Taylor v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT Decision No. 43 /45 AT WELLINGTON DCA No. 237/94 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to 49/ 94/ 1791. Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN LORRAINE FAY TAYLOR APPELLANT AND THE ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION RESPONDENT Heard at on: 29 March 1995 Date of Decision: 9 May 1995 Counsel: Appellant in person Mr Cleary for respondent RESERVED DECISION OF JUDGE J.H. LOVELL-SMITH The issue in this appeal is whether reimbursement of naturopathy and hellerwork treatment costs is permissible under the Act. 2. On 11 July 1989 the appellant sustained multiple injuries to her face, back, neck and foot, as a result of an assault by three women. As a result of the assault, the appellant has undergone surgery, and given antibiotic treatment. The appellant claims that the antibiotics caused her to suffer from allergies and "toxic poisons". Her facial passages have been blocked. She has also been left with ringing in her ears, and gland problems. Because the appellant is allergic to orthodox medicines, her doctor recommended her to seek help from a naturopath, Richard Rylett, and hellerwork treatments. Her back injuries required treatment from a physiotherapist and chiropractors, but the appellant felt that she was not gaining much long term relief. The naturopathy and hellerwork treatments at the Tepid Baths have helped her to "remobilise mentally and physically", and obtain pain relief of both her sinuses and her back. The appellant referred to document entitled Spectrum 1993 which described alternative therapy being used by National Health Insurance in America, and the National Poisons of America. The respondent declined the appellant's request for hellerwork and naturopathy treatments in a letter dated 30 March 1994 on the basis there was no provision in the Referred Treatment Regulations to pay for these types of treatment. Section 135(1) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation Act "the Act 1992" states:- "135. Relationship of this Act to former Acts - (1) Any person who has had a claim accepted for personal injury by accident within the meaning of the Accident Compensation Act 1972 or 3. the Accident Compensation Act 1982 suffered before the Ist day of July 1992 shall be deemed to have suffered personal injury that is covered by this Act." Section 27(1) of the Act states:- '27. Treatment and physical rehabilitation - (1) Where a person requires any treatment, service, physical rehabilitation, related transport, or certificate in respect of that person's personal injury that is covered by this Act (in this section called a 'specified service'), the Corporation shall contribute to the cost of that specified service to the extent required or permitted by regulations made under this Act." The Accident Compensation (Referred Treatment Costs) Regulations 1990 (SR 1990/242) ("Referred Treatment Cost Regulations") states:- "4. Corporation to pay certain costs - (1) Subject to these regulations, the Corporation shall pay the cost of treatment provided by a treatment provider to any claimant in respect of personal injury by accident to the extent specified in the Schedule to these regulations." Regulation 2 of the Referred Treatment Cost Regulations states:- "'Treatment provider' means an acupuncturist, chiropractor, occupational therapist, osteopath, physiotherapist, podiatrist or speech therapist." The appellant is a person who has had a claim accepted by personal injury by accident within the meaning of the Accident Compensation Act 4. 1982, and she is therefore deemed to have suffered personal injury that is covered by the Act under s. 135(1). Section 27 of the Act allows treatment in respect of that person's personal injury that is covered by the Act and the Regulations which set out the referred treatment. Mr Cleary submitted that neither hellerwork nor naturopathy treatment costs are within the scope of the Referred Treatment Cost Regulations. He contended that a provider of naturopathy or hellerwork is not a treatment provider within the defined meaning of that phrase and there are no other social rehabilitation regulations which allow for the respondent to make payment for naturopathy or hellerwork. I am in no doubt that the appellant has obtained relief from naturopathy and hellerwork, but the respondent is limited in its ability to pay by the Act and the Regulations to which it is subject. There is no provision in the Act or the Regulations to allow the respondent to make payment for naturopathy or hellerwork. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Jane H. Lovell-Smith) District Court Judge