New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attendant care

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2020

LARKIN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2020] NZCA 597

Citation

[2020] NZCA 597
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the statutory text unambiguously confines grandfathered attendant care entitlements to persons actually receiving compensation at a weekly rate of $350 or more immediately before 1 July 1992; that wording cannot be read to include persons merely entitled but not receiving payments, there is no ambiguity for the court to remedy, and consequently no serious question of law for this Court to determine.
26 Nov 2019

LARKIN (by his litigation guardian Penelope Hoare) v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATON [2019] NZHC 3085

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3085
Court

High Court

The court held that s149(3) of the 1992 Act and its descendants in the 2001 Act (s374) require actual receipt of attendant care compensation at a weekly rate of $350 or more immediately before 1 July 1992; the appellant was not in actual receipt and therefore did not qualify for the extended transitional protection; there was no ambiguity justifying reading-in words to cover mere entitlement; accordingly ACC had no power under ss 374 or 376 to pay attendant care for the contested period and the appeal was dismissed.
10 Jul 2019

Fuller-Sandys v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 75
Court

District Court

There is no statutory basis under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 permitting ACC to reimburse a caregiver for time spent attending a NZSL course or for travel time; funding for the course and related items may be provided to the claimant but reimbursement of the mother's time falls outside ACC's jurisdiction, therefore the reviewer's decision and ACC's decision are upheld.
2 Jul 2019

KJ v Accident Compensation Corporation (Effect of Review Decision)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 65
Court

District Court

The Court held that the Support Needs Assessment of 18 October 2011 by Ms Tague and the ACC decisions based on it were not fundamentally flawed; the assessor reasonably reallocated oversight supervision into increased direct attendant care given the appellant's living arrangements and autonomy, and the resulting increase to 33.15 hours/week attendant care and 5.5 hours/week home help was justified. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
30 Jul 2018

Mauahara v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to attendant care)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

The Court found the Corporation's decision of 16 February 2017 (approving approximately 2.5 hours of attendant care and 4.25 hours of home help per week, totalling about seven hours) fairly reflected the appellant's identified needs for the backdated period and accordingly dismissed the appeal against that decision; the earlier 21 July 2016 decision had been quashed and was overtaken by the February decision and that appeal was also dismissed.
11 Jul 2018

Stewart v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 109
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC's decision to suspend full attendant care payments and to provide partial retention payments while the appellant was hospitalized was a lawful and reasonable exercise of ACC's powers under s117 and s68 given the information available, the hospitalization removed the immediate need for attendant care, and the partial retention addressed local workforce scarcity and risk of caregiver loss; the appeal was dismissed.
26 Jun 2018

Doidge v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care Needs)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 100
Court

District Court

The Corporation lawfully conducted a reassessment in changed circumstances; the 2015 SNA by Ms Bay identified specific night-time needs and viable options and provided adequate reasoning to justify replacing regular sleepover funding with intermittent/sporadic funded supports and family assistance; issue estoppel did not apply to preclude reassessment; consequently the Corporation's discretionary decision of 10 February 2016 reducing sleepover funding and setting attendant care at the challenged levels was not flawed and was upheld.
8 Feb 2018

P v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation - Attendant Care)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 33
Court

District Court

The District Court allowed the appeal because both ACC decisions (2 December 2013 and 13 June 2014) and the subsequent review decision were substantively flawed: ACC failed to identify and articulate clearly the claimant's pre‑injury supports and injury‑related needs, failed to reconcile conflicting clinical reports, failed to address the applicable reimbursement rate, and did not properly exercise or record its discretion under s81/84 and cl 14. The appropriate remedy is to quash the review decision, set aside the two ACC decisions and order a new comprehensive backdated assessment for 10 De…
15 Apr 2017

McKechnie v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 43
Court

District Court

The District Court concluded that the assessor's in-home needs assessment reasonably took the appellant's pain and circumstances into account, ACC properly exercised its statutory discretion under the Accident Compensation Act, there was no error of law nor failure to take relevant considerations into account, and the court should not disturb the assessor's specialist evaluation; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
26 Jan 2017

Upu v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 1
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal to the High Court is granted because the SNA reassessments failed to comply with s84 by not identifying changes in condition or circumstances since the 2007 assessment and did not adequately assess the extent to which household family members could reasonably be expected to provide care under clause 14, thereby raising arguable questions of law as to the validity of the reports and the Corporation's decision.