19 Mar 2004
The appeal is dismissed because the primary assessment and the reviewer's decision were not shown to have been reached by wrong principles; subsequent assessments indicate changing needs but do not establish that the 3 November 2000 assessment was demonstrably wrong, and it is not within the court's jurisdiction to order retrospective recalculation or substitute its own primary assessment.
5 Mar 2004
The appeal is dismissed because the July 27, 2001 decision corrected a calculation but did not reopen eligibility for earlier periods; written application requirements under the attendant care and CPI regime mean entitlement and backdating can only arise from the date of a written request (first made 4 November 1998), and the December 1994 and April 1995 assessments, unchallenged at the time, are final and cannot be revisited to create a retrospective right to 24‑hour care.
14 Jul 2000
The respondent either misdirected itself or overlooked a material matter by failing to appreciate that the Amber Environmental Control System was confined to the bedroom and could not provide house-wide temperature control; because a constant, uniform temperature throughout the house was necessary for the appellant's safety the heat pump was a necessary modification and the decision to decline funding was wrong; appeal allowed and matter remitted to respondent to reconsider.
23 Jul 1999
The Corporation's narrow interpretation was incorrect: where management of financial affairs is an essential and identified element of a claimant's complex rehabilitation programme, the costs of establishing a trust and completing an enduring power of attorney fall within the 'without limitation' scope of 'social rehabilitation' and the Corporation must meet those costs (including obligations under reg 9 to pay for preparation of the social rehabilitation element of the IRP).