Australia, Sept. 6 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 5:

1. In October 2021 Ms Neader, then aged 64, suffered an injury to her left knee when she twisted it while working as a manager at a retail shop which was being prepared to re-open after the Covid 19 lockdown. The injury occurred while she was lifting bags of rubbish to place into a bin. She continued to work for about half an hour, the remainder of her shift, but soon afterwards noticed developing swelling and pain in her knee.

2. Ms Neader later pursued a workers compensation claim and ultimately had a knee replacement in November 2022. She was assessed by Dr Hunt who concluded that she had suffered whole person impairment of 20%. Later Professor Miniter concluded that she had suffered 0% whole person impairment, the knee replacement not having been caused by her work. They not agreeing about the consequences of her previously asymptomatic osteoarthritis.

3. Ms Neader pursued the resulting medical dispute in the Personal Injury Commission under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). Medical Assessor Kuru concluded that she had suffered whole person impairment of 14% as the result of the knee replacement and applied a one-third deduction for her pre-existing osteoarthritis: s 323.

4. Ms Neader appealed and was referred to a Medical Appeal Panel, complaining that the Assessor had erred in considering the evidence; in the criteria applied to arrive at the deduction made; and in failing to give adequate reasons for his decision. The Panel concluded that the Assessor had erred, but it still confirmed the assessment.

5. Ms Neader now pursues judicial review of the Appeal Panel's decision, seeking orders setting aside its determination and remitting the matter to the Personal Injury Commission to be decided according to law. The grounds of review pressed are that the Panel incorrectly approached the question of whether to apply a deduction and that its reasoning was also inadequate.

Issues

6. There are no issues between the parties about the applicable law. It was AMA5 Table 17.35, which regulated how Ms Neader's total knee replacement had to be assessed and s 323 of the Act which regulated how a deduction for her pre-existing arthritic condition had to be made.

7. What is in issue is whether the Appeal Panel correctly followed the requirements of s 323, which was explained in Ryder v Sundance Bakehouse [2025] NSWSC 526. As well as whether the reasons the Panel gave were inadequate, which the defendant also disputed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19877e83e88ec2bdbc089885)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.