Mountford v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 114 /99 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ROBERT SPARK MOUNTFORD of Huntly Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 290/98) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT The appellant has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of His Honour Judge M J Beattie, delivered on 21 December 1998, under number 278/98. The issue before the Court in that appeal was whether the appellant was entitled to an additional award under section 79 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 because he claimed to have suffered a deterioration by way of pain and suffering as a result of his hearing loss. The appellant received a lump sum award of $5,000 in September 1987 but did not apply for a review of that decision. In March 1998 the appellant made a further application to the respondent for an additional lump sum award because he claimed to have suffered an increase in pain arising out of his hearing problems. When that application was declined by the respondent the appellant applied for a review of that decision. 2 In a decision issued on 1 July 1998 the Review Officer carefully analysed the legal position, particularly having regard to the fact that the Accident Compensation Act 1982 had been revoked by the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992. The Review Officer set out the relevant passages from the legislation as a result of which she advised the appellant that the only avenue then open to him would have been an application for an independence allowance under the 1992 Act. When the matter came before His Honour Judge Beattie, the appellant gave evidence in which he stated that he had suffered a deterioration in his hearing with constant ringing in his ear and interrupted sleep. He considered that the lump sum award previously made to him was inadequate. Judge Beattie referred to the provisions of the 1992 Act. The Judge found that by virtue of the 1992 Act there was no power by which the respondent could reconsider the amount of the lump sum award made under the 1982 Act. He therefore upheld the decision of the Review Officer. The question of an appeal to the High Court is governed by section 97(1) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 under which the appellant must demonstrate that the decision of the Court was erroneous in point of law. The appellant's application is based on the fact that since the original award was made he has suffered continuous and increasing pain, all of which was considered by both the Review Officer and His Honour Judge Beattie in reaching their respective decisions. I do not consider that there is any question of law raised by the appellant which warrants a grant of leave to appeal to the High Court. The application is declined. DATED at WELLINGTON this S day of May 1999 bullwadelon A W Middleton District Court Judge dca290-98.doc (nr)