New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attendant care entitlement

Legal area

Court

16 May 2019

Tipelu v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Cover)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 52
Court

District Court

No admissible evidence established that a signed itemised written claim was lodged with ACC in 1997 or during the currency of the 1998 Act; therefore s357(2) is not satisfied, the 1992 Act and attendant care regulations' written-application and assessment requirements were not met, Rangiwhetu's "staple" approach does not apply absent any written claim, and the appeal is dismissed with the Corporation's and Reviewer's decisions upheld.
8 May 2017

McLay v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care ARCI Act 1992)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 57
Court

District Court

The 3 May 2011 letter was not a new reviewable decision but a confirmation of prior 1993/1995 decisions and did not accept any error or substitute a fresh decision under s390; accordingly the appellant cannot challenge attendant care entitlements for June 1993–June 1995 and the CPI Regulations do not permit retrospective payments prior to a request and agreement to a social rehabilitation programme; appeal dismissed.
21 Oct 2016

EM v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 2535

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2535
Court

High Court

The court held that EM's claim was not barred by s 317 ACA 2001 because that provision bars persons who have sustained a covered personal injury from pursuing common law damages but does not extend to third parties like EM who claim distinct financial losses; further, given clause 14(f) Schedule 1 ACA 2001 expressly requires ACC to consider disruption to household family members and given the lack of direct statutory review or appeal rights for affected family members, a private cause of action for breach of statutory duty and a novel negligence duty to a primary caregiver are not so plainly…
12 Apr 2016

Hall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

The Court dismissed the appeal because the Corporation reasonably exercised its discretion: contemporaneous and a comprehensive retrospective SNA (Ms Lewis), peer review and panel consideration supported the funded packages; there was no legal error, failure to consider relevant matters or plain wrongness; lump sum impairment reports do not displace SNAs; occupational therapist assessors were appropriately qualified under s84 and relevant definitions; therefore appellant was not entitled to 24/7 attendant care for the claimed periods.
4 Jun 2015

O'Mara v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 136
Court

District Court

The Court found ACC and the reviewer failed to take into account relevant considerations under clause 14 Schedule 1 (notably the prolonged extraordinary caregiving by the mother and partner, the claimant's increasing size and complexity of night-time seizure and oxygen management, the presence of other dependent children and the claimant's age), such that the review decision was wrong in the administrative law sense; accordingly the appeal was allowed and retrospective additional attendant carer entitlements were awarded for specified periods.
17 Nov 2014

Larkin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 311
Court

District Court

The Reviewer and ACC failed to properly take into account mandatory factors in Schedule 1 clause 14, in particular the claimant's age and the unreasonable expectation that family members provide indefinite full-time care; this was an error of law or resulted in a plainly wrong decision, so the Reviewer's decision is overturned and funding for 24 hour care is required.
20 Feb 2013

Accident Compensation Corporation v Howell

Citation

[2013] NZACC 38
Court

District Court

The District Court held the appellant's primary decision correctly exercised the statutory discretion by accounting for normal parental caregiving under Clause 14; the Reviewer erred by awarding 24/7 care without making allowances for typical parental responsibilities, therefore the review decision was quashed and the ACC primary decision of 30 March 2009 reinstated.
5 Feb 2009

Thomas-Hiddleston v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

The 29 May 2007 letter amounted to a decision capable of review because ACC elected to reconsider the specific issue of backdating attendant care to the accident date and to reassess earlier attendant care decisions on the basis of new reports; therefore the Reviewer has jurisdiction to consider backdating and past levels of attendant care and the matters are referred back to Review for resumption.
23 Jan 2008

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 8
Court

District Court

The court found that specialist evidence established ongoing cognitive and volitional impairments attributable to the appellant's covered solvent neurotoxicity rather than to discrete psychiatric episodes; the alleged post-1996 deterioration was overstated and did not break the causal link to the covered injury. Consequently the appellant is entitled to attendant care arising from the covered injury and the respondent must assess the precise quantum and make payments from 24 March 2003.
11 Sept 2006

Peni v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 215
Court

District Court

The District Court upheld the respondent's decision confirming the November 2004 assessment (127 hours 40 minutes/week) as reasonable and within the respondent's discretion; absent clear and cogent contrary evidence the court will not substitute its view, therefore the appeal is dismissed.