19 Apr 2016
Where an ACC accredited assessor has produced an AMA-guides-based impairment assessment, the assessment must stand unless the appellant furnishes clear and cogent evidence demonstrating a flaw or overlooked material factor; the appellant failed to do so and the assessment of 6% whole person impairment was accepted.
2 Feb 2016
The court found the assessor's apportionment was rational and supported by expert analysis and peer review; substantial overlap existed between the physical and mental functional impairments so duplication must be avoided; no contrary expert evidence demonstrated a material flaw, therefore the assessment and resultant combined WPI stood and the appeal was dismissed.
14 Oct 2014
Because no competing expert opinion was produced and the assessor's report was shown to apply the AMA Guides and the ACC User Handbook with confirmation by peer review, the Court concluded the 26% WPI rating was properly calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 and the Act and dismissed the appeal.
20 Dec 2013
The appeal is dismissed because the assessor applied the prescribed assessment tools (AMA Guides) in a manner consistent with the records and peer review, pain was considered within the nerve injury rating, and the appellant produced no expert evidence or self-evident error to overturn the 14% WPI assessment.
4 Oct 2013
The assessor correctly applied s60 of the 1998 Act and the AMA Guides by determining an overall mental WPI of 25% and then excluding impairment attributable to non-covered factors after considered apportionment (10%), leaving a 15% covered WPI; the medical evidence (Fenwicke, supported by Pavagada and Collier) sufficiently identified causation and justified the deduction, so the respondent's decision was properly confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
4 Oct 2011
Accepted expert assessments (Mr Titchener and Dr Harman) applying the AMA Guides established that the appellant's New Zealand work-related contribution equated to a 6% Whole Person Impairment; subsequent deterioration was found to be age-related and excluded from the work-related percentage, therefore WPI attributable to the covered injury was below the 10% threshold and no Independence Allowance was payable.
15 Jul 2011
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to provide credible, compelling expert evidence demonstrating that Dr Collier's AMA4-based impairment assessment was flawed or failed to take into account relevant factors; ACC followed the statutory/regulatory assessment process and the assessment was peer reviewed and reliable.
18 May 2011
The assessment by the appointed assessor complied with the statutory methodology (AMA4 and ACC User Handbook), was supported by peer review, and there was no clear and compelling medical evidence demonstrating error; because the assessed impairment was below the statutory 10% threshold for lump sum payment, the appeal was dismissed.
3 Aug 2010
The appellant only had cover for a lumbosacral sprain/strain; the accredited assessor properly applied the AMA Guides and assessed a 5% Whole Person Impairment which is below the statutory 10% minimum for lump sum entitlement; there was no contrary medical evidence and the Court may not extend cover to unaccepted injuries, therefore the decision to decline lump sum was correct.
22 Aug 2008
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the ACC-appointed assessor's March/April 2006 WPI assessment was wrong or procedurally defective; later medical opinions post-dating that assessment indicate deterioration rather than error and therefore do not overturn the decision. The appeal is dismissed, but the later evidence shows a likely increase in permanent impairment and a certificate should be obtained for a further WPI assessment following a specialist or multidisciplinary pain assessment.