Cerebral Palsy Alliance - Accommodation Northern Sydney

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in his assessment of two of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories, namely travel and social functioning; Held - Appeal Panel found no errors; evidence was more relevant to other categories; Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW) applied; MAC confirmed.

1. On 11 September 2025 Jasmin Wright (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by

Dr Surabhi Verma, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 14 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).

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 none was requested, and we consider that we have sufficient evidence before us to enable us to determine this appeal.

1. The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

1. Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
2. In summary, the appellant submits that the Medical Assessor erred in in his whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of two of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories, namely Travel and Social functioning.
3. In reply, the respondent submits that no errors were made.

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 was referred to the Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI in respect of a primary psychological/psychiatric injury occurring on a date of injury of 14 October 2021.
4. The Medical Assessor obtained a history of the circumstances of the injury as follows:

"Ms Wright is a 37-year-old woman living in Summerland Point, Lake Macquarie area, with her partner of 12 years. Her partner is a former police officer who has been medically retired and is on Workers' Compensation due to physical and mental health issues. They live with their 2-week-old baby. Ms Wright started working with Cerebral Palsy Alliance in 2018 as a disability support worker, working 30.5 hours per week, with her last day in 2021.

She mentioned that she began working for Cerebral Palsy Alliance and experienced anxiety, which she described as being 'well-controlled.' She added that she was still seeing psychologist Jill Abeshouse, usually every month or so. She was also on medication at the time but could not recall which medications she was taking, and was under the care of Dr Rastogi. She reported experiencing 'anxiety, depression-like symptoms including panic attacks, crying, exhaustion.' Despite these symptoms, she maintained friendships, played soccer weekly, and was able to care for her personal hygiene and self-care. She was also able to work, and her manager did not have any concerns about her performance during the initial years.

She stated that she has not returned to work since 2021. She denied having secondary employments, owning any businesses, or engaging in voluntary work. Ms Wright reported that in 2019, she reported a colleague for misconduct and alleged she was mistreated afterwards. She was off work as her mental health had worsened and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. She managed to return to work but struggled to trust her employers after that incident.

In August 2021, one of her managers yelled at her to put on a mask. She explained that she had a medical exemption due to asthma, PTSD, and anxiety, as wearing a mask triggered her PTSD. She described experiencing flashbacks of being strangled and unable to breathe, which prevented her from wearing a mask. She said that when the supervisor yelled, it triggered her mental health issues, and her symptoms worsened since then. She added that around the same time, one of her clients died.

I asked her if it was the first time she had seen any client pass away, and she said she was unsure why this particular client's death affected her so much. She described that the client ,towards the end, had difficulty keeping food down, looked pale, had , and appeared as if he had 'already died, even before he died.' When asked about other incidents impacting her, she denied any. I then discussed the issue with the vaccination. She said she had agreed to get vaccinated and was given two days to do so. However, she was unable to get it done on time, and I highlighted her documents indicating she did not want to receive the vaccine, to which she responded that she had been terminated even before she could get vaccinated.

Ms Wright reported that soon after these incidents, she began experiencing mental health symptoms. Her mind was racing, and she had flashbacks of 'getting strangled.' She also experienced tearfulness, crying, trouble sleeping, suicidal thoughts, and panic attacks. She recalled traumatic memories, including those related to the deceased client, and adopted avoidance behaviours, such as staying at home most of the time. She developed negative beliefs about herself and the world, feeling that no one could be trusted and avoiding going outside.

She was often hypervigilant and concerned about her safety. Gradually, she withdrew from activities she previously enjoyed and felt detached from others. She also found it difficult to focus and her memory worsened. These symptoms affected her relationships with family and friends, leading to further withdrawal. She experienced pervasive anhedonia, a lack of interest in activities, and sleep disturbances due to nightmares about being strangled. She described feeling on edge and quite restless. As her 'flashbacks, sleep disturbances and panic attacks' increased, she was unable to work and stopped altogether. She continued seeing the same psychiatrist and psychologist she was consulting when she started working with Cerebral Palsy Alliance."

"Ms Wright reported that she continues to experience similar symptoms as before, with no significant improvement, and her symptoms have more or less stabilised. She added that she struggles with sleep, has panic attacks, and nightmares. The nightmares are still about being strangled, which impacts the quality of her sleep. I asked about the impact of her young baby on her sleep, and she said that her partner has been helpful as well. I also asked whether her partner's mental health was affecting her, to which she responded that he has been contributing to household chores but was unsure if his mental health was actually impacting hers.

She no longer likes to drive due to difficulties concentrating and cannot remember if she passes traffic lights. She experiences anxiety and has chronic thoughts of harming herself. She denied having any thoughts of harming others, including her baby. She no longer selfharms and last did so about five years ago. However, she feels quite teary and low most of the time. On a typical day, she mostly 'stays at home and watches rewinds of TV shows,' and said she is unable to watch anything new as she has been quite forgetful.

She continues to experience symptoms of alterations in arousal and reactivity, including hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, problems with concentration, sleep disturbances, exaggerated beliefs about herself that no one can be trusted, persistent negative emotional states, markedly diminished interest in activities, inability to experience positive emotions, avoidance of reminders that trigger distressing memories, distressing dreams, flashbacks, and involuntary impulsive reactions memories."

1. When asked to provide "Details of any previous or subsequent accidents, injuries or condition" the Medical Assessor said:

"Ms Wright reported that she was physically, emotionally and sexually abused as a child. Her sister's boyfriend was sexually inappropriate, and her stepdad was physically and emotionally abusive. She remembers that her stepdad once strangled her, and she blacked out, and he used to hit her quite often. She added that she never required any medical attention, but the physical and emotional abuse was ongoing. She started 'self-harming in her teenage years when she started cutting herself and experienced depression around that time.'

She started seeing a psychologist and a psychiatrist in her early 20s and was diagnosed with PTSD, major depression and anxiety. She had been seeing a psychologist and psychiatrist regularly for the last 17 years. She was admitted to Hornsby Hospital, Mental Health Unit, in her early 20s, in the context of suicidal ideas for about two days. She was again admitted to Northside Clinic for a two- to three week stay about 12 years ago. This was in the context of 'bad mental health.' She said that she was working at a difficult workplace at that time and was assaulted, which might have contributed to her worsening mental health, leading to the hospital admission.

She said that she had ongoing difficulties with her family members and 'resented her mother and stepdad and family as a whole' because of her experiences she felt left out and targeted, and did not consider herself as a part of the family because of what had happened."

1. The Medical Assessor then turned to consider the impact of the injury on her social activities and activities of daily living (ADL's) and said:

"Self-care and Personal Hygiene: Ms Wright showers about once every two days and brushes her teeth once every three days. She mentioned that her partner has been helping her with day-to-day chores and caring for the baby. She does household tasks such as unpacking the dishwasher, etc. However, she has insight into her health and her baby's health and has successfully stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes altogether. I believe she has mild impairments in self-care and personal hygiene.

Social and Recreational Activities: She reported that she previously enjoyed playing soccer but stopped around 2021. She said she lost interest, experienced anxiety, and was unable to be with people. She added that she has no friends and has stopped talking to people. She does not socialise with any friends at all. She mentioned that months ago she went to see a movie with her brother, but she has not met up with her friends in the last three to four years. She is part of a Facebook lost-and-found group but does not engage socially there.

Travel: She leaves her house only for medical appointments and to buy food. She has managed to drive up to one and a half hours to see a psychologist and psychiatrist on her own. She denied travelling interstate or overseas.

Social Functioning: Ms Wright reported that her relationship with her partner is sometimes good and sometimes she feels she is over it. Regarding her family, she said she has six sisters and one brother and used to help them more than they helped her, which is probably why she did not have a close relationship with them. She has always resented her mother and has had interpersonal issues with her stepdad due to emotional and physical abuse.

Concentration, Persistence, and Pace: Ms Wright struggles to watch movies but can watch shows that last up to 30 minutes. She finds longer shows challenging. She said she does not read books and didn't do so even before the incidents at work. She used to play video games but stopped because she struggles with attention and concentration. However, she was able to focus well during the assessment and was not distracted.

Employability: Ms Wright has no capacity to remain employed due to her pervasive mental health symptoms."

1. Findings on examination were reported as follows:

"I reviewed Ms Wright via video; she engaged well during the assessment and was cooperative. She appeared as a Caucasian female who looked the part. There was no evidence of psychomotor agitation or retardation. No abnormal motor movements, such as tics or mannerisms, were observed. She was dressed casually and dishevelled. She reported her mood as low, and her affect was flat. She provided a clear account of her symptoms and difficulties. She was able to focus and pay attention during the assessment without distraction.

Her speech was spontaneous and normal in volume and tone. Her thoughts were logical and goal-directed. She continues to experience nightmares, flashbacks, and intrusive thoughts. There was no evidence of manic psychotic symptoms or perceptual abnormalities. She demonstrated insight into her condition and has been engaging regularly with a psychologist and psychiatrist. She experiences chronic suicidal thoughts but has not selfharmed in a long time. She denied having thoughts of harming others or any suicidal plans or intent."

1. The Medical Assessor's diagnosis was as follows:

"Ms Wright is a 37-year-old woman who lives in Summerland Point with her partner and her 2-week-old baby. Ms Wright has a history of significant mental health issues in the past, including being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and ADHD. However, she reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and exhaustion at the time she began working with Cerebral Palsy Alliance. She denied her mental health symptoms significantly impacting her social life or personal hygiene at that time. She used to see Jill Abeshouse, Psychologist, and Dr Richa Rastogi, Psychiatrist, when she started working with Cerebral Palsy Alliance in 2018 as a disability support worker.

Ms Wright reported that her manager once yelled at her for not wearing a mask and that she witnessed one of her clients' physical health gradually deteriorate and eventually die. These incidents affected her mental health and worsened her symptoms. There were also some issues regarding getting vaccinated. Ms Wright clarified that she agreed to receive the vaccination; however, the documents stated otherwise. Her current presentation is consistent with an exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder and ADHD. Ms Wright has been receiving psychological interventions, which are an evidence-based treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. She stopped medication during pregnancy due to concerns about side effects. I believe she has reached maximal medical improvement, as she has received evidence-based treatment for both conditions."

"Her presentation was mostly consistent with the history given during the clinical interview and mental status examination. There were, however, a few inconsistencies noted, like the issue around the vaccination, which Ms Wright reported that she was ready to get, but was terminated before she could even talk to her doctor. Ms Wright was also not quite forthcoming about the impact of her physical injury and the ongoing Workers' Compensation Claim, and only reported that once it was highlighted to her."

1. The Medical Assessor assessed 8% WPI (wrongly noted in the Table as 7%) from which she deducted 1/10th in respect of the prior condition, leaving a total WPI of 7%.
2. She then set out a summary of all the medical and other evidence she had before her and said:

"IME by Dr Joel Singer dated 17 May 2022. I have noted that Dr Joel Singer concluded that her diagnosis was consistent with adjustment disorder with anxiety. He concluded that being required to wear a mask was the main contributing factor for aggravation of her PTSD symptoms.

IME by Dr Abdal W Khan dated 1 August 2024. Dr Khan mentioned the diagnosis

of aggravation of post-traumatic stress disorder, aggravation of major depressive disorder and aggravation of alcohol use disorder. Since her assessment with Dr Khan, Ms Wright was able to stop her alcohol intake and her cigarette smoking, was able to engage in treatment for her IVF and regularly attended her appointments for the same. There has been improvement in her insight with regards to her self-care and personal hygiene as well. I have noted that she is also able to travel on her own and has been able to drive up to 1½ hours to see her psychologist. With regards to her attention in concentration, Ms Wright reported during the assessment that she is able to focus for up to 30 minutes, even when watching television, which corresponds to mild impairment in the area of attention and concentration.

Letter by Dr Richa Rastogi dated 29 July 2023, mentioning the diagnosis of chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and exacerbation. There is also a mention of being diagnosed with ADHD, severe adjustment disorder in December 2019 and PTSD in 2008 due to childhood trauma.

Letter by Dr Colin Massie dated 2 April 2023, mentioning the diagnosis of exacerbation of PTSD anxiety and adjustment disorder.

Clinical notes by Dr Jill Abeshouse, Psychologist dated the 10 December 2022 which

reported the worsening of symptoms and that on 14 October 21 she became aware

Letter by Dr Richa Rastogi dated 4 May 2022, mentioning aggravation of previous

PTSD in anxiety and background pre-existing history of ADHD with complex PTSD.

IME by Dr Mukesh Kumar dated 2 December 2021. Dr Kumar opined that she has pre-existing diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and adjustment disorder in 2019. He opined that her current symptoms are part of grief after death of a client at work and emotional distress is due to conflicts at work. He did not believe that her current symptoms are an exacerbation of her pre-existing condition. He also highlighted that Ms Wright 'downplays the issues of vaccination and is evasive about her views on it. She has not yet received the vaccination despite the seriousness of pandemic, and it is not due to any accessibility issue or a medical condition.' I agree that Ms Wright was in fact evasive about the issue of vaccination during the assessment as well.

IME by Dr Mukesh Kumar dated 13 November 2023, mentioning that his opinion and

causation remains the same and that she had undergone a grief after the death of her client, and he did not believe that she had any significant impact on her overall mental health. He reflected that the psychiatric condition such as PTSD, schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are all chronic and pervasive condition which cause long-lasting symptoms and prolonged psychiatric morbidity.

IME by Dr Mukesh Kumar dated 8 March 2025. Dr Kumar concluded that she experienced psychiatric symptoms following workplace events of grief after death of client, and emotional distress due to conflict at work and that these conditions have resolved because of the duration of time that has elapsed. He concluded that her incapacity is entirely due to non-work related injuries."

(a) the Medical Assessor's description of her travelling ability was inaccurate in that she had many medical appointments conducted by Telehealth where she was not required to leave her home;

(b) all of the IME appointments including the assessment by the Medical Assessor have been by videoconference;

(c) the PIRS in respect of travel is designed to assess the ability to travel to new environments without supervision;

(d) the evidence in this case clearly supports a Class 2 rating;

(e) the amount of time spent in a car on her own is irrelevant. The issue being assessed is the level of anxiety out in public the appellant is able to tolerate as a result of her injury;

(f) the evidence in this case is that the appellant is only able to leave her house to buy food or attend medical appointments;

(g) this is inconsistent with a Class 1 rating. There is clear evidence of a deficit and impairment which is not minor;

(h) the Medical Assessor recorded: "She no longer likes to drive due to difficulties concentrating and cannot remember if she passes traffic lights. She experiences anxiety and has chronic thoughts of harming herself." The evidence shows that the appellant experiences anxiety and has chronic thoughts of harming herself. These symptoms demonstrate an impairment resulting from the injury that inhibits her ability to travel on her own to unfamiliar places, and

(i) the best fit for this category is a Class 2 rating.

(a) the Medical Assessor assigned a Class 2 rating and said:

"Ms Wright reported that the relationship with her partner is sometimes good and sometimes she feels that she is over it. With regards to her family she said that she has six sisters and one brother, and she used to "help them more than they helped her" which is the reason why probably she did not have a close relationship with them. She always has resented her mother and had interpersonal issues with her stepdad because of being emotionally and physically abused";

(b) the descriptor for a Class 2 rating reads: "Mild impairment: Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships." The relationship she had with her family prior to her injury was not good, and there is no evidence as to how that relationship has been impacted by the injury;

(c) relevant evidence includes the Medical Assessor's reference to "she has lost interest...experiences anxiety...was unable to be with people...she has no friends and is unable to talk to people...she does not socialise with any friends at all";

(d) the appropriate rating is a Class 3 because the evidence demonstrates that her "Previously established relationships severely strained" and those with her friends are "severely strained" and there has been separation from them;

(e) her partner cares for their baby and this accords with "Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children", and

(f) this category is not limited to familial relationships and ought not to be interpreted in this limited way.in this limited way. The category is described as "social" and not familial.

1. To begin with, we note the observations of the Court in Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW) [2020] NSWCA 86 (Ballas) that conduct must be assigned to the appropriate category:

[94]: "Even if there may, as a matter of English language, be some overlap between some of the scales or categories of functional impairment, for the purposes of the WPI assessment exercise, particular conduct will fit within one or other of the scales. This calls for the correct characterisation of the conduct, ie whether it goes to 'self care and personal hygiene', 'social and recreational activities', 'travel', 'social functioning (relationships)', 'concentration, persistence and pace' or 'employability'. This does not involve an exercise of discretion. If conduct is wrongly assigned to one scale, when it should have been assigned to another, this will result in the AMS taking into account an irrelevant consideration in the context of assigning a class to each of the distinct scales. This will inevitably bear upon the calculation of the WPI which is critical for an injured worker's entitlement to compensation."

1. In this case, the appellant, in respect of both PIRS categories appealed, makes repeated references to her anxiety, and her "chronic thoughts of harming herself" as noted by the Medical Assessor, in addition to her lack of concentration.
2. In short, the appellant has "wrongly assigned to one scale, when it should have been assigned to another..."
3. We note that no appeal has been made with respect to the category of "concentration, persistence and pace."
4. The descriptor for a Class 1 rating reads: "No deficit, or minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. Can travel to new environments without supervision."
5. In short, it acknowledges that a minor deficit consistent with the variance in capacity to travel observed in the general population is not indicative of a level of impairment that requires taking as "mild". For instance it is not uncommon that people with no psychiatric disorder avoid driving in busy cities or travelling on their own at night.
6. For a Class 2 rating it reads: "Mild impairment: can travel without support person but only in a familiar area such as local shops, visiting a neighbour."
7. There is simply no evidence that the appellant is impaired as regards her ability to travel consistent with a Class 2 rating.
8. There is no evidence that the appellant is unable to "travel to new environments without supervision."
9. Paragraph 11.6 of the Guidelines, states among other matters: "Evaluation of impairment will need to take into account variations in the level of functioning over time."
10. Garling J in Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633 commented at [62] that the examples per the PIRS Tables "are generic and general in their description" and "not particularly specific" and that "the examples are not necessary to be found in each case but may, in any particular case be sufficient to support a conclusion as to the level of disability."
11. As the respondent in our view correctly pointed out:

"It is not in dispute that the Appellant is capable of driving up to one and a half hours on her own. While the Appellant refers to evidence of telehealth appointments, these appointments date from 27 October 2021 to 10 December 2022, these references are more than three years prior to the examination with MA Verma. These do not reflect the appellant's current level of functioning.

The frequency at which the Appellant is capable of driving up to one and a half hours is not a basis to assert that she is "mildly impaired" as asserted by the appellant.

There is no evidence demonstrating that her psychological injury limits her ability to travel more frequently.

The Appellant has not provided documentation or evidence indicating any inconsistency in her travel patterns, nor clarification that infrequent travel is attributable to her psychological injury, nor clarification that infrequent travel is attributable to her psychological injury.

The very fact the Appellant is capable of driving up to one and a half hours should be sufficient to show there is "no deficit or minor deficit."

1. We also note the Medical Assessor's comment that the appellant "was also not quite forthcoming about the impact of her physical injury" to her back, the subject of a workers compensation claim.
2. Again, as the respondent points out, and we agree, this injury would also likely impede her ability to travel, although if she can drive for up to one and a half hours on her own, it cannot be a terribly severe injury. The Panel has considered the appellant's ability to travel without determining that any part is due to a physical limitation.
3. As noted earlier, the Medical Assessor noted that she "no longer likes to drive due to difficulties concentrating" which the respondent points out is inconsistent with her ability to drive unsupervised for up to one and a half hours, a fact which is unchallenged.
4. We agree with these submissions.
5. For these reasons, this ground of appeal fails.

1. The descriptor for a Class 2 rating reads: "Mild impairment: Existing relationships strained. Tension and arguments with partner or close family member, loss of some friendships."
2. For a Class 3 it reads: "Moderate impairment: Previously established relationships severely strained, evidenced by periods of separation or domestic violence. Spouse, relatives or community services looking after children."
3. The appellant has been with her partner for about 12 years.
4. The relationships with her family members remained stable following her psychological injury, because, as she told the Medical Assessor, "she did not have a close relationship with them. She always has resented her mother..."
5. Clearly nothing has changed there following her injury.
6. Contrary to the appellant's submission, her past history is entirely relevant in assessing any impairment resulting from the work injury.
7. There is simply no evidence that there has been any separation from her partner.
8. We note that her baby was conceived via IVF, in itself a long and difficult process that can test the strength of relationships and she described her partner as being "supportive."
9. Once again, referring to Ballas, many of the appellant's submissions in this category relate more to the category of social and recreational activities.
10. In any event, as the Medical Assessor noted in her Table, referring to the category of self-care and personal hygiene "She said that her partner has been helping her in day-to-day chores and in taking care of the baby." It would be unusual for an available and supportive partner, two weeks after the birth of a baby planned with IVF, not to be helping in the care of the baby.
11. As noted, her partner is not working and presumably is at home quite a bit, enabling her to share such chores and taking care of the baby.
12. In addition, as the respondent correctly points out:

"The shared care of the baby does not have any implications on her social functioning in any capacity but is instead a reflection of her physical restrictions.

While she may be engaging in less social and recreational activities, there is no evidence to suggest this has remotely impacted her relationships. The Appellant maintains a relationship with her partner of 12 years and her pre-existing familial relationships have been unaffected by her psychological injury, which is indicative of its mild impact."

1. Of course one would expect diminished social and recreational activities during the course of the pregnancy, but this is a category not the subject of appeal.
2. Once again, we agree with the respondent's submission that:

"The sustained strength of her partnership spanning 12 years, along with the stability of her pre-existing familial connections, directly refutes any suggestion of significant impairment. This stability in her relationships despite the alleged psychological injury underscores that any impact on her social functioning is, at most, minimal and does not rise to the level of serious disruption as alleged. The appellant's psychological injury has not disrupted her foundational social bonds, and thus, the assessment of only mild impairment is not merely justified, it is compelling."

1. It must also be remembered that assessing each scale of functional impairment requires a "best fit" approach as opposed to a "one size fits all" model, as determined in Beatty v State of New South Wales - Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District [2021] NSWPICMP.
2. For these reasons, we see no error in the Medical Assessor's assessment in this category, and this ground of appeal also fails.
3. For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on