Thompson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate merit in challenging the Review Officer's decision on the independence allowance, and the appellant accepted the lack of merit; issues about provision of medical treatment are separate from the allowance entitlement and do not sustain the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 174
- Parties
- Appellant: Mark James Thompson; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 June 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Hearing Oral Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Independence Allowance Eligibility, Medical Misadventure, Review Officer Decision
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mark James Thompson
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Hearing Oral Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellant is entitled to an independence allowance
- 2 Whether the appeal against the Review Officer's decision has merit
- 3 Whether issues of entitlement to medical treatment are encompassed by the independence allowance appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate merit in challenging the Review Officer's decision on the independence allowance, and the appellant accepted the lack of merit; issues about provision of medical treatment are separate from the allowance entitlement and do not sustain the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD Decision No 124 / 99 AT AUCKLAND 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 BETWEEN MARK JAMES THOMPSON DCA 521/98 Appellant --- -= AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent HEARD on the 1" day of June 1999 APPEARANCES: The appellant in person Mr Tui counsel for respondent ORAL DECISION OF JUDGE JD O'DONOVAN In this appeal the appellant is challenging the decision of the Review Officer relating to his entitlement to an independence allowance. I am bound to say that having read the file and having listened this morning to the appellant the appeal would appear to be without merit. N However in the course of discussing the matter with the appellant, it has become apparent that he is probably not at all concerned with his eligibility for an independence allowance. His concern is really related to his desire to have his mouth and jaw repaired. In that regard it is apparent that the Corporation has accepted his entitlement to relief under the statute, having found that this is a case of medical misadventure based upon medical error for reasons of which I am unaware however, it seems that steps have not yet been taken to address the appellant's physical problems. These matters have of course nothing whatsoever to do with his eligibility or otherwise for an independence allowance. As I say it seems to me that the present appeal does not have merit and as a result of discussions with the appellant, it seems that he accepts that that is the case and invites me to dismiss the appeal which I do. DATED at AUCKLAND this day of June 1999 - - -- - JD O'Donovan District Court Judge A521-99doc(gm)