WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Medical Appeal Panel; section 327(3); demonstrable error; incorrect criteria; Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales, Ferguson v State of New South Wales, and Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak considered and applied; Held - Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

1. On 11 November 2025 Bayden Stuart (appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Mukesh Kumar, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on

13 October 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. The appellant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 18 June 2025. The appellant claims permanent impairment compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) for psychological injury sustained as a result of exposure to workplace stressors in his employment with Federation Council (respondent) with a deemed date of injury of

20 July 2023. 2. A Reply to the Application to Resolve Dispute (Reply) was filed by the respondent on

9 July 2025. 3. By consent the matter was remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment (WPI). The appellant was referred to Medical Assessor Kumar for impairment assessment. The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 23 September 2025. In the MAC issued on 13 October 2025 the Medical Assessor assessed 9% WPI due to injury sustained on the deemed date of 20 July 2023.

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 because the information contained in the MAC and the evidence before the Commission was sufficient to determine the appeal and there were no issues which would be assisted by a further examination.

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. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
2. In summary, the appellant submits that:

(a) The Medical Assessor did not apply the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) correctly in assessing impairment of 'Travel' as Class 2 and not Class 3 as:

(i) the appellant is unable to travel without a support person, and

(ii) the Medical Assessor recorded "detailed evidence of significant impairment" in the appellant's capacity to travel which is consistent with Class 3 and inconsistent with Class 2 impairment.

(b) The Medical Assessor incorrectly applied the PIRS in assessing impairment of 'Self-Care and Personal Hygiene' as Class 2 and not Class 3 in light of the history taken by the Medical Assessor and the appellant's statement evidence in respect to the appellant's preparation of meals and dietary habits. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor also failed to engage with the significance of the appellant's reliance on his wife and does not address the deterioration in the appellant's diet and his weight gain.

(c) The Medical Assessor incorrectly applied the PIRS in assessing impairment of 'Social and Recreational Activities' as Class 2 and not Class 3. In the appellant's submission Class 2 is inconsistent with the history taken by the Medical Assessor and the appellant's statement evidence.

(d) The Medical Assessor incorrectly applied the PIRS in assessing impairment of 'Social Functioning' as Class 2 and not Class 3. In the appellants submission the history recorded by the Medical Assessor when read together with the appellant's statement evidence demonstrates a significant deterioration in the appellant's interpersonal relationships.

1. In reply, the respondent submits that the Medical Assessor has not fallen into error, correctly assessing impairment of Travel, Self-Care and Personal Hygiene, Social and Recreational Activities and Social Functioning as Class 2.

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 appellant challenges the Medical Assessor's assessment in four of the PIRS scales being:

(a) Self-Care and Personal Hygiene;

(b) Social and Recreational Activities;

(c) Travel, and

(d) Social Functioning.

1. Functional impairment in each PIRS is rated using class descriptors with examples of identifying activities provided for each class. The classes range in severity from 1 to 5, none or minor deficit through to totally impaired.[1] The example activities provided are "examples only."[2] Garling J observed in Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633 at [57]:

"The submission of the plaintiff that, in assigning a class of impairment to each scale, the AMS is restricted only to the examples of activities listed in the tables or, alternatively, to those activities as a minimum, cannot be accepted."

1. The Medical Assessor assessed Travel at Class 2. The appellant submits that he should have been assessed at Class 3.
2. The class descriptors for Travel appear in Table 11.3 of the Guidelines. Relevantly the descriptors for Classes 2 and 3 are as follows:

"Class 2 Mild impairment: Can travel without support person, but only in a familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour.

Class 3 Moderate impairment: Cannot travel away from own residence without support person. Problems may be due to excessive anxiety or cognitive impairment."

1. In recording the history related to the injury and in particular the appellant's present symptoms the Medical Assessor recorded:

"Mr Stuart reported that he plays golf either on Tuesdays or Fridays as these are the days that his 2 friends play golf as he does not want to play with anyone else. Mr Stuart reported that on the weekends his wife tries to get him out of the house and they go out of town for shopping. He says that he cannot go for shopping in the same town. Mr Stuart said that once a month, his wife books a holiday at a caravan park for them to spend some time together. He said that often, he becomes angry and upset. He says that they go within 1 or 2 hours of home and when they take the caravan, he does the driving. He says that he has to stop for breaks every 45 minutes to an hour. He added that recently, he has not been able to drive the caravan. He added that there are times when he had driven for 45 minutes and nearly crashed the car 2 or 3 times. He says that often he does not see cars coming through or he goes through red lights.

He said that last October or September 2024, he went on a trip which he said was about 4 and a half hours from here though it took them 8 to 9 hours with all the stops. He said that his wife often watches him drive and if he is daydreaming, she asks him to pull up and walk around. He added that she is now doing most of the driving....

Mr Stuart reported that he plays golf regularly. He says that when he was first injured, he was trying to play golf at least twice a week. He said that he started having meltdowns. He then reduced it to once a weekend then stopped playing golf for a few weeks. He said that he does not want to play golf, however his wife and his doctors are pushing him. He says that in the last 3 months, he has played golf 6 times. Mr Stuart acknowledged that he has played competitive golf. He says that these are weekly tournaments. He acknowledged that he won a weekly tournament in January this year."[3]

1. In recording the history related to the injury and in particular the appellant's social activities/ADL the Medical Assessor recorded in respect to Travel:

"Mr Stuart reported that he is able to travel short distances. He said that he went to the river for 4 days which he said is only 5 minutes away. He added that he goes to see his GP which he described as 30 minutes way."[4]

1. In assessing Travel as Class 2 the Medical Assessor recorded the following reasons on the PIRS Rating Form:

"• Mr Stuart reported that he is able to travel short distances. He said that he went to the river for 4 days which he said is only 5 minutes away.

• He added that he goes to see his GP which he described as 30 minutes way."[5]

1. The appellant submits that the Medical Assessor did not correctly apply the PIRS criteria for Travel. In the appellant's submission the Guidelines require that Travel be assessed "by reference to functional capacity, not by reference to isolated instances of short local travel."
2. The Panel does not accept the appellant's submission. The example descriptor provided for Class 2 specifically refers to the ability to travel without a support person, "but only in familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour" whilst Class 3 applies where the person "[c]annot travel away from own residence without support person."
3. The Medical Assessor records that the appellant plays golf regularly, that on the weekends he goes out of town with his wife to go shopping, that once a month he goes away with his wife to a caravan park within one or two hours of their home, that in October or September 2024 the appellant went on a trip which he reported was about four and a half hours from home though it took them eight to nine hours with all the stops, that he goes to his general practitioner (GP) who is 30 minutes away and that the appellant went to the river which is five minutes from his home for four days "to give his wife a break".[6]
4. The appellant's submissions do not cavil with the history taken by the Medical Assessor. The history taken by the Medical Assessor in the Panel's opinion clearly records that the appellant is able to leave his home and travel without a support person and that such trips are not isolated but rather occur on a regular basis. As submitted by the respondent there is no evidence that the appellant requires a support person to travel with him to attend his regular games of golf.
5. That the appellant may have recently not been able to drive the caravan, that there may have been times when he had driven for 45 minutes "and nearly crashed the car 2 or 3 times", that a trip of four and a half hours may have taken eight to nine hours with all the stops does not negate the fact that the appellant is able to travel away from his residence without a support person.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant "avoids driving in his own town, will not attend shops without his wife, and cannot tolerate driving beyond short distances".
7. What the Medical Assessor recorded was that the appellant reported that he cannot go shopping in the same town and that on the weekend his wife tries to get him out of the house and they will go out of town for shopping.
8. The Panel does not accept the appellant's submission that the history recorded by the Medical Assessor establishes that the appellant is unable to independently travel away from his home without his wife's presence, supervision and practical assistance.
9. In the appellant's submission at [22]:

"Class 2 expressly contemplates that the worker can travel in familiar circumstances but becomes uncomfortable or avoids unfamiliar or crowded areas. Class 3, by contrast, addresses the inability to travel independently in non-local settings and the need for a support person."

1. In the view of the Panel the appellant's submission inaccurately defines the stated classes. Relevantly Class 3 does not relate to an inability to travel independently in non-local settings. Class 3 applies when the worker "Cannot travel away from their own residence without a support person" whether that travel be local or otherwise.
2. In the appellant's submission at [23]:

"The relevant question was never whether the Applicant can drive in limited and familiar circumstances. The question was whether he can travel away from home without support"

1. In the opinion of the Panel the appellant's submission is correct in respect to the application of Class 3 however on the evidence it is clear that the appellant can "travel away from his own residence without support" and regularly does so.
2. The Panel accepts the respondent's submission at [30] that:

"It was open to the MA to arrive at his assessment and ultimate conclusion based on the examination carried out on the day. The MA was required to arrive at his own conclusion based on his clinical judgement and balancing the medical evidence and factual evidence before him. He has provided sufficient and substantial reasoning for assessing the appellant under Class 2 for Travel."

1. In the opinion of the Panel the assessment of the Medical Assessor was not made on the basis of incorrect criteria. The Panel finds that this ground of appeal is not made out.

Ground two - internal inconsistency between recorded history and the Travel class

1. In the appellant's submission the MAC contains a demonstrable error within the meaning of s 327(3)(d) of the 1998 Act. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor recorded "evidence of significant impairment in the Applicant's capacity to travel" whilst adopting an impairment Class inherently inconsistent with that evidence.
2. The Panel rejects the appellant's submission. In the view of the Panel there is no inconsistency or internal contradiction between the history and facts recorded by the Medical Assessor and the assessing of the appellant's impairment as Class 2 for Travel.
3. As the respondent submits a Class 3 impairment is distinguished from a Class 2 impairment on the basis that an individual would not be able to travel away from his or her residence without a support person. This is not the case for the appellant who is not reliant on a support person to leave his residence as discussed above in respect to the first ground of appeal.
4. That the appellant may have been involved in near accidents whilst driving, suffered panic episodes, not driven in a safe fashion, relied on his wife to complete long-distance driving, required his wife's presence beyond short local drives does not negate the fact that the evidence recorded by the Medical Assessor is that the appellant is able to travel away from his residence without a support person and regularly does so in his local area. The Medical Assessor noted in the PIRS Rating Form when providing the reasons for his assessment that the appellant reported that:

"he is able to travel short distances. He said that he went to the river for 4 days which he said is only 5 minutes away...he goes to see his GP...30 minutes away."[7]

1. The Panel finds that there is no inconsistency or internal contradiction in the MAC as submitted on behalf of the appellant. In the view of the Panel the Medical Assessors path of reasoning in assessing Class 2 for Travel is clear.[8]
2. The Panel finds no demonstrable error as alleged. The Panel finds that this ground of appeal is not made out.

Ground three - incorrect criteria Self-Care and Personal Hygiene

1. The Medical Assessor assessed Self-Care and Personal Hygiene at Class 2. The appellant submits that he should have been assessed at Class 3.
2. The class descriptors for Self-Care and Personal Hygiene appear in Table 11.1 of the Guidelines. Relevantly the descriptors for Classes 2 and 3 are as follows:

"Class 2 Mild impairment: Able to live independently; looks after self adequately, although may look unkempt occasionally; sometimes misses a meal or relies on take-away food.

Class 3 Moderate impairment: Can't live independently without regular support. Needs prompting to shower daily and wear clean clothes. Does not prepare own meals, frequently misses meals. Family member or community nurse visits (or should visit) 2-3 times per week to ensure minimum level of hygiene and nutrition."

1. In recording the history related to the injury and in particular the appellant's present symptoms the Medical Assessor relevantly recorded:

"Mr Stuart reported that his appetite has reduced. He only snacks and has one main meal. He reported that does not have any breakfast. In the last 2 years, he added that he has gained approximately 20kg.

Mr Stuart said that he cooks food in the frying pan 2 or 3 times a week. He added that his wife usually completes the washing in the morning and leaves a note for him to put the washing out. He says that some days he is able to remember and some days he forgets. He added that when he forgets, it ends up in an argument."[9]

1. In recording the history related to the injury and in particular the appellant's social activities/ADL the Medical Assessor relevantly recorded in respect to Self-Care and Personal Hygiene:

"Mr Stuart reported that he showers every second day, and he bushes [sic] his teeth once a day. He says that he wears the same clothes for 2 or 3 days. Mr Stuart said that he does some housework, such as putting the laundry out, mowing the lawn and cooking a few times a week."[10]

1. The Medical Assessor observed that at the time of the examination, which was conducted through video conferencing, the appellant's overall grooming and hygiene "appeared reasonable."[11]
2. In assessing 'Self Care and Personal Hygiene' as Class 2 the Medical Assessor recorded the following reasons on the PIRS Rating Form:

"• Mr Stuart reported that he showers every second day, and he bushes [sic] his teeth once a day. He says that he wears the same clothes for 2 or 3 days.

• Mr Stuart said that he does some housework such as putting the laundry out, mowing the lawn and cooking a few times a week."[12]

1. In the appellant's submission the history recorded by the Medical Assessors as to the appellant's dietary habits and food preparation are direct observations concerning the appellant's "inability to maintain routine daily living without assistance."[13] In the appellant's submission this evidence is reinforced by the appellant's statement evidence in which he describes "progressive deterioration in his diet, his dependence on his wife for prompting and organisation of meals, and weight gain attributable to neglect of self-care."[14] In making this submission the appellant referred to his statement of 25 June 2024. No statement dated

25 June 2024 is contained within the evidence and the Panel has been unable to find the relevant refences in the appellant's statements which are in evidence. 2. Dr Abhishek Nagesh, psychiatrist, who provided a forensic report to the respondent dated

13 December 2023 relevantly recorded that the appellant reported that he spent his time doing some housework, mowing the lawn, gardening, that he could cook and clean, that he had a shower everyday and changed his clothes as and when required.[15] 3. Dr Nagesh in a subsequent forensic report to the respondent dated 30 December 2024 recorded that the appellant was able to do some housework and to cook "every now and again", that he showered everyday and when asked if he was capable of living by himself if his wife went away he answered in the affirmative.[16] Dr Nagesh assessed the appellant for Self-Care and Personal Hygiene at Class 2.[17] 4. A Vocational Assessment Report by Actual Rehab dated 5 March 2024 records that the appellant was assessed on 2 December 2024 and that the appellant reported that he was independent in bathing/showering, dressing, eating, toileting and cooking and that he was supported by his family in respect to cleaning and housekeeping and shopping.[18] 5. Dr Glen Smith, psychiatrist, who provided a forensic report to the appellant dated

26 November 2024 recorded in respect to Self-Care and Personal Hygiene that the appellant showered daily, shared in the preparation of meals and domestic duties with his wife.[19]

Dr Smith assessed impairment of Self-Care and Personal Hygiene as Class 2.[20] 6. On 3 October 2024 the appellant underwent a telehealth Vocational/Psychological Assessment with the Compensation Assistance Service who provided an Earning Capacity Assessment Vocational and Psychological Assessment report to the respondent dated

5 November 2024. The report records that the appellant reported that he was able to undertake some household tasks including washing clothes and dishes as well as regularly mowing the lawn.[21] 7. In the appellant's submission at [30]:

"Class 2 presumes functional independence. It does not accommodate circumstances in which a worker is unable to reliably complete activities of daily living without prompting or assistance, nor does it contemplate meaningful neglect of nutrition leading to measurable consequences such as weight gain. By contrast, Class 3 expressly applies where the worker 'occasionally fails to complete activities of daily living without proper assistance,' and where personal care may be 'sometimes neglected'."

1. The Panel does not accept the appellant's submission. Class 3 specifically applies when the worker "[c]an't live independently without regular support" and where a family member or community nurse visits or should visit two to three times per week to "ensure a minimum level of hygiene and nutrition." (Emphasis added).
2. The source of the quote that appears in the appellant's submission that Class 3 applies when a worker "occasionally fails to complete activities of daily living without proper assistance", and where personal care may be "sometimes neglected" is not provided. It does not appear in the descriptor for Class 3 and in the Panel's view is inconsistent with Class 3.
3. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor did not engage with the significance of the appellants reliance on his wife nor address the deterioration in his diet or the objective evidence of his weight gain. In the appellant's submission the MAC contains a lack of reasoning as to why these matters did not elevate the classification to Class 3 creating both an incorrect criteria and demonstrable error. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor misapplied the PIRS by equating sporadic capability with day-to-day functioning.
4. The Medical Assessor apart from recording that the appellant reported that he had gained 20 kg, that he only snacks and has one main meal a day does not comment on the appellant's diet and makes no comments or observations in respect to deterioration in the appellant's diet. As the respondent observed in its submissions the Medical Assessor did not as submitted by the appellant "expressly note, that the alleged weight gain was due to 'poor nutrition and neglect of basic self-care.' This has been misrepresented by the appellant in his submissions."[22] The Medical Assessor also does not record as was submitted by the appellant that the appellant relies on his wife to prompt him to eat.
5. The Medical Assessor did quote a passage from the report of Dr Nagesh of

30 December 2024 which referred to the appellant having "increased appetite, weight gain".[23] The quoted passage does not refer to the appellant having a poor diet or any other dietary issues. 6. The Panel observes that whilst the appellant reported to the Medical Assessor that he had gained 20 kg, that report appears to be inconsistent with the clinical records. The appellant is recorded as weighing 80kg on 5 August 2006, 87.8kg on 5 August 2015, 91.2kg on

10 September 2018, 92kg on 19 March 2020, 93.1kg on 1 July 2021, 92.9kg on 4 May 2022, 95.9kg on 28 February 2023[24] and 97kg on 18 November 2024.[25] 7. Dr Smith in his report of 26 November 2024 does record that the appellant had gained 15kg in weight attributed to "increased appetite with medication and reduced activity."[26] However this appears to be inconsistent with the contemporaneous recording of the appellant's weight having been weighed at 97kg on 18 November 2024 with the applicant having last been weighed in the low 80kg range in 2006. 8. The Panel does not accept the appellant's submission that the Medical Assessor misapplied the PIRS by equating sporadic capability with day-to-day functioning. The functioning which the Medical Assessor recorded and considered when assessing Self-Care and Personal Hygiene was not "sporadic capability" but rather regular and consistent. The appellant reported to the Medical Assessor that he cooked food in the frying pan two or three times a week, that he put the washing out but at times forgot, that he showers every second day, brushes his teeth once a day and wears the same clothes for two or three days. The opinion of the Medical Assessor is consistent with the opinions of Dr Nagesh and Dr Smith whom it is noted did however record that at that time the appellant showered everyday. 9. In the appellant's submission there is an internal inconsistency between the findings and assessment of the appellant's impairment as Class 2 which constitutes a demonstrable error. The Panel does not accept the appellant's submission. 10. In the opinion of the Panel the history and observations recorded by the Medical Assessor are consistent with the Class 2 assessment. The opinion of the Medical Assessor is consistent with the opinions of Dr Nagesh and Dr Smith. 11. The Panel finds that there is no inconsistency or internal contradiction in the MAC as submitted on behalf of the appellant. In the view of the Panel the Medical Assessors path of reasoning in assessing Class 2 for Self-Care and Personal Hygiene is clear.[27] 12. The Panel finds no demonstrable error or application of incorrect criteria as alleged. The Panel finds that this ground of appeal is not made out.

Ground four - incorrect criteria Social and Recreational Activities

1. The Medical Assessor assessed Social and Recreational Activities at Class 2. The appellant submits that he should have been assessed at Class 3.
2. The class descriptors for Social and Recreational Activities appear in Table 11.2 of the Guidelines. Relevantly the descriptors for classes 2 and 3 are as follows:

"Class 2 Mild impairment: Occasionally goes 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. In the appellant's submission Class 2 impairment cannot be maintained on the facts recorded by the Medical Assessor or in the appellant's statement evidence.
2. In the appellant's submission at [34] the Medical Assessor records in the history section of the MAC:

"that the applicant has withdrawn from all prior recreational activities and no longer participates in any social sporting events, community activities or outings. The Applicant told Dr Kumar that he rarely leaves the house, avoids interactions, and spends most of his time isolated in the home environment. The only remaining activity is golf, which he attends irregularly, and far less than previously, and only after encouragement from his wife and treating doctors."

1. This submission is incorrect. The Medical Assessor records no such history. The Medical Assessor did record that the appellant reported:

"...that he plays golf either on Tuesdays or Fridays as these are the days that his 2 friends play golf as he does not want to play with anyone else. Mr Stewart reported that that on the weekends his wife tries to get him out of the house and they go out of town for shopping....Mr Stuart said that once a month, his wife books a holiday at a caravan park for them to spend some time together. He said that often, he becomes angry. He says that they go 1 or 2 hours from home and when they take the caravan, he does the driving. He says that he has to stop for breaks every 45 minutes to an hour....

He said that last October or September 2024, he went on a trip which he said was about 4 and a half hours from here though it took 8 to 9 hours with all the stops...

Mr Stuart reported that he plays golf regularly. He says that when he was first injured, he was trying to play golf at least twice a week. He said that he started having meltdowns. He then reduced it to once a weekend then stopped playing golf for a few weeks. He said that he does not want to play golf, however his wife and his doctors are pushing him. He says that in the last 3 months, he has played golf 6 times. Mr Stuart acknowledged that he has played competitive golf. He says that these are weekly tournaments. He acknowledged that he won a weekly tournament in January this year."[28]

1. The appellant's submission is inconsistent with the history recorded in the Medical Assessment Certificate.
2. In recording the social activities/ADL the Medical Assessor recorded in respect to Social and Recreational Activities:

"Mr Stuart reported that he plays golf once or twice a week. He says that he only plays with his friends on Tuesdays or Fridays. He reported that he has played golf 6 times in the last 3 months and the last few times, he had a major meltdown. He says that he throws sticks when he is upset and it has costed him $300 to replace them. He has also participated in other recreational activities, such as going for a holiday once a month in a caravan park with his wife. Mr Stuart reported that he has lost interest in other activities, such as fishing, camping down the river etc. He added that he has been to the river a few times and added that last time was a few weeks ago where he stayed at the river for 3 or 4 days to give his wife a break."[29]

1. In completing the PIRS Rating Form when assessing impairment of Social and Recreational Activities the Medical Assessor recorded:

"Mr Stuart reported that he plays golf once or twice a week. He says that he only plays with his friends on Tuesdays or Fridays. He reported that he has played golf 6 times in the last 3 months and the last few times, he had a major meltdown. He says that he throws sticks when he is upset and it has costed him $300 to replace them."[30]

1. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor did not record any "spontaneous or self-directed recreational engagement" but rather that the appellant's wife prompts and urges him. In the appellant's submission golf is attended as part of the appellant's psychological management.
2. Whilst Class 3 impairment refers to prompting being required to attend most events it does so in conjunction with "rarely" going to such events and "not" attending without a support person as well as remaining "not actively involved, remains quiet and withdrawn."
3. In the appellant's case whilst he may be encouraged to attend golf he does so regularly, without a support person and at times when he can play with friends. He actively participates by playing golf including playing tournament golf which he has won. The appellant had also camped by a river for three or four days to give his wife a break in the weeks prior to being assessed by the Medical Assessor. Whilst the appellant's wife may have encouraged the appellant to go and stay at the river, presumably the appellant's activities once at the river were self directed. The appellant's activities in going away to a caravan park once a month with his wife is also a regular activity.
4. In the appellant's submission at [36] the "presence of a single, sporadic activity, particularly one undertaken only as part of a treatment plan, does not evidence" Class 2 impairment. The Panel rejects the appellant's submission. The recreational activities of the appellant are not a "single, sporadic activity". The activities are regular and ongoing and inconsistent in the Panel's view with Class 3.
5. In the appellant's submission at [37] the Medical Assessor:

"appears to have relied upon the mere fact of golf attendance as evidence of preserved recreational capacity, without considering the context in which that activity occurs, the dependency upon prompting, or the treating doctors' direction that he attend as part of behavioural therapy."

1. This in the Panel's view is clearly incorrect with the Medical Assessor recording that the appellant reported that his doctor and psychologist had told him to play golf[31] and that he does not want to play golf however his wife and doctors push him.[32] The submission also fails to acknowledge the Medical Assessors reliance on the appellant's participation in the trips away to caravan parks once a month as well as his camping by the river.
2. The Panel finds that there has been no demonstrable error made and no incorrect criteria applied by the Medical Assessor in assessing Social and Recreational Activities at Class 2 as alleged.
3. The Panel finds that this ground of appeal has not been made out.

Ground five - incorrect criteria Social Functioning

1. The Medical Assessor assessed Social Functioning at Class 2. The appellant submits that it should have been assessed at Class 3.
2. The class descriptors for Social Functioning appear in Table 11.4 of the Guidelines. Relevantly the descriptors for Classes 2 and 3 are as follows:

"Class 2 Mild impairment: Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships.

Class 3 Moderate impairment: Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children."

1. In the appellant's submission the material before the Medical Assessor established that the appellant has withdrawn from meaningful interaction with his wife and children, and maintains only one remaining friendship of reduced frequency and quality, and has become largely socially isolated. In support of his submissions the appellant again referred to his statement of 25 June 2024. No such statement is in evidence.
2. The appellant in his statements made on 4 September 2023, 12 August 2024, 11 December 2024, 13 March 2025 and 17 June 2025 does not refer to any deterioration in his relationship with his children. In his statement of 17 June 2025 he does state at [22(a)] that there is no affection in the relationship with his wife.
3. The appellant's wife in her statement of 16 June 2025 states that the appellant's children are at times reluctant to talk to the appellant as the appellant may start yelling and screaming. It is also the evidence of the appellant's wife that she sleeps in a different room and that there is no affection between them anymore.[33]
4. The appellant in his statement made on 17 June 2025 does state that he has one friend left who is in his golfing group and that there "are some days I will stay after the game but that's not part of the wider general meeting up with the players and having a drink or chat at the clubhouse. Rather, its just this one guy that I can have a bit of a talk to and he is really my only remaining friend..."[34]
5. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor noted emotional detachment, irritability, diminished communication, difficulty participating in ordinary family dynamics, and a level of interpersonal dysfunction inconsistent with mild impairment.
6. The Medical Assessor in respect to Social Functioning recorded:

"Mr Stuart reported that there have been lots of arguments with his wife, however they are still together. He says that he has had arguments with his children. He spoke of an incident recently when his son had his car parked outside on the lawn. Mr Stuart asked him to move it which he did not, and it led to an argument. He added that he has lost contact with some of his friends."[35]

1. In assessing the level of impairment of Social Functioning the Medical Assessor recorded on the PIRS Rating Form:

"• Mr Stuart reported that there have been lots of arguments with his wife, however they are still together.

• He says that he has had arguments with his children. He spoke of an incident recently when his son had his car parked outside on the lawn. Mr Stuart asked him to move it which he did not, and it led to an argument.

• He added that he has lost contact with some of his friends."[36]

1. The descriptor for Class 3 impairment relevantly refers to previously established relationships being severely strained "evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence." In the appellant's case whilst there maybe tension with his children (which is a Class 2 descriptor), a strained relationship with his wife with a breakdown in intimate functioning and normal household interactions may have diminished that it is not sufficient in the Panel's view to satisfy Class 3. There is no evidence and it is not submitted that there have been any periods of separation between the appellant and his wife or that there has been domestic violence. As the Medical Assessor noted whilst the appellant reported lots of arguments with his wife they are still together.
2. In the appellant's submission he has only one remaining friend whom he seldom sees. That submission is inconsistent with what the respondent reported to the Medical Assessor which is that he plays golf with two friends on a regular basis.
3. In the appellant's submission Class 2 applies to "workers who remain socially engaged but avoid stressful situations or who experience only mild reduction in enjoyment or frequency of interaction." In the Panel's view the appellant's submission misrepresents Class 2 the descriptor to which refers to existing relationships being "strained" and "loss of some friendships." The description does not describe a "mild reduction in enjoyment or frequency of interaction" or a simple avoidance of "stressful situations".
4. In the appellant's submission the Medical Assessor did not articulate the reasoning as to why the appellant did not satisfy Class 3. In particular he did not in the appellant's submission address the significance of the appellant sleeping separately from his wife, the tension with his children and the contraction of his social network.
5. The Panel does not accept the appellant's submission. The Medical Assessor noted the tension with the children noting that he has arguments, noted that he had lost contact with some of his friends and noted that whilst there were arguments with his wife they had not separated. In the opinion of the Panel on the facts the assessment fell within Class 2 with the Medical Assessor providing a clear path in respect to his reasoning.
6. The Panel finds that there is no demonstrable error and no application of incorrect criteria as submitted by the appellant in the assessment of Social Functioning by the Medical Assessor. The appellant has not made out this ground of appeal.
7. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on

[1] See: Ferguson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887.

[8] Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43 (Wingfoot).

[13] Appellant's submissions at [28].

[14] Appellant's submissions at [29].

[22] Respondent's submissions at [39].