Langstone v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT Decision No. 134 195 HELD AT ROTORUA IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act 55 / 95 / 1045. BETWEEN GREGG LANGSTONE Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 166/95) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent HEARD on the 10th day of October 1995 APPEARANCES Appellant in person Mr T P Cleary for respondent DECISION OF JUDGE D A ONGLEY This appeal concerned a claim for assistance in acquiring a computer to enable the appellant to communicate effectively in writing. The relevant regulations are The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance (Aids and Appliances) Regulations 1992. The first schedule of the regulations deals with aids and appliances of a kind in respect of which payment may be made and the schedule includes: "(1 1) Computers and typewriters where, because of the disability, the claimant is unable to communicate effectively in writing without such aids." The appellant wants to obtain a computer so that he can undertake courses to gain skills for his vocational rehabilitation. That is a creditable objective. Even if he does - 2 - not pursue practical courses directed towards employment, it can be accepted that having the ability to compile written documents and records will promote his social rehabilitation, but closer scrutiny of the Act and regulations indicates that their intention is not so broad or generous. The purpose of social rehabilitation is stated in s 26 of the Act: 26. Social rehabilitation - (1) In order to ensure - (a) Consistency of provision of social rehabilitation; and (b) Certainty of entitlement to social rehabilitation - no provision of, or payment in respect of, social rehabilitation shall be made by the Corporation in respect of any person except as required or permitted by regulations made under this Act. (2) The objective of social rehabilitation is to restore the independence of the person that has been lost by personal injury covered by this Act. (3) Any regulations referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall apply in respect of all persons, conditions, or items that are of the same class or category. (4) In this Act, "social rehabilitation" includes, but is not limited to, - . . . .. () Provision of, or payment for, wheelchairs and any other aids and appliances likely to assist independence in daily living ..... Subsection (2) which refers to "the independence of the person that has been lost by personal injury" appears wide enough to cover the provision of a sophisticated aid to communication suitable for academic work. The power of the Corporation is expressed by subs (4)(f) to include provision for aids and appliances likely to assist independence in daily living although "social rehabilitation" can have a wider application and is not limited to the matters specified in subs (4). But provision under the regulations is expressly limited by subs (1) to those matters required or permitted by regulations made under the Act and the pre-condition that the aid or appliance must be likely to assist independence in daily living is expressed in subs (4)(f) and is even more narrowly expressed in reg 8: "8. Conditions of approval - (1) The Corporation shall not, and an exempt employer shall not be required to, approve payment for the purchase of an aid or appliance which the Corporation or exempt employer considers is not necessary for the claimant to achieve independence in daily living or is not required as a direct result of the personal injury to the claimant." The aids and appliances that the Corporation can provide are not limited to those in the first schedule but it can be seen from the schedule that the items envisaged as necessary to achieve independence in daily living are generally those assisting bodily and sensory function, not those that are likely to assist in enhancing enjoyment in life. In other words the regulations are designed to deal with the necessities of living rather than the amenities of living. Item 11 of the schedule, mentioned at the beginning of this judgment, is couched in even more restrictive terms than reg 8 because it requires that the claimant is unable to communicate effectively in writing without such aids. - 3- The need for a typewriter or computer as a necessary aid for communication must obviously vary according to the different circumstances of claimants, both as to their disabilities and their needs. The appellant is in fact able to write. He has problems with function of both arms and he can not write clearly or for any long period of time. He does not have any speech impediment so writing is not essential for ordinary daily communication. There is no evidence that he needs to use written communication for independence in daily living. His claim is based on a reasonable, but not necessary, requirement to write legibly and comfortably when pursuing courses of study. That is not a purpose that falls within reg 8 and the Corporation has acted reasonably in deciding that a computer is not necessary. The appellant's need is really better classified as a vocational need, and to that end the Corporation does have powers to support vocational rehabilitation under a rehabilitation programme. For those reasons the appeal is dismissed. In the course of submission Mr Cleary addressed the question of causation of the appellant's present symptoms. I do not need to deal with that aspect but the appellant needs to be aware that the Corporation is examining whether he qualifies for assistance of any kind. He may be well advised to obtain representation by a competent advocate or solicitor to assist him in dealing with the complex medical questions likely to arise if the Corporation withdraws cover under the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 21% day of November 1995 D A Ongley District Court Judge