New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Aids and appliances regulations

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 1997

Ricquish v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 245
Court

District Court

The appellant is not entitled to reimbursement because the regulations require prescription/assessment by a registered specialist (an ophthalmologist) not an optometrist, and the medical evidence establishes no permanent injury or long‑term disability caused by the incident; therefore the costs of the optometrist attendance and replacement lenses are not payable under the relevant regulations.
10 Jul 1997

Abraham v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 141
Court

District Court

The wall oven constitutes a 'feature' or 'adjustment to the level of a stove' and therefore a modification under the Residential Premises Regulations; the cost-effectiveness requirement in those regulations is not identical to the Aids and Appliances test and, on the evidence, the proposed modification is necessary and cost-effective in achieving additional independence and safety for the claimant; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the respondent must fund the installation.
13 Jun 1997

Wikaira v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 124
Court

District Court

Although the appellant had pre-existing osteoarthritis, the fall causing the wrist fracture directly prevented her from using walking aids she previously used; therefore the wheelchair was required as a direct result of the injury to restore her prior independence and ACC must arrange purchase of a suitable wheelchair.
22 Apr 1997

Harris v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 63
Court

District Court

The Corporation acted within its statutory discretion and reasonably in declining to fund a leather-covered lounge chair because the occupational therapist expressly found a leather covering unnecessary for the claimant to achieve independence in daily living and conversational assurances did not constitute formal approval under the regulations.
22 Aug 1995

Rawiri v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 92
Court

District Court

Damage solely to dentures does not constitute personal injury to the appellant under the 1992 Act and, independently, the 1992 Aids and Appliances Regulations exclude prosthetic devices such as dentures from payment; accordingly the respondent is not permitted to pay for repair or replacement and the appeal is dismissed.
9 May 1995

Hodgson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 52
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because under the 1992 Act social rehabilitation can only be provided as authorised by regulations; the applicable regulations limited provision of beds and required either a specialist prescription or that the bed be designed to aid treatment in a way not shown by the evidence; Professor Rothwell's report was an opinion not a prescription and the ordinary firm bed did not qualify as a bed "designed to aid treatment" under the regulations, so the Corporation correctly declined the claim.
9 May 1995

Layton v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 53
Court

District Court

The Corporation was wrong in law to treat the computer as capable of being provided only under social rehabilitation (s26) when the same multi-purpose aid could legitimately be considered under vocational rehabilitation (s22); however the assistance actually provided was sufficient to meet the social rehabilitation need, so the decision is set aside insofar as based on wrong reasoning but confirmed in effect because the subsidy compensated for the writing disability, and the Corporation must consider vocational rehabilitation under ss22-23 if the appellant seeks it and the statutory tests (ne…

New Zealand Case Law

Ricquish v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Abraham v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Wikaira v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Harris v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Rawiri v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Hodgson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Layton v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation