- Annual review
- Table A-PIC delegations-PIC Act and regulations-1 March 2021
- Table B-PIC delegations-Rules-30 April 2021
- Instrument of Delegation Judge Gerard Phillips 1 March 2021
- Instrument of Delegation Rodney Parson Tables A and B
- Instrument of Delegation Marie Johns
- Instrument of Delegation Marianne Christmann
- Table A - PIC delegations- PIC Act and Regulations - 15 April 2021
- Instrument of Delegation Judge Gerard Phillips 15 April 2021
- Instrument of Sub-Delegation dated 30 April 2021.pdf
- 2021 Legal Bulletins
- Appeal Decision Summaries
- Papers and presentations
- Personal Injury Commission News
- Procedural Direction PIC1 – Conduct of parties during proceedings
- Procedural Direction PIC2 – Determination of matters ‘on the papers'
- Procedural Direction PIC3 – Documents and late documents
- Procedural Direction PIC4 – Expert Witness Evidence
- Procedural Direction PIC5 – Schedule of Earnings
- Procedural Direction PIC6 – Medical Assessments
- Procedural Direction PIC7 – Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes
- Procedural Direction PIC9 – Production of Information and Calling of Witnesses
- Procedural Direction PIC10 – Hearings during COVID-19
- Procedural Direction WC1 – Compensation payable on death
- Procedural Direction WC2 – Interim payment directions
- Procedural Direction WC3 – Presidential appeals and questions of law
- Procedural Direction WC4 – Work injury damages
- Procedural Direction WC5 – Work Capacity Disputes
- Procedural Direction WC6 – Workplace injury management disputes
- Procedural Direction MA1 – Stood over proceedings
- Procedural Direction MA2 – Merit review
- Procedural Direction MA3 – Approval of damages settlement
- Procedural Direction MA4 – Appointed representatives
- Procedural Direction MA5 – Matters unsuitable for assessment and mandatory exemptions
- Procedural Direction MA6 – Review of a single merit review by a review panel
- Procedural Direction MA7 – Claims disputes
- Motor Accidents Division
- Workers Compensation Division
Issued 12 February 2021
The complete Arbitral and Medical Appeal Panel decisions summarised below are now available on the Commission’s website. The complete appeal decisions and judicial review decisions summarised below are available on AustLII, Jade and LexisNexis.
Reconsideration application pursuant to section 350(3) of the 1998 Act.
Decision date: 29 January 2021 | Before: Deputy President Michael Snell
Applicant was a courier driver employed by the respondent delivering pharmaceutical products; as part of the conditions of employment the applicant provided the van used to deliver the product; the applicant obtained a new van; it was part of a regular practice that the drivers would have carpet or similar non-slip material installed in the rear of the vans to ensure that the stock was not damaged during transit; the applicant injured his left shoulder when he fell out of his van having carpeted the van whilst at home outside normal work hours; Held- the injury arose out of the course of employment and to which the employment concerned was a substantial contributing factor; there was a clear practice over the years of drivers laying a suitable flooring such as carpet or rubber to ensure that stock was not damaged in transit; it was a term of the applicant’s contract that the stock be delivered in an undamaged state and the applicant was required to insure the products he was delivering; in those circumstances the work of carpeting the floor was incidental to the tasks the applicant was employed to do; Nunan v Cockatoo Island Docks & Engineering Co Ltd applied; the employment concerned was a substantial contributory factor because there were no non-work causes of the injury and the relevant activity was permitted by the respondent; Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Ltd applied; respondent ordered to pay the applicant’s medical expenses.
Decision date: 28 January 2021 | Member: Arbitrator John Harris
Claim for five weeks of no current work capacity due to psychological injury; respondent relies upon section 11A defence that injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken with respect to performance appraisal; Irwin v Director General of School Education considered; Held – action taken by respondent with respect to provision of performance appraisal was not reasonable; performance appraisal not the whole or predominant cause of injury; section 11A defence not maintained; award of weekly payments of compensation for no current work capacity for five weeks claimed by worker.
Decision date: 28 January 2021 | Member: Arbitrator John Isaken
Applicant suffered undisputed psychological injury in course of her employment; dispute was whether applicant precluded from the recovery of compensation by reason of section 11A of the 1987 Act; dispute was whether the respondent’s actions in relation to performance appraisal or discipline were reasonable; actions of respondent were found not to be reasonable; applicant not precluded from the recovery of compensation; applicant alleged she had no current work capacity which was disputed; Held - applicant found to have current work capacity of 20 hours per week; award for the applicant.
Decision date: 1 February 2021 | Member: Arbitrator Jane Peacock
Worker injured when he lifted a pot in the kitchen of a restaurant; dispute as to whether he sustained an injury to his lumbar spine as alleged and whether he had any incapacity as a result of the injury; first respondent uninsured; Held- the worker was injured performing work for the first respondent and has no capacity for work since the date of the injury.
Decision date: 2 February 2021 | Member: Arbitrator Carolyn Rimmer
Claim for weekly compensation and incurred section 60 expenses in respect of alleged psychological injury; alleged sexual assault by co-worker at social function during period of annual leave; on return to work applicant transferred to different workplace which she alleged exacerbated her psychological condition; lack of clarity around causative events relied upon; whether employment was the main contributing factor to an aggravation or exacerbation of a disease; Held – applicant sustained injury pursuant to section 4(b)(ii); partial incapacity resulted from both the non-compensable psychological condition and the compensable injury; awards for the applicant for weekly compensation and incurred section 60 expenses.
Decision date: 3 February 2021 | Member: Arbitrator Rachel Homan
Medical Appeal decisions
The appellant claimed the AMS erred in failing to make an assessment in compliance with the referral, and in making a liability finding beyond his jurisdiction; the Panel agreed; the AMS determined that a subsequent/ consequential injury was a separate injury contrary to the terms of the referral; Held - MAC revoked.
Decision date: 29 January 2021 | Panel Members: Arbitrator Deborah Moore, Dr Tommasino Mastroianni and Dr John Ashwell | Body system: Cervical spine, right upper extremity, left upper extremity and scarring.
Psychological injury; applicant submitted that the MAC did not accurately reflect his health, activities, social life and well-being because the AMS made him feel relaxed and upbeat so that he said things which were incorrect; application of Guidelines; lack of demonstrable error on the face of the MAC; Held - Pitsonis v Registrar Workers Compensation Commission and Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited considered; MAC confirmed.
Decision date: 1 February 2021 | Panel Members: Arbitrator Catherine McDonald, Dr Douglas Andrews and Dr Patrick Morris | Body system: Psychological injury
Whether assessment based on incorrect criteria; whether demonstrable error on the face of the MAC; whether one psychological injury or separate subsequent psychological injury; lack of apportionment between the injury referred and subsequent injury; Held- grounds of appeal not made out in relation to demonstrable errors on the face of the MAC and incorrect criteria; assessment carried out in terms of the Referral to the AMS; MAC confirmed; Haroun v Rail Corporation New South Wales and Greater Taree City Council v Moore considered.
Decision date: 1 February 2021 | Panel Members: Arbitrator Ross Bell, Professor Nicholas Glozier and Dr Julian Parmegiani | Body system: Psychological injury
Whether assessment based on incorrect criteria; whether demonstrable error on the face of the MAC; whether AMS erred in requiring “organic” signs of rateable disease in digestive tracts; alleged error in not accepting opinion of Associate Professor Bolin and Dr Ruppin; Held- grounds of appeal not made out in relation to demonstrable errors on the face of the MAC and incorrect criteria; use of term “organic” consistent with criteria; AMS not required to accept opinions of other assessors, but to apply their own clinical judgement; MAC confirmed; Glenn William Parker v Select Civil Pty Limited, Ferguson v State of New South Wales and NSW Police Force v Daniel Wark considered.
Decision date: 2 February 2021 | Panel Members: Arbitrator Ross Bell, Dr Neil Berry and Dr John Garvey| Body system: Lumbar spine, thoracic spine, upper digestive tract and lower digestive tract.