Find a decision

AMS assessed 3% WPI for cervical spine and 11% WPI for lumbar spine; 1% for effect on Activities of Daily Living assessed; applicant claimed error in assessment of the impacts of the lumbar spine injury on Activities of Daily Living and submitted it should have been assessed at 2% WPI; Panel found error established as AMS provided insufficient reasons for assessment and only considered impact on work of and not impact at home; having established error the Panel also sought submissions from the parties on the assessment of the cervical spine and assessment of left shoulder without referral; Drosd v Nominal Insurer discussed; appellant submitted assessment of cervical spine in accordance with principles in Nguyen v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW; Panel held left shoulder could not be assessed without referral, considering meaning of “matters referred for assessment” in Aircons Pty Ltd v Registar of the Workers Compensation Commission; Panel held that 3% assessment for cervical spine was without support in medical evidence; original MAC revoked; new MAC issued.

Right upper extremity injury (dislocation of the shoulder) when charged by a bull; 7% WPI assessed for shoulder; visible scar with contour defect and minimal trophic changes; appellant submitted error in application of paragraph 2.14 of the Guidelines and Table 16-27 of AMA 5 in assessing upper extremity impairment for resection arthroplasty of the distal clavicle; appellant submitted error in 1% assessment of scarring (TEMSKI); appellant submitted error in assessment of range of motion for failure to apply paragraph 2.14 of the Guidelines; Panel agreed with upper extremity impairment assessment and found no error in calculations; Panel found no error in assessment of range of motion; Panel held assessment of scarring was in accordance with best fit principle; Panel held no demonstrable error MAC confirmed

Accepted injury to right elbow; applicant claimed that right shoulder injury was either caused by same incident that produced right elbow injury or was a consequential condition of the right shoulder injury from use of sling; whether entitlement to s 60 medical expenses established; there was medical opinion that there was no shoulder injury at time of workplace incident; Arbitrator held that heavy work did have deleterious effect on right shoulder but the aggravation’s effects on need for surgery uncertain; Arbitrator had little doubt that symptoms precipitated by wearing of sling materially contributed to need for surgery, adopting language of Murphy v Ality Management; “reasonably necessary” has less stringent meaning than “absolutely necessary”: Diab v NRMA Ltd; surgery reasonably necessary to relieve symptoms of pathology; award for applicant.

incorrect criteria in application of Table 17-35, demonstrable error in not assessing score for pain, no explanation of how deductible portion determined MAC revoked

Applicant claimed injuries arose from moving heavy bucket; whether the applicant injured his right hip and groin/hernia; whether employment was a substantial or main contributing factor; whether insurer made Work Capacity Decision; applicant submitted that insurer could not simply assert letter was Work Capacity Decision: Birch v Olympic Aluminium Pty Ltd; respondent submitted that insurer letter was prima facie Work Capacity Decision under s 43(1)(d) of the 1987 Act as a decision about Pre-Injury Average Weekly Earnings; principles regarding onus of proof in Department of Education & Training v Ireland discussed and applied to absence of clinical assessment of employment causing hernia; Arbitrator held that employment main contributing factor to aggravation of pre-existing asymptomatic disease’ applying Kooragang common sense test and principles in Cant v Catholic Schools Office and Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch; Arbitrator held insurer letter was not Work Capacity Decision as it was not in conformity with SIRA Guidelines for Claiming Workers Compensation; Arbitrator held applicant had no work capacity for one period and some capacity for others; award for applicant.

Work Capacity Dispute; psychological injury; whether an interim payment direction for weekly payments should be made pursuant to Chapter 7 Part 5 Division 2 of the 1998 Act; whether the applicant’s capacity to earn in suitable employment provides her with any entitlements to weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; arbitrator noted that the last work capacity decision had a current work capacity for employment of eight hours, five days per week as an “administrative officer”; applicant’s treating psychologist opined that the applicant would benefit from returning to work; arbitrator satisfied that the applicant has capacity to undertake suitable employment; applicant’s work capacity is limited only by her inability to attend the Mr Druitt or Blacktown office; arbitrator held that the applicant’s wishes to work closer to her family does not alter the application of s 32A of the 1987 Act; applicant’s capacity to earn in the suitable employment as a case worker is most likely to be at or near her pre-injury average weekly earnings; held no entitlements to weekly compensation; held application for an interim payment direction dismissed.

significant functional component, worker given benefit of doubt, no clear history of shoulder injury as required by guides, hence no wpi MAC revoked

Appeal panel process included assessment so 3rd Ed. of WorkCover guidelines apply, MAC revoked

AMS assessed 0% wpi in relation to sexual impairment, no loss of bulbo cavernosus reflex, ADL's correct at 1% MAC confirmed

s328(3) fresh evidence, MRI conducted after AMS examination not allowed due to prejudice to Respondent, 0% correct for lumbar spine and right lower extremity. MAC revoked as assessment made by scarring contrary to referral