13 Jul 2017
The Court found no evidence that Dr Vickers misapplied the AMA4 or ACC procedures; his amended 29 May 2012 assessment was a proper reconsideration following peer review and therefore the Corporation's decision of 31 May 2012 adopting a 20% WPI was correct; appeal dismissed.
30 Nov 2016
The assessor's rating was performed pursuant to the statutory scheme (Schedule 1 clauses 57 and 59 and Regulation 4), used AMA4 and the ACC Handbook, and reasonably apportioned 10% to non-accident coronary disease based on cardiology reports; absent contrary specialist medical evidence the Court will not overturn the assessment, so the appeal is dismissed.
23 Feb 2016
The assessor's 18 October 2013 WPI assessment of 10% stands because it complied with the statutory assessment regime and prescribed assessment tool; the sensitive claim was legally excluded from assessment by virtue of the independence allowance and clause 55D(3), and the chronic pain syndrome had not been accepted as a covered injury at the time of the assessment and therefore could not be taken into account.
24 Sept 2015
The assessment was invalid because the assessor failed to assess all of the claimant's covered injuries (assessed only the treatment injury and omitted the accredited mental injury), failed to use the required assessment formats and definitions, and therefore the Corporation's decision based on that assessment must be set aside and a full re-assessment ordered; the reviewer properly exercised discretion in refusing to award costs for an overseas assessor who was not ACC accredited and who used non-mandated guidelines.
22 Jan 2003
The AMA Guides (4th ed.) Injury Model (DRE) is mandatory under Clause 60(4); the appellant’s cervicothoracic condition fits DRE Category II which prescribes a 5% whole-person impairment. The Guides do not permit assigning an intermediate percentage within that Category, therefore the assessed WPI is 5% and below the statutory 10% threshold for an independence allowance; appeal dismissed.
6 Jul 1999
The Court held the assessor conducted the required consultation under the regulations and the claimant's signature did not convert the assessment into an agreed IRP; although payments made without an approved IRP are technically unauthorised under s19(1), the respondent's discretionary assessment was not shown to be manifestly wrong and the Court will not substitute its own view, therefore the appeal is dismissed.