28 Nov 2017
The Corporation's 19 October 2016 letter was informational and did not decide cover, entitlements, delay, or make a decision under the ACC Code; therefore it was not a reviewable decision under s134(1) and the appeal must be dismissed.
31 Jul 2015
The court preferred the coherent analysis of the full CAP over the treating surgeon's reports; treating specialist evidence is not automatically preferred and, on the balance of the evidence, the appellant's rotator cuff pathology was more likely due to a gradual degenerative process and impingement rather than the covered accidents, so the Corporation was correct to decline funding.
20 Dec 2011
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not appear, could not be contacted or explain absence, and the appeal was unlikely to succeed; dismissal was authorised by s161(3)(a) of the Act.
28 Apr 2011
The respondent's decision was correct because s81(4) requires an assessment before approving specific social rehabilitation; the appellant's refusal to co-operate with the assessor meant no assessment could be completed, so putting rehabilitation on hold was lawful and the appeal is dismissed, subject to a direction that the respondent arrange a fresh assessment with at least seven days' notice and the appellant must co-operate.
11 Feb 2009
WorkAon's revocation was based on unreliable and now-discredited evidence that thoracic outlet syndrome (predicated on presumed cervical ribs) was the correct diagnosis and non-work-related; the MRI and subsequent specialist reports undermined that basis and left the evidence evenly balanced such that the revocation must be set aside and the review quashed.
1 Nov 2006
The appeal was struck out for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to appear and the respondent's application, supported by file correspondence and a prior directions order, warranted dismissal.
24 Oct 2006
Because the appellant failed to appear and did not prosecute the appeal, the court struck out the appeal for want of prosecution.