DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL	
	
CITATION:	Pusell v Seek Learning Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPICMP 459	
		
APPELLANT:	Rodney Malcolm Pusell	
		
RESPONDENT:	Seek Learning Pty Ltd	
		
Appeal Panel		
		
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas	
		
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews	
		
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Nicholas Glozier	
		
DATE OF DECISION:	18 September 2023	
		
CATCHWORDS: 	wORKERS cOMPENSATION - Assessment of permanent impairment of appellant resulting from psychological injury; appellant submitted that Medical Assessor (MA) erred and applied incorrect criteria with respect to the MA’s ratings in psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) categories of social and recreational activities, travel, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace; Appeal Panel found that it was open to the MA to rate the appellant’s impairment as he did in all the PIRS categories except social and recreational activities; Appeal Panel found error in MA’s rating of appellant’s impairment in social and recreational activities; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

  	

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL
1.	On 8 June 2023 Rodney Malcolm Pusell, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by 
 Dr Michael Hong, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 15 May 2023.
2.	The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (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 (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). 
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6.	The appellant commenced employment as a sales consultant with Seek Learning Pty Ltd on 16 June 2008.  His last day at work was on 8 January 2018.  Due to events that occurred in his workplace from 2012 until his employment ceased, he suffered a psychological injury.  
7.	Consultant psychiatrist Dr Selwyn Smith, at the request of the appellant’s solicitors, examined the appellant on 27 August 2020.  On 8 September 2020 Dr Smith wrote to the appellant’s solicitors advising them, amongst other things, that he assessed the appellant had 21% whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from his injury.  On 25 September 2020, the appellant’s solicitors wrote to the respondent’s insurer advising it that the appellant claimed compensation from it in the amount of $53,810 under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for 21% WPI from his injury.  
8.	The respondent’s solicitors then arranged for the appellant to be examined by consultant psychiatrist and psychologist Dr Phillip Brown on 17 February 2021.  In a report dated 
18 March 2021 Dr Brown advised the respondent’s solicitors that he assessed that appellant had 7% WPI from his work related psychological injury.  
9.	The insurer by letter dated 14 April 2021 then notified the appellant under s 78 of the 1998 Act that it disputed he was entitled to compensation under s 66.  It advised him in that notice that its reason for disputing his claim for compensation was that he did not exceed the threshold of 15% permanent impairment required by s 65A(3) of the 1987 Act for him to be entitled to compensation under s 66 of the 1987 Act for permanent impairment from a psychological injury.  It made apparent to the appellant that in coming to that decision it relied upon the report of Dr Brown.
10.	The appellant then initiated proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission), by filing an Application to Resolve a Dispute dated 22 April 2021, seeking determination of his disputed claim for compensation under s 66 of the 1987 Act.  
11.	The medical dispute between the parties relating to the degree of the appellant’s permanent impairment from his injury was referred to the Medical Assessor to assess.  In a MAC the Medical Assessor issued on 21 February 2022 the Medical Assessor certified that the degree of the appellant’s permanent impairment was not fully ascertainable.  It is apparent that as a consequence of that the Medical Assessor declined, pursuant to s 322(4) of the 1998 Act, to assess the degree of the permanent impairment of the appellant.
12.	Following the appellant’s solicitors writing to the Commission on 22 December 2022 seeking that the matter be “relisted for referral”, the matter was again referred to the Medical Assessor on 3 February 2023.  The Medical Assessor examined the appellant on 
5 May 2023 by video and, as noted earlier, issued the MAC on 15 May 2023.  In that he certified he assessed the degree of the appellant’s permanent impairment from his psychological injury to be 17% WPI.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
13.	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.
14.	As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination.  This is because the information that is before the Appeal Panel is sufficient for the Appeal Panel to deal with the appeal.
15.	In the form prescribed by the Commission by which the appellant made his appeal against the MAC, the appellant indicated in the part of that document titled “supporting documentation” that he did not seek leave to rely on the availability of additional relevant information in support of his appeal.  Nor did the appellant within his written submissions in support of his appeal make any submissions regarding whether the Appeal Panel should receive into evidence further evidence.   Nevertheless, attached to his submissions he made in support of his appeal was a statement he signed on 7 June 2023.  Because the appellant’s statement was attached to his submissions, the Appeal Panel assumes that he seeks the Appeal Panel receive that statement into evidence.
16.	Section 328(3) of the 1998 Act provides that evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to a medical assessment appealed against may not be given on an appeal by a party unless the evidence was not available to the party before the medical assessment and could not reasonably have been obtained by the party before that medical assessment.
17.	In his statement of 7 June 2023, the appellant repeats some parts of the reasons the Medical Assessor provided for his ratings of the appellant’s impairment in various categories of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS).  The appellant also recounts what he has said in earlier statements.  He also provides more details of his functioning in several of the PIRS categories.  He opines what rating the Medical Assessor ought to have made in those categories.  
18.	Insofar as the appellant in his further statement describes his ability to function in the various PIRS categories, or repeats what he has previously said in prior statements, his statement is not fresh evidence such that the Appeal Panel can receive it pursuant to s 328(3).
19.	Insofar as the appellant provides his view his statement of 7 June 2023 as to how the Medical Assessor ought to have rated his impairment in the various PIRS categories, his evidence has no probative value.  This is because the appellant has no clinical expertise so as to qualify him to assess what his impairment is.  The Appeal Panel has a discretion not to receive evidence, even if the evidence is fresh evidence, and as a matter of discretion the Appeal Panel declines to accept the appellant’s further statement insofar as it relates to his opinion as to how his impairment ought to have assessed.  
EVIDENCE
20.	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.  
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
21.	The appellant’s appeal relates to the Medical Assessor’s assessment of his impairment in the PIRS categories of social and recreational activities, Travel, Social Functioning, and Concentration, Persistence and Pace. 
22.	The history the Medical Assessor obtained relevant to his assessment in those categories included that the appellant previously had a period of separation from his wife and daughter for a period of about two weeks after they had an argument.  The Medical Assessor noted that when he most recently examined the appellant he reported that he lives with his wife under the same roof but they are separated and have been for nine or ten months.  The appellant reported to the Medical Assessor that he sleeps on the lounge.  The Medical  Assessor noted that the appellant no longer cares about what is happening with his wife and their daughter.  The Medical Assessor note that the appellant and his wife stay together for financial reasons.  The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant’s wife and their daughter recently went to Queensland for 10 days and that the appellant did not go with them.
23.	The Medical Assessor’s history included that the appellant does not care about life and does not want to see anybody and just wants to be alone.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant does not want to go out, other than going to his work.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant watches Netflix when he is at home and does nothing else.  
24.	The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant has one friend with whom he has regular contact and who might visit him twice a week.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant mows his friend’s lawn and they talk on the phone.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant also has a school friend whom he texts every week. The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant also talks to his brother in Wollongong.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant has three brothers and two sisters whom he does not see and who do not visit him.
25.	The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant, subsequent to ceasing work with the respondent, purchased a lawn mowing business that required him to mow 60 lawns.  The Medical Assessor noted that at the time he first examined the appellant the appellant had lost 17 clients due to inclement weather and the appellant’s ability to work only restricted hours.  The Medical Assessor noted that by the time of his examination of the appellant on 
5 March 2023 the appellant had lost half of his clients since he last examined the appellant.  
26.	The Medical Assessor noted that at the time he first examined the appellant the appellant had not completed his tax returns for two or three years but by the time he examined the appellant again on 5 March 2023 the appellant had “caught up with his taxes”.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant spent four or five hours at the end of the week using a software package called Reckon1, which is similar to MYOB, to generate invoices and to populate his BAS statements with the necessary detail.  The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant took four to five hours using this software to get seven or eight jobs entered and invoiced.  
27.	The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant said in a statement that when working he reads the Daily Telegraph or Sydney Morning Herald, but that he cannot follow complex instructions or operating manuals, and cannot make repairs to the motor vehicle, or type long documents now.  The Appeal Panel observes that the statement to which the Medical Assessor referred is a statement the appellant signed on 21 December 2022 and that what the appellant said was that, “When I was working, I would read the Daily Telegraph or the Sydney Morning Herald every day”.  When considered in context, the appellant was referring to what he did when working with the respondent, not what he does now.
28.	The Medical Assessor recorded that the appellant travelled from Cronulla to Wollongong for the purposes of his lawn mowing business.  The Medical Assessor also noted that the appellant drove within the Sutherland Shire for the purpose of his lawn mowing business.  The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant had reported to Dr Smith that when he drives between Wollongong and Cronulla he experiences irritability and road rage but when examined by Dr Brown the appellant reported that he no longer has road rage incidents.  The Medical Assessor also noted that the appellant reported to Dr Brown that if he was not working he would not travel at all.
29.	The Medical Assessor noted from his examination of the appellant on 5 March 2023 that there was no latency in the appellant’s replies but the appellant looked tired and lacked vigour and took a break at one point.
30.	The Medical Assessor completed the PIRS rating form within the MAC, in which the Medical Assessor detailed and explained his ratings of the appellant’s impairment in the several PIRS categories.  They were:
Self care and personal hygiene
	3	Mr Pusell's weight fluctuated and lost around 2kg after
my last assessment. He skips meals and does not
shower daily and does not care about his hygiene or
appearance. He needs prompting with his self-care and
personal hygiene. His dental problems and physical problems are not assessable in the PIRS.	
Social and recreational activities	3	He used to have an active social life and went out with
his friends regularly.
He has no social recreational activities now.
He does not eat out with his friends or go to barbeques,
surf, go to clubs or go fishing. He occasionally has a visitor.	
Travel	1	Mr Pusell is anxious when out and can go everywhere
on his own.
There is no deficit otherwise minor deficit, attributable to the normal variation in the general population.	
Social functioning	3	Mr Pusell's relationship with his partner deteriorated and they essentially separated.
He is anxious and socially avoidant, and ceased contact
with most of his friends and avoids contact with his
siblings too.
There is no domestic violence.	
Concentration, persistence and pace	2	Mr Pusell described having poor concentration.
He can focus on using Recon 1 software to generate
invoices and BAS related tasks. He can focus on
intellectually demanding tasks for more than 30 minutes, but his overall concentration and pace are impaired. His mental state examination is consistent with 2.	
Employability	4	He remains productive in a low-stress role, less than 20 hours per fortnight with erratic attendance and pace.	

31.	No issue has been raised with the Medical Assessor’s rating for the PIRS categories of self care and personal hygiene, and employability.
32.	The Medical Assessor noted that the medium of his scores is 3 and the aggregate of his scores is 16, which converts to 17% WPI.  The Medical Assessor made no adjustments for the effects of treatment.
SUBMISSIONS
33.	Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel. 
34.	In summary, the appellant submitted, with respect to the Medical Assessor’s rating of his impairment in the PIRS category of social and recreational activities, that the Medical Assessor ought to have rated his impairment as Class 5.  The appellant noted that he had been separated from his wife for nine to ten months and no longer cared about what happens to his wife or their 13-year-old daughter.  The appellant noted that he tolerates his wife and child.  The appellant noted that he has contact twice a week with a close friend.  The appellant noted that he talks with his brother in Wollongong.  The appellant observed that the Medical Assessor recorded that he does not care about his life and does not want to see anybody and just wants to be alone and that he only goes out of his house for work and that when at home he only watches Netflix.  
35.	With respect to the Medical Assessor’s rating of his impairment in travel, the appellant contended, in substance, that “travel”, in the context of assessing impairment, relates to the normal day to day travel such as leaving home and travelling to familiar places.  The appellant noted that if he was not working he would not travel.  The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor should have concluded that he had a moderate or severe impairment with travel.  
36.	The appellant submitted that with respect to the Medical Assessor’s rating of his impairment in social functioning the Medical Assessor ought to have rated his impairment as Class 4.  The appellant observed that he is separated from his wife and only has a couple of friends.  The appellant noted that he does not care about life and does not want to see anyone and just wants to be alone.  The appellant noted that his symptoms include low self esteem, fleeting recurrent suicidal thoughts, being anxious and irritable and remaining disengaged from social commitments.  
37.	The appellant submitted with respect to the Medical Assessor’s assessment of his impairment in the category of concentration, persistence and pace that the Medical Assessor ought to have rated his impairment as Class 3 or Class 4.  The appellant noted that the Medical Assessor recorded that he read the Daily Telegraph or Sydney Morning Herald.  The appellant submitted that this conclusion was not supported by the evidence.  The appellant noted that his statement of 21 December 2022 was that he would read the Daily Telegraph or Sydney Morning Herald when he was working.  
38.	The appellant submitted that he was an intellectual person but now does computer work that is similar to a child in kindergarten operating a computer.  The appellant submitted that taking four to five hours to enter seven or eight jobs into a software package is more than a mild impairment.
39.	In reply, the respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was entitled to arrive at the conclusions he did and rate the impairments of the appellant in the various PIRS categories the appellant has challenged as he did based on the history he recorded in the MAC.   
FINDINGS AND REASONS 
40.	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. 
41.	In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons.
42.	An assessment of a worker’s impairment resulting from a psychiatric injury is, in accordance with cls 11.11 and 11.12 of the Guidelines, done by reference to the effect a worker’s injury has in six categories of activity and function. Together these comprise the PIRS. For each category a Medical Assessor must classify a worker’s impairment as either no impairment, minor impairment, mild impairment, moderate impairment, severe impairment or total impairment. A Medical Assessor is required to allocate a score for each category with 1 being no impairment through to 5 which is total impairment. 
43.	A Medical Assessor when rating a worker’s impairment in a PIRS category must rate the worker’s impairment at the time the assessment is done.  The assessment must be based on the information available to the Medical Assessor at that time.  That information will include the history the Medical Assessor obtains at the time of assessment, and the Medical Assessor’s clinical observations of the worker.  The Medical Assessor is entitled to give pre-eminence to his or her clinical observation, over the observations of other clinicians, when rating the worker’s impairment.  
44.	Clause 11.12 of the Guidelines includes a table for each of the PIRS categories in which examples are provided of how a worker’s injury may affect a worker’s capacity in the category of function or behaviour to which the table relates.  Clause 11.12 stipulates that “the examples of activities are examples only”. Hence, the examples are intended to provide guidance or assistance to a Medical Assessor in the task of rating a worker’s impairment in the relevant category. They are not prescriptive. What is important is the Medical Assessor’s evaluation of the material available to the Medical Assessor, that is the exercise by the Medical Assessor of his or her clinical expertise and judgement to determine whether the worker has no, mild, moderate, severe or total impairment in the particular activity or function.  
45.	What all that means, is that to establish that a Medical Assessor has rated a worker’s impairment incorrectly in a PIRS category, difference of opinion on the subject matter is not sufficient.  For an Appeal Panel to find error in a Medical Assessor’s rating, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that it was not open to the Medical Assessor, based on the material before the Medical Assessor, which, as said, includes the history the Medical Assessor obtained and the Medical Assessor’s findings based on observation of the worker, to rate the worker’s impairment as he or she did. There must be error in the Medical Assessor’s evaluation of the material in order that the Appeal Panel can find a Medical Assessor erred with respect to the rating.    
46.	The Appeal Panel considers that there is no error in the Medical Assessor’s ratings of the appellant’s impairment in the PIRS categories of travel, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace.  The Medical Assessor considered all of the relevant material before him and detailed that material in the MAC.  The reasons he provided in the PIRS rating form shows no error, in the Appeal Panel’s view in how he evaluated that material to make the ratings he did.  
47.	With respect to travel, the Medical Assessor noted that the appellant was anxious when travelling but is able to go anywhere on his own.  The Medical Assessor recorded in the MAC that the appellant travels from the Sutherland Shire to Wollongong for the purpose of his work.  The Medical Assessor noted that when Dr Smith examined the appellant in September 2020 the appellant reported experiencing road rage and irritability when travelling, but when examined by Dr Brown in March 2021, he no longer exhibited that behaviour.  What this demonstrates, in the Appeal Panel’s view, is as the Medical Assessor found, whatever deficit the appellant has with respect to travel falls within what would be a normal variation in the general population.  The fact that he can travel anywhere on his own although with some anxiety, and regularly travels within the Sutherland Shire and to Wollongong indicates to the Appeal Panel that the appellant’s impairment in travel is minor at best.  The Appeal Panel  notes that the appellant does not need a support person in order to travel.  The Appeal Panel discerns no error in the MAC with respect to how the Medical Assessor evaluated the material before him.  Simply put, it was open to the Medical Assessor to rate the appellant’s impairment in this category as he did.  The fact that the appellant is only travelling for the purpose of work is irrelevant, in the Appeal Panel’s view.  The purpose for which a worker is travelling is not germane. What is relevant is the capability of a worker to travel for whatever purpose.
48.	The Appeal Panel also considers that it was open to the Medical Assessor to rate the appellant’s impairment in the category of social functioning as Class 3.  The examples provided for a Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 impairment in Table 11.4 of the Guidelines, which relates to the PIRS category of social functioning, are:
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. 	
Class 4	Severe impairment: unable to form or sustain long term relationships. Pre-existing relationships ended (eg lost partner, close friends). Unable to care for dependants (eg own children, elderly parent). 	
49.	The material before the Medical Assessor reveals, in the Appeal Panel’s view, that the appellant’s functioning within this category best correlates with examples provided for a Class 3 impairment. The Appeal Panel observes that the appellant has been able to maintain relationships with two friends, one of whom he sees regularly. The evidence does not support a finding that the appellant is incapable of caring for his child.  The appellant is separated from his wife, but they remain living under the one roof.  There is no evidence of domestic violence. The Appeal Panel is of the view that it would be wrong to rate the appellant’s impairment as class 4, that is a severe impairment.  The reasons the Medical Assessor provided in the MAC support his rating of the appellant’s impairment in this category as being class 3.  The Appeal Panel discerns no error in the MAC with how the Medical Assessor has evaluated the material before him, by rating the appellant’s impairment in this category as Class 3.  His reasons support his rating.
50.	The examples provided in Table 11.5 of the Guidelines, which relates to the PIRS category of concentration, persistence and pace for a Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 impairment are:
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. 
	
Class 4	Severe impairment: can only read a few lines before losing concentration. Difficulties following simple instructions. Concentration deficits obvious even during brief conversation. Unable to live alone, or needs regular assistance from relatives or community services 
	
51.	The Medical Assessor’s rating of the appellant’s impairment in this category was based on the appellant being able to use a software package for more than 30 minutes to generate invoices and BAS statements.  The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant reported having poor concentration.  The Medical Assessor noted that the appellant’s overall concentration and pace was impaired.  The Appeal Panel also observes that during the Medical Assessor’s examination of the appellant on 5 March 2023 the Medical Assessor found that there was no latency in the appellant’s replies.  Again the Appeal Panel considers that it was open to the Medical Assessor for the reasons he provided to rate the appellant’s impairment in this category as Class 2.  In the Appeal Panel’s view what the Medical Assessor set out in the PIRS table correlates best with the examples provided in Class 2 and not with the examples provided for Class 3 or Class 4 which is what the appellant submitted his impairment ought to be rated for this category.  
52.	The Appeal Panel observes that within the body of the MAC the Medical Assessor concluded that the appellant currently reads the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph, but that is not what the appellant said in his statement.  Irrespective of that, given that the appellant has the ability to use software to generate invoices and prepare BAS statements and bearing in mind that there was no latency in his replies during examination, the Medical Assessor did not err in his evaluation of the material to rate the appellant’s impairment in this category as Class 2.  The fact that the appellant is able to enter data into a software package so as to generate an invoice and prepare BAS statements indicates, in the Appeal Panel’s view, that he is able to complete instructions.  The Appeal Panel does not accept the appellant’s submission that what he does is similar to what a child in kindergarten does when operating a computer.  What he does involves gathering detail relating to the work he has done and entering it into a software system and then using that system to issue invoices and complete BAS forms.  In the Appeal Panel’s view that requires some intellectual rigour.  Ultimately, the Appeal Panel considers, to repeat, that it was open to the Medical Assessor on the material before him to rate the appellant’s impairment in this category as he did.
53.	The Appeal Panel considers however that the Medical Assessor did err with his rating of the appellant’s impairment in the category of social and recreational activities.  The Medical Assessor noted within the PIRS form that the appellant “has no social or recreational activities now”.  That does not support a rating of Class 3, that is a moderate impairment.  The Appeal Panel notes that the appellant only sees one friend and that the only thing he does with this friend is mow his lawn, which is not a recreational or social activity, and exchanges texts only with another friend, and only speaks by telephone with one of his siblings.  The appellant’s only recreational activity is watching Netflix at home, an activity with no social component.  The Appeal Panel considers a proper evaluation of those facts compels a finding that the appellant has a severe impairment in the category of social and recreational activities.  Consequently, the Medical Assessor was wrong not to assess the appellant’s impairment in this category as such.
54.	Given that the Appeal Panel finds that the MAC contains a demonstrable error.  The Appeal Panel accordingly must correct that error.  The Appeal Panel rates the appellant’s impairment in the category of social and recreational activities as Class 4, that is a severe impairment.  
55.	That means that the aggregate of the appellant’s scores is 17 while the medium class remains 3.  In accordance with Table 11.7 of the Guidelines that correlates with 19% WPI.
56.	For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on 15 May 2023 should be revoked, and a new MAC should be issued.  The new certificate is attached to this statement of reasons.

 

PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
APPEAL PANEL
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE
Injuries received after 1 January 2002

Matter number:	W1180/21	
Applicant:	Rodney Malcolm Pusell	
Respondent:	Seek Learning Pty Ltd	

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 Michael Hong and issues this new Medical Assessment Certificate as to the matters set out in the Table below:
Table - whole person impairment (WPI) 
Body Part or system	Date of Injury	Chapter,
page and paragraph number in WorkCover Guides 	Chapter, page, paragraph, figure and table numbers in AMA 5 Guides
	% WPI 	Proportion of permanent impairment due to pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition	Sub-total/s % WPI (after any deductions in column 6)	
Psychological	20/02/2018	Chapter 11		19%	-
	19%	

Total % WPI (the Combined Table values of all sub-totals)                          
	
19%