Background
Jessica Brewer, a former JB Hi-Fi retail employee, claimed permanent impairment compensation for psychiatric injury after alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker caused her to leave employment. A Personal Injury Commission medical assessor assessed her whole person impairment at 17%, after a 10% deduction for pre-existing impairment.
JB Hi-Fi appealed. The Commission’s Appeal Panel reassessed Ms Brewer at 8%, changing only the rating for self-care and personal hygiene from Class 3 to Class 2 under the applicable impairment guidelines. That change mattered because a 15% whole person impairment threshold applied to her potential claim for work injury damages.
The Court’s Holding
Elkaim AJ held that the Appeal Panel made a jurisdictional error by treating as irrelevant Ms Brewer’s belief that she could not live independently without her husband’s support. The Panel characterised that concern as a future hypothetical and assessed only her functioning while her husband was providing support.
The Court held that the belief was part of Ms Brewer’s present psychiatric condition, including her anxiety, at the time of assessment. Further, considering the absence of her husband’s support was relevant to the Class 3 criterion of inability to live independently without regular support. The error was material because taking that matter into account could realistically have affected the classification and outcome.
Key Takeaways
- Impairment guidelines binding decision-makers must be applied according to law.
- A worker’s present anxiety about functioning without existing support may be relevant to psychiatric impairment assessment.
- A classification error is reviewable where it reflects exclusion of a relevant consideration and could realistically affect the result.
Why It Matters
The Court declared the Appeal Panel’s 2025 decision void, set it aside, and remitted the matter to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for determination according to law. JB Hi-Fi was ordered to pay Ms Brewer’s costs.
The decision distinguishes non-reviewable disagreement over clinical classification from a legally material failure to consider a relevant aspect of a claimant’s condition under mandatory impairment guidelines.