Singh v Diebold Nixdorf Australia Pty Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 484
Key takeaways
This Medical Appeal Panel (MAP) decision confirms that when a Medical Assessor (MA) who is tasked with assessing whole person impairment (WPI) proceeds to make findings as to the existence of an injury, they fall into error.
Brief facts
The worker sustained an injury to the lumbar spine on 11 April 2022 during the course of his employment with the respondent. He later developed consequential cauda equina syndrome as a result of his initial lumbar spine injury.
The worker lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (PIC), claiming lump sum compensation with respect to injury to the lumbar spine and consequential injuries to the urinary and reproductive systems (cauda equina).
The matter was then referred to MA Rob Kuru to assess WPI of the lumbar spine and cauda equina. The MA issued his Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 25 March 2026. Notably, the MA declined to assess impairment for cauda equina on the basis he did not believe the worker satisfied the criteria on assessment.
On 22 April 2026, the worker lodged an appeal against that MAC under s327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, on the grounds that:
The crux of the worker’s appeal was that the MA had fallen into error when he impermissibly found there was no cauda equina injury at all, contrary to the PIC’s earlier findings.
Judgment
The MAP accepted the worker’s submission, finding that the MA had exceeded his statutory task by revisiting and rejecting the existence of the cauda equina injury rather than confining himself to assessing WPI resulting from that injury which the PIC had already determined to exist.
Having found error, the MAP proceeded to assess the cauda equina impairment, resulting in a finding of 5% WPI in respect of the urological system and 5% WPI in respect of the sexual system.
Implications
This decision is a reminder that once it has been determined that a worker has sustained a particular injury, which is then referred to an MA for assessment, the MA conducting the subsequent WPI assessment is not at liberty to agitate that question of injury.
The MA's function on a WPI referral is confined to quantifying impairment consistently with the injury as found by the PIC. It is not to reassess whether the injury occurred in the first place.
This decision further reiterates the importance of clarity within the MA referral so that the MA is given distinct referral parameters that reflect the medical dispute between the parties. In the event the MA declines to assess impairment for a referred body part (rather than finding nil impairment), they will have fallen into error