9 May 2013
The oral cessation of weekly compensation, followed by written confirmation on 3 September 2012, constituted a valid decision under the Act and, on the evidence, Dr Kerr's contemporaneous specialist assessments established the appellant was no longer incapacitated as of 14 May 2012, so the cessation under s104 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
15 Sept 2000
On the medical evidence the appellant's ongoing pain was substantially caused by polyarticular inflammatory disease rather than the 1986 ankle injury; accordingly the respondent was entitled under ss10 and 73 to cease ongoing entitlements.
9 Jul 1999
The reassessment by Dr Noonan was conducted in accordance with the AMA Guide, was reviewed and validated by the respondent's medical advisor, and no evidence was adduced demonstrating methodological fault; therefore the cancellation of the Independence Allowance under the statutory threshold was correctly made and is upheld.
5 Jul 1999
On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence established that the appellant's present symptoms and incapacity are now wholly or substantially the result of a pre-existing degenerative condition, not the 16 October 1991 accident; therefore cover is excluded by s10 and the cessation under s73(1) was lawful, so the appeal is dismissed.
31 Jul 1998
The court upheld the review officer’s statutory construction: the 1992 Act governs transitioned entitlements and s.52 operates to terminate weekly compensation upon attainment of the national superannuation qualification age applicable to the claimant; the respondent’s interpretation and decision to cease payments on the statutory superannuation qualification date were correct and the appellant’s appeal fails.
5 Jun 1998
Section 142(1) did not apply to the appellant because he did not attain the superannuation qualifying age before 30 June 1997; therefore s.52 governed and the respondent lawfully ceased weekly compensation when the appellant reached his New Zealand superannuation qualification age on 24 December 1997; appeal dismissed.
29 Apr 1997
The request for a residential address was a reasonable requirement under s64(1) to facilitate rehabilitation planning; the respondent was thus entitled to cease weekly compensation under s73(2)(a) for non‑compliance, but reinstatement of payments was ordered from 2 July 1996 when the appellant should have provided the information and subsequently did so; costs were declined.
2 Aug 1996
Medical evidence did not establish that the appellant's hand condition was caused by the 16 October 1994 accident and the evidence showed the available crocheting work was within her capabilities; accordingly the respondent was entitled under s73 to cease assistance for non-compliance with the rehabilitation programme and the appellant failed to discharge the onus to show the review officer's decision was wrong.