Claimant T v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ROTORUA Decision No. 131 /2009 IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN TINA PERKINS (Al 53/08) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD at ROTORUA on 21 October 2008 APPEARANCES Appellant in person with Mrs A Stewart. Mr A D Barnett, Counsel for Respondent. RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] As a preliminary, I make an order under Section 160 of the Act prohibiting publication of the appellant's name or any particulars likely to lead to her identification. [2] The appellant has cover for injuries under a sensitive claim and also for injuries suffered in a motor accident in March 1993. The appellant also has cover for a treatment injury to her right eye, that injury being suffered in 1996 and in respect of which cover was granted in February 2007. [3] Over the past few years the appellant has lodged a significant number of applications for review in relation to her dealings with the respondent, and also on a 53.08 (pg) 2 significant number of occasions those review decisions have resulted in Notices of Appeal being filed with the ACC Appeals Registry. [4] Whilst it is the case that at various times the appellant has sought to question decisions made by the respondent, being decisions within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act, she has also sought to raise issues by way of review and appeal which have not been "decisions" but rather simply administrative actions on the part of the respondent in relation to her claims. ] This Court had in the past considered a number of appeals from the appellant, some of which it has recognised as bona fide appeals from decisions, and in respect of which it has made determinations. Similarly, it has issued a number of decisions determining that there was in fact no jurisdiction for the Court to consider the issue sought to be raised as the matter was not one which was within the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court as contained in Section 149 of the Act. [6] At a hearing in the District Court at Rotorua on 21 October 2008, at which the appellant was present and also supported by Mrs A Stewart, a large number of appeal files were reviewed, and where the Court indicated that each of the appeal files would be considered individually and decisions made as to whether the appeal was indeed an appeal of an issue for which the Court had jurisdiction to determine, or whether the appeal was one for which there was no jurisdiction, it not being an appeal in relation to a decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act. [7] The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant which has been accorded the Appeal Registry No. Al 53/08 relates to a review decision given on 13 December 2007, and which review decision encompassed five applications for review that the appellant had lodged, those reviews being respectively numbered 104021, 104017, 014020, 104019, and 104024. [8] Those five applications all related to letters of complaint which the appellant had lodged with the Office of the Complaints Investigator (OCI) and for which she contended she had not yet had a satisfactory response. [9] In his decision the Reviewer noted that the appellant was alleging that she had not received an acknowledgement of her complaints, and the purpose of these applications for review was her method of complaining about that fact. The Reviewer 3 correctly determined that there was no jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by the appellant, they not being "decisions" within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act, or a decision under the Code of Claimants Rights, as provided for by Section 134(1)(c). [10] The review decision was to the effect that the Reviewer had no jurisdiction to consider the five applications for review and he therefore dismissed the application. [11] In this particular case the Reviewer further noted that no costs were sought, but that in any event, he declined to award costs as he did not consider that the applications were reasonably brought. 12] As with a number of other applications for review which have been considered by this Court by way of appeal from a review decision declining jurisdiction, this present case falls into that same category. There are no grounds for appeal on the substantive issue and in relation to the matter of review costs I find that in the circumstances the Reviewer correctly exercised his discretion against the awarding of same. The matter was on the face of it clear. The review applications could not be said to have been reasonably brought as they did not relate to decisions within the meaning of the Act. [13] Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. DATED this 4" day of August 2009 M J Beattie District Court Judge