4 Nov 2009
Birch v Accident Compensation Corporation
- Citation
- [2009] NZACC 193
- Court
- District Court
The appellant's principal restrictions in using a vehicle are attributable to non‑covered ankylosing spondylitis and not to the covered T12 fracture; any T12‑related sitting discomfort can be remedied by provision of sympathetic ergonomic seating, which is a cost‑effective means of meeting the respondent's statutory obligations under Transport for Independence, therefore the respondent is not required to fund a replacement motor vehicle and the appeal is dismissed.