgment as to the significance or otherwise of the matters raised in the consultation is very much a matter for assessment by the clinician with the responsibility of conducting his/her enquiries with the applicant face to face'.

[24] The Appeal Panel accepted that intervention was only justified: if the categorisation was glaringly improbable; if it could be demonstrated that the AMS was unaware of significant factual matters; if a clear misunderstanding could be demonstrated; or if an unsupportable reasoning process could be made out. I understood that all of these matters were regarded by the Appeal Panel as interpretations of the statutory grounds of applying incorrect criteria or demonstrable error. One takes from this that the Appeal Panel understood that more than a mere difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ is required to establish error in the statutory sense.

[25] The Appeal Panel also, with respect, correctly recorded that in accordance with Chapter 11.12 of the Guides 'the assessment is to be made upon the behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder, and that each category within the PIRS evaluates a particular area of functional impairment': Appeal Panel reasons at [37]. The descriptors, or examples, describing each class of impairment in the various categories are 'examples only': see Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales[14]. The Appeal Panel said 'they provide a guide which can be consulted as a general indicator of the level of behaviour that might generally be expected': Appeal Panel reasons at [37]."

1. In Glenn William Parker v Select Civil Pty Ltd,[15] another case regarding assessment of psychiatric disorder, Harrison AsJ cited [23] of Ferguson with approval at [65]. Her Honour said at [66]:

"In relation to Classes of PIRS there has to be more than a difference of opinion on a subject about which reasonable minds may differ to establish error in the statutory sense. (Ferguson [24])....."

"It was a matter for the clinical judgment of the AMS to determine whether the impairment with respect to employability was at the moderate level, as he did, or at some other level. But, in seeking judicial review, a mere disagreement about the level of impairment is not sufficient to demonstrate error of a kind susceptible to judicial review."

1. It is accordingly a useful approach for the Panel to enquire whether the assessment by the AMS in this category involved one of the following matters (to use the reference by Campbell J in Ferguson):

(a) if the categorisation was glaringly improbable;

(b) if it could be demonstrated that the AMS was unaware of significant factual matters;

(c) if a clear misunderstanding could be demonstrated, or

(d) if an unsupportable reasoning process could be made out.

1. In Lancaster v Foxtel Management[16] Basten AJ noted at [88-89] that these four considerations, although not inaccurate, were not a statement of legal principles, and that care should be taken in applying the explanation in place of s 327(3) and s 328(2).
2. Mr Mills made a preliminary submission that for the Panel to revoke the two impugned categories and "simply replacing the assessor's findings with those sought by the applicant insurer" would be "manifestly unjust and should not be countenanced..."
3. It would, Mr Mills said, also "be contrary to the usual procedure delineated by section 328" of the 1998 Act. The appellant employer proposed simply a substitution of the rating given by the Medical Assessor to "what the applicant (sic) wants."
4. Mr Mills proposed firstly that the application be dismissed, but said secondly that if the appeal was allowed, a fresh examination should take place.
5. We do not, with respect, view the submissions made by the appellant employer as an invitation to simply replace the impugned ratings with those it sought. Those submissions appeared to be addressed to the grounds it alleged, as mandated by s 327(3)(c) and (d) of the 1998 Act. Mr Mills did not explain to us what his concept of the "usual procedure" appeared to be. We have not been able to discern in this matter any deviation from the usual procedure which has been adopted in relation to claims for lump sum compensation since the enabling legislation was passed.
6. We note also that Mr Mills did not cite any authority in support of his submission that a re-examination should take place if the appeal were allowed. Indeed the procedure regarding appeals to Medical Appeal Panels requires a re-examination to take place (if needed) prior to any determination being made, and the procedure invoked by Mr Mills is not known in this jurisdiction.
7. As we have indicated, a re-examination was not required in Mr Mills case, as material upon which our determination was based was already before the Medical Assessor, whose reasons as will be seen, were inadequate to explain his ratings in view of that material.
8. We now turn to the impugned categories.

1. The relevant descriptors for this category are set out in Table 11.2 of the Guides:

Class 1 No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population: regularly participates in social activities that are age, sex and culturally appropriate. May belong to clubs or associations and is actively involved with these.

Class 2 Mild impairment: occasionally goes out to such events eg without needing a support person, but does not become actively involved (eg dancing, cheering favourite team).

Class 3 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. As indicated, the reasons given by the Medical Assessor in his Table 11.8 rating form were those related in the body of the MAC:

"Mr Mills said his psychologist has encouraged him to coach a local junior soccer team. In the past he was able to coach a district representative team as well as teams involving his own children; he does not do that now. He said he is involved in the local RSL sub-branch; the president has been supportive of him. He said he does help set up a barbecue and pack up afterwards but does not participate in the social activity. He attends monthly meetings and helps out 1 day per month at the local drop-in centre. The local DVA advocate works from that centre. He said he does not see any friends regularly and does not attend social engagements such as barbecues or parties. He said he has seen only one friend from work during the last year. He does not attend social events organised by his wife or family. He does not go out to restaurants, cafés, hotels or clubs. He said he had attended one concert with his wife. He is moderately impaired."

1. The appellant employer's appeal in this category was based on two propositions. The first was that the Medical Assessor had not properly considered the evidence before him, and the second maintained that, even on the factual findings he did make, that the ratings did not reflect the appropriate class.
2. As to the first proposition, whilst the clinical assessment is a significant factor in the assessment of a person's psychological disorder, and an Medical Assessor enjoys a

pre-eminent advantage in evaluating its behavioural consequences, that assessment must be done in the light of the evidence that has been referred to him/her. This is clear from the provisions of Chapter 1.6 of the Guides, which provides:

"1.6 The following is a basic summary of some key principles of permanent impairment assessments:

a. Assessing permanent impairment involves clinical assessment of the claimant as they present on the day of assessment taking account the claimant's relevant medical history and all available relevant medical information....."

1. Whilst there is a presumption of regularity that enables us to assume that the Medical Assessor, who is carrying out administrative action, has read the material before him,[17] a presumption is rebuttable if evidence that is germane to the evaluation is ignored and unexplained. Such evidence was referred to the Medical Assessor, to which we now turn.
2. The clinical notes from Mr Mills' treating psychiatrist, Dr Christopher Bench, were lodged with the ARD.[18] Mr Mills was referred to Dr Bench by his GP, the first consultation being on

9 October 2023. Dr Bench continued to treat Mr Mills; his last report being dated 16 June 2025.[19] 3. On 18 December 2023, in a report to the GP, Dr Bench advised:[20]

"....Attended Foo Fighters concert with wife - 'it was hard to get into it hard to enjoy it ... I was really anxious'."

Trying to do some renovations around the house - putting in an ensuite. Otherwise keeping busy with housework. He has been spending some time playing strategy board games."

1. On 19 February 2024, Dr Bench reported:[21]

"Mark noted he is about to start coaching his son's football team - quite stressful."

1. On 22 April 2024, Dr Bench noted:[22]

"He is spending some time doing housework, minor renovations, and painting miniature figures. He is training his son's U-16s football team and he is playing himself."

1. On 24 June 2024, Dr Bench reported:[23]

"Playing and coaching football. Completes some housework and chopping wood."

1. On 23 September 2024, Dr Bench recorded:[24]

"Playing and coaching football - did well and made it to the finals. Doing some renovations. Considering playing in a mixed netball team."

1. On 16 December 2024, Dr Bench noted:[25]

"Football has finished. Doing some gardening. Put down a concrete slab for a garden shed."

1. On 16 June 2025, Dr Bench reported:[26]

"Energy - coaching kids soccer team, playing soccer, finished building a garden shed."

1. A report from Axis Injury Management dated 27 May 2025 was described as an "Initial Engagement Report," and was signed by Rebecca Brewster, Rehabilitation Consultant.[27] Ms Brewster wrote:

"Mr Mills reported that he both plays and coaching (sic) a local soccer team. He noted finding the interactions with parents difficult, and had advised the team early that he would be focusing on coaching rather than interacting with other parents throughout the season. He found comfort in setting this boundary and most parents had been accepting of his request.

Mr Mills reported that he also enjoys war gaming (painting mini- figures etc.) and is engaged in his local RSL sub-branch."

1. The notes from his psychologist in the months prior to the assessment record:

"03/02/2025: Getting more done during the day planning for activities, painting figures, training, quiet time with wife, coaching courses 10/02/25: still painting figures

24/02/25:" kitchen renovation - before kitchen needs build the garage to store camping gear,"

1. It can be seen that the history recorded by the Medical Assessor, presumably as elicited from Mr Mills, that he did not coach teams involving his children appears to be contradicted by that contemporaneous evidence. Moreover, the Medical Assessor did not appear to be aware that Mr Mills was continuing to play soccer himself, as recorded repeatedly over 2024 and 2025 in contemporaneous clinical records.
2. We note the submission by Mr Mills that he had undergone a deterioration, as recorded by the Medical Assessor, who said in discussing the history of Mr Mills treatment, as indicated above:

"... He said there was a deterioration in his condition 1 month ago when he became depressed so the sessions [with Dr Cannon ] were increased again to weekly. When asked what had happened he said he had attempted to do too much socially."

1. We note that this comment was made whilst the Medical Assessor was recording what he had been told by Mr Mills as part of the history taking. There was no independent medical evidence of such a deterioration, and, as has been seen, Chapter 1.6 of the Guides requires an Medical Assessor to take into account relevant medical and other material. It does not appear that the Medical Assessor placed any relevance on that self-report, as he did not mention it again, and did not refer to any objective evidence that would have supported such an assertion.
2. We are confident that if the Medical Assessor had been concerned that such a deterioration had occurred one month before the assessment he would have found that maximum medical improvement had not occurred, as such an event would have required further evidence as to its effect on the categories of the PIRS.
3. Mr Mills also submitted that no inference could be drawn from the contemporaneous handwritten note by psychologist Ms Josephine Cannon dated 28 April 2025 which read:[28]

1. Mr Mills stated that was necessary to point to more than one instance of such a camping trip to establish the appellant employer's submission that he had continued to go camping every few months notwithstanding his injury. However, the Medical Assessor had noted that Mr Mills' activity of camping on the South Coast every few months was a leisure activity that he enjoyed "prior to the work injury," and that, because of his injury, he no longer did so.
2. The appellant employer's submission, as we understood it, was that we could draw an inference that such activity had continued, as the entry in Ms Cannon's notes directly contradicted what Mr Mills had told the Medical Assessor - that camping on the south coast every few months was a leisure activity that he used to do prior to the work injury. There is force in that submission, but in view of our determination, there is no necessity to make a formal finding.
3. Although the Medical Assessor noted that Mr Mills used to go on camping trips with his family prior to his injury, there is no indication that the Medical Assessor knew that Mr Mills had been on such a camping trip in April 2025. To the contrary the Medical Assessor very specifically uses this as the foundation of his reasons for assigning a class 3 "In my opinion social and recreational activities were moderately impaired because he had not returned to going on regular camping trips".
4. The activities noted by Dr Bench demonstrated that Mr Mills has been an active participant in the game of soccer over the past two years, in playing, as well as coaching. He also put in an ensuite bathroom at his home in December 2023, in addition to his building a shed. Painting miniature figures also appears to be a recreational activity that his psychological disorder has not prevented him from doing, as this hobby was mentioned in April 2024 and May 2025. He also put in an ensuite bathroom at his home in December 2023, in addition to his building a shed. Although for some, home renovations are recreational activities, the opinion of the panel would stand if excluded.
5. The Medical Assessor said that Mr Mills had been encouraged by his psychologist to coach a local junior soccer team, but the Medical Assessor did not acknowledge that Mr Mills has in fact been playing soccer for the last two years, and indeed the Medical Assessor found erroneously that Mr Mills did not coach his own children, although there was some ambiguity in that finding as he also said that Mr Mills had not been able to coach a district representative team as he had in the past. There is no evidence that Mr Mills continued to coach a district representative team.
6. As noted, it is not apparent that the Medical Assessor was aware of these activities and there was certainly no reference to them in the reasons he gave for the class 3 rating that he assessed, which in part was specifically based upon cessation of regular camping. However the frequency of, and engagement with, the recreational activities Mr Mills continues to do are incompatible with a concept of a class 3 impairment as indicated by the descriptors. There was no involvement by a support person for Mr Mills to go out to his soccer participation and there is no evidence that he needed to be prompted by family or a close friend. On one view of the evidence, even a class 2 rating would be difficult to justify. Two years of participation in the training and playing of soccer does not necessarily suggest that this activity could be described as "occasional." It certainly appears that he does become "actively involved" in this recreational activity.
7. Thus, the appellant employer's first proposition is made out.
8. The second proposition - that in any event a class 3 rating could not be justified on the findings made by the Medical Assessor - also has some force. As we noted when we summarised the appellant employer's submissions, the Medical Assessor had reported that Mr Mills:
   • coached a local junior soccer team;
   • was involved in the local RSL subbranch;
   • helped to set up a barbecue and pack up afterwards;
   • attended monthly meetings;
   • helped one day per month at the local drop-in centre. and
   • attended a concert with his wife.
9. Mr Mills relied on the opinion of Dr Khan to the effect that the soccer coaching and RSL activities were therapeutic, and designed to encourage Mr Mills to leave his home. However, as noted above, Chapter 11.11 of the Guides provides that the behavioural consequences of psychiatric disorder are assessed on the basis of what a claimant is capable of actually doing. With the exception of the descriptors for class 3 in the travel category, none of the other 29 descriptors is concerned with the subjective view of the person with such a disorder, or whether it is therapeutic or not. The enquiry by the Medical Assessor is based on whether a person can or cannot perform the various functions described.
10. There would seem to be a semantic difference between whether setting up and dismantling a barbecue without participating in the barbecue itself (which is what we assume the Medical Assessor meant) can be distinguished as not being a social activity. Mr Mills was clearly out participating in an RSL club event. Again, it was unclear whether the Medical Assessor, in referring to the supportive President of the sub-branch, intended thereby to convey that this was the close friend that was prompting Mr Mills to go to the barbecue, and we have some reservations as to whether erecting and dismantling a barbecue is consistent with a person not becoming actively involved in the social activity (a class 2 activity) or a person not actively involved, remaining quiet and withdrawn (a class 3 activity). The facts that were found by the Medical Assessor aligned more closely to a class 2 rating for social and recreational activity.
11. In any event, given that the Medical Assessor had fallen into error by not acknowledging the evidence we have outlined in discussing the appellant employer's first proposition, the class 3 rating is revoked.

1. The relevant descriptors are provided by Table 11.5 of the Guides:

"Class 2 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.

Class 3 Moderate impairment: unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions (eg operating manuals, building plans), make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type long documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting."

1. In assessing a class 3 rating, the Medical Assessor gave the following reasons in his Table 11.8 rating form:

"Mr Mills said he struggles to maintain concentration because of the impact of panic attacks and absences. He said he was never really a reader. With regard to television he watches EPL soccer but needs to take breaks. He tends to avoid the news and advertising on television because it is triggering. He was questioned about the construction of a shed on his property. He acknowledged this had been completed but said it took him nearly a month whereas in the past he would have been able to do it in a week because he could not get organised. He said he has difficulty retaining information. He is unable to do a full grocery shop with a trolley in a supermarket because of anxiety. He is moderately impaired."

1. In view of our conclusion regarding the rating for the category of social and recreational activities, there is little utility in considering this issue in detail. However, in brief, we would confirm this rating, as the Medical Assessor, in questioning Mr Mills about the construction of his shed, was probably aware that a class 2 rating could have been implicated. The fact that it took a month to complete because of his difficulty in organising the respective elements of the construction, whereas before his injury he would have completed the task in a week, is consistent with his finding it difficult to follow complex instructions. The clinical notes from Dr Bench indicate this took several months.
2. We doubt the assumption made by the appellant employer that Mr Mills worked "consistently" is wholly accurate. It would seem that Mr Mills' difficulty in organising himself implied that his concentration had been affected in being able to follow complex instructions such as the building plans necessary to build a shed, notwithstanding it was on his own property.
3. This rating is confirmed.
4. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 20 August 2025 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued. The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

Mr Mills said he usually showers each day. His wife puts laundry on and he hangs it out to dry and brings it in. He prepares meals and helps with the cooking. He cuts his own hair. His weight has remained the same and because he does not use psychotropic medication he tries to eat good food and exercise regularly. He is unimpaired.

Mr Mills is able to drive and can travel to Wagga Wagga alone. He requires his wife to be with him on trips to Newcastle. He is unable to use public transport due to anxiety and said he would be unable to travel alone by plane. He is mildly impaired.

Mr Mills said his relationship with his wife and children is intact. He said initially it was hard for his wife because of his psychological symptoms but she has remained supportive. He described communication difficulties because of his intermittent psychological absences. He said he gets along okay with his children. He said the family does not have friends in the local area. He is mildly impaired.

Mr Mills said he struggles to maintain concentration because of the impact of panic attacks and absences. He said he was never really a reader. With regard to television he watches EPL soccer but needs to take breaks. He tends to avoid the news and advertising on television because it is triggering. He was questioned about the construction of a shed on his property. He acknowledged this had been completed but said it took him nearly a month whereas in the past he would have been able to do it in a week because he could not get organised. He said he has difficulty retaining information. He is unable to do a full grocery shop with a trolley in a supermarket because of anxiety. He is moderately impaired.

Mr Mills is unable to return to police work because of anxiety. He is unable to deal with members of the general public such as customers because of anxiety. In my opinion he is not capable of any form for work. He is totally impaired.

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 Dr Wayne Mason 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)

[7] [2023] NSW PICMP 441.

[10] [2024] NSW PICMP 638.

[12] See 11.15-11.21 at Guides p 65 and Table 11.7 at Guides page 66.

[13] [2017] NSWSC 887.

[14] [2015] NSWSC 633.

[15] [2018] NSWSC 140.

[16] [2022] NSWSC 929.

[17] See Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 178 per Handley JA at [36]; _Jones v Registrar WCC [_2010] NSWSC [481].

[18] Appeal papers from page 120. (Many of Dr Bench's reports were duplicated, and many were illegible).