New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment and reassessment

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2017

Johnson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 21
Court

District Court

The Court found that although the Corporation's original assessment and funding of a 2WD vehicle fell within its discretionary assessment framework, changed circumstances (notably the applicant's broken quad bike and subsequent accident) required a fresh reassessment. The appeal was dismissed but the Corporation was ordered to conduct a comprehensive reassessment of transport for independence needs (including access to paddocks previously reached by quad bike) and to appoint a new assessor.
30 Sept 2016

Knight v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 268
Court

District Court

The Corporation's decision was quashed because it was internally inconsistent and legally flawed: it incorrectly concluded there were no injury-related needs despite multiple assessments to the contrary, misapplied Schedule 1 clauses relied upon, and failed to consider or investigate the disposal issue (clause 22(2)(f)) by obtaining necessary evidence; the matter is remitted for reconsideration with specific regard to clauses 21 and 22 (including 22(2)(e) and (f)).
18 Dec 2015

S v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 3304

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3304
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err: the February 2009 SNA was a substantial and comprehensive specialist assessment and there was no cogent contrary specialist evidence or clear error of principle; the contested ACC decision provided flexible, compensatory night-care options that adequately addressed actual needs; the fresh evidence alleging predetermination was neither cogent nor material and was therefore excluded; accordingly ACC lawfully exercised its discretion under cl 14 and the appeal was dismissed.
26 Sept 2014

S v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 254
Court

District Court

The assessor's report did not consider whether the appellant required protection from further injury during the night period (10:30pm–6:30am) under clause 12(a)(iii); that omission is reviewable and the matter is remitted to the Corporation for a specific assessment of night-time protection and consideration of any payment under clause 14 Schedule 1; attendant care hours for personal care and cognitive assistance (clauses 12(a)(i) and (ii)) are confirmed at 94.5 hours/week.
25 Jul 2013

Rameka v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 219
Court

District Court

The Court found ACC had complied with its statutory assessment obligations by obtaining and relying on a properly qualified assessor (Ms Corby), considered relevant factors including the status of Mr George whose evidence supported treatment as a household family member, and that differences between expert assessments amounted to competing opinions insufficient to establish error of law or that the discretionary decision was plainly wrong; accordingly the reviewer's dismissal of the review was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
29 May 2003

Waaka v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 101
Court

District Court

The District Court found the local assessments (including Gillian Hogan’s 22 March 1999 report) were coherent, supported by other expert reports, and showed substantial improvement such that 35 hours/week was a reasonable exercise of the respondent’s discretion; the Head Office backdated settlement related to past periods and did not bind future entitlements; no legal error in the respondent’s exercise of discretion was demonstrated, so appeal dismissed.
18 May 1999

Lovelace v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 125
Court

District Court

Section 54A(4) permits the Corporation to carry out a reassessment for decreased impairment without a prerequisite medical certificate and subject only to the statutory frequency limitation (not more than one such reassessment in any five-year period); the reassessment in this case complied with the Act and Regulations and the reduction to a 10% whole-person impairment (and corresponding reduction in allowance) was lawful and must be confirmed.
18 Feb 1999

Miller v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 34
Court

District Court

Because the appellant was an existing recipient of an Independence Allowance when the 1996 Amendment commenced, the eye injury assessment constituted a reassessment under the transitional provision s27; therefore any increase in entitlement is effective from the date of the certificate verifying the increase (11 August 1997) and not from the earlier claim lodgement date, and the Corporation's decision to commence payment from 11 August 1997 was correct.