New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deterioration assessment

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2016

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 62
Court

District Court

The reviewer and Court correctly applied s109: the appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds in February/March 2013 that his previously determined vocational independence may have deteriorated because only short incapacity certificates and limited post‑operative notes existed; bare certificates and an advocate's email did not trigger the mandatory two‑step reassessment and retrospective entitlement is not permitted under Marfell; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
20 Dec 2012

McKenzie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 406
Court

District Court

The appeal is allowed because ACC, before issuing the 4 December 2008 vocational independence determination, failed to make reasonable and obvious enquiries of the treating surgeon which would have revealed imminent purposive surgery and rehabilitation needs; that failure made the determination premature and legally invalid, requiring it to be quashed and the matter remitted to ACC for fresh consideration.
13 Mar 2009

Holterman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 37
Court

District Court

The statutory default is that regained weekly compensation starts from the date of the determination of deterioration; an earlier start date is only justified by clear evidence of an obvious relapse or undue delay by the respondent. On the facts and medical evidence available before the respondent, no critical events justified an earlier date than that fixed by the reviewer (2 August 2006), so the appeal dismissing the request to backdate to 2000 was affirmed.

New Zealand Case Law

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

McKenzie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Holterman v Accident Compensation Corporation