Publications

A recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in JTE Enterprises Pty Ltd as Mount Gibraltar Preschool v Brown [2026] NSWCA 210 provides useful guidance on an important question in workers compensation claims. That question is: when assessing permanent impairment, is the assessment limited to the particular body part originally injured, or can it extend to impairment affecting other parts of the body as a result of that injury?

The Court drew an important distinction between the injury itself and the impairment resulting from that injury.

What happened?

The worker, Ms Brown, suffered an injury to her right ankle in September 2020. She subsequently made a workers compensation claim and sought lump sum compensation for permanent impairment.

The dispute eventually concerned the extent of the impairment that could be assessed. Ms Brown’s material included a claim of impairment affecting her “right lower extremity”, as well as her lumbar spine and chronic pain condition. The employer maintained, in effect, that the assessment of the right lower extremity should be confined to the ankle.

A Medical Assessor ultimately assessed Ms Brown as having 31% whole person impairment, including impairment associated with restricted movement of her right knee. The Personal Injury Commission’s Appeal Panel confirmed the assessment. The employer challenged that outcome in the Supreme Court of NSW, but was unsuccessful, and subsequently appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal.

What was the issue before the Court of Appeal?

At the heart of the appeal was the scope of the “medical dispute” referred for assessment.

The employer contended that, because the original injury was to Ms Brown’s right ankle, assessment of her lower extremity should effectively have been limited to the ankle. Ms Brown’s position was that the medical dispute concerned impairment of the right lower extremity more broadly.

This distinction was important because an injury to one part of the body can have consequences extending beyond the precise location of the initial injury.

What did the Court decide?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s appeal.

Importantly, the Court distinguished an “injury” from the “impairment” resulting from that injury. The fact that Ms Brown had not suffered a separate injury to her knee in the original accident did not prevent impairment affecting the knee from being considered if it resulted from the compensable injury.

The Court also rejected a narrow approach to determining the scope of the medical dispute. The terms of the referral were relevant, but they were not determinative of the scope of the medical dispute. The parties’ correspondence, the worker’s application and statement, and the competing medical evidence were also relevant to identifying what was actually in dispute.

In the circumstances of this case, the medical dispute extended to impairment of the right lower extremity, rather than being confined solely to the right ankle.

Why does the decision matter?

The decision is significant for both injured workers and those responding to workers compensation claims.

Perhaps the clearest lesson is that the site of an injury and the extent of the resulting impairment are not necessarily the same thing. An injury to a particular body part may have consequences for other parts of the body, and those consequences may be relevant when permanent impairment is assessed.

The case also demonstrates the importance of clearly identifying the scope of a medical dispute. Claim forms, responses, medical reports and correspondence between the parties may all assist in determining what has actually been put in issue.

For injured workers, this means it is important that the full consequences of a workplace injury are properly identified and supported by appropriate medical evidence. For employers and insurers, it highlights the importance of carefully considering the way a permanent impairment claim is framed and responding clearly where the extent of the claimed impairment is disputed.

The takeaway

JTE Enterprises v Brown is a useful reminder that permanent impairment claims should focus not only on where the original injury occurred, but also on what lasting impairment has resulted from it.

For workers dealing with a permanent impairment assessment, or employers responding to one, getting advice early can help ensure that the true scope of the medical dispute is properly identified and that relevant medical evidence and claim documents address it clearly.

Disclosure and important note: This article is based on our own legal research and thinking. Some of its content has been drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The authors have checked and approved this article, including the AI generated content, for publication.

This article was published on 28 October 2026 by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website.