NSW Supreme Court Rejects Worker's Challenge to Psychological Impairment Rating

• The NSW Supreme Court rejected a worker's challenge to her psychological impairment rating after she declined a fresh medical examination.
• The decision highlights the importance of medical evidence in workers compensation claims and the need for claimants to carefully consider their options when challenging a psychological impairment rating.
• Declining a fresh medical examination can limit a claimant's ability to challenge a psychological impairment rating, potentially impacting eligibility for lump sum payments.

The court said it was 'difficult to establish a denial of procedural fairness' where a claimant had declined that examination.

A worker's challenge to her psychological impairment rating was rejected by the NSW Supreme Court after she declined a fresh medical examination. The decision, in Rogers v Health Services Union NSW [2026] NSWSC 941, arose from a judicial review of a medical Appeal Panel's ruling in a workers compensation claim. The worker had suffered a psychological injury due to bullying and harassment while working as a union organiser with the Health Services Union NSW (HSU). The HSU did not dispute the injury but contested her eligibility for a lump sum payment under s. 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (the Act). A key issue in the case was how a medical assessor should rate the worker's functional impairment for 'travel' under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, which has significant implications for her eligibility for a lump sum payment.

The dispute turned on the interpretation of s. 65A and s. 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), which govern workers compensation claims in NSW. The Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale is used to assess a worker's functional impairment, with different ratings corresponding to varying levels of impairment. A Class 2 rating produces a whole person impairment of 7 percent, while a Class 3 rating produces 15 percent, the minimum needed to qualify for a lump sum under s. 65A of the Act. The court's decision highlights the importance of medical evidence in workers compensation claims and the need for claimants to carefully consider their options when challenging a psychological impairment rating.

The decision has significant implications for lawyers advising clients on workers' compensation claims in NSW. The court's ruling that declining a fresh medical examination can limit a claimant's ability to challenge a psychological impairment rating means that claimants must carefully consider their options before waiving such an examination. This is particularly important when it comes to eligibility for lump sum payments, which can have a significant impact on a worker's financial situation. As a result, lawyers should be aware of the potential consequences of declining a fresh medical examination and advise their clients accordingly.

Lawyers advising clients on workers' compensation claims in NSW should be aware that declining a fresh medical examination can limit their ability to challenge a psychological impairment rating, potentially impacting eligibility for lump sum payments.

Source: Original reporting via Australasian Lawyer