New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disability assessment

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2000

Monks v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 209
Court

District Court

The approved assessor's AMA Guides assessment yielded 13% Whole Person Impairment which, after deducting the 21.75% used to calculate the prior lump sum, left no positive impairment; absent compelling contrary expert medical evidence the court must accept the assessor's objective evaluation and therefore the appellant no longer met the statutory threshold for an Independence Allowance, so the respondent's cancellation was upheld.
11 Jul 2000

Hunter v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 162
Court

District Court

The authorised assessor’s application of the AMA (4th Ed) produced a 19% whole-person impairment, after deducting the previously compensated 10% the residual was 9%, below the statutory 10% threshold for an Independence Allowance; because the assessment was properly made by a duly authorised medical assessor the Court must uphold it and dismiss the appeal.
20 Nov 1997

Mulder v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 235
Court

District Court

The reassessments, properly carried out under the Regulations, produced disability scores that translated to a degree of disability below the statutory 10% threshold, removing entitlement to an independence allowance; because the Regulations prescribe a mathematical assessment method, the Court had no discretion to override the result and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Oct 1996

Sweetman v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 109
Court

District Court

The appellant's reassessment produced a disability score of 10.7 which, under the Second Schedule mapping, equates to a percentage disability within the 0-9 range and therefore falls below the 10% threshold in s54; the assessment and calculation complied with the Regulations and no procedural unfairness or incorrect calculation was alleged, so the appellant is not entitled to an independence allowance and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Sept 1996

Svenson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 72
Court

District Court

The prescribed questionnaire and arithmetic scoring under the Independence Allowance Assessment Regulations 1993 were correctly applied, the appellant's answers were properly recorded, no clerical or arithmetic error was shown, and therefore the reassessment reducing the disability score to 6.7 (below the 10% threshold) was lawfully made; the appeal is dismissed.
21 Dec 1995

Allen v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

(1995) 1 BACR 155
Court

District Court

Section 54(14) is to be given its plain meaning: the person's disability assessed under s.54(5) is to be reduced by the percentage(s) of permanent loss or impairment on which earlier lump sum payments were based; mathematically this requires reducing the current assessed percentage by that prior percentage (multiplicative reduction), producing 19% reduced by 18.75% = 15.4375%, which entitles the appellant to an independence allowance.
20 Mar 1995

Barr v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 31
Court

District Court

The District Court held the assessment was conducted in accordance with the statutory and regulatory procedure and the calculations were correct; the appellant's complaints about the instrument and choice of assessor did not show error sufficient to set aside the assessment, but under s54(12) the appellant is entitled to reassessment at the end of the statutory 12-month period; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and reassessment ordered at that time.
21 Feb 1995

Bateman v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 14
Court

District Court

The assessment was procedurally flawed (improper instructions, unsuitable timing, environment influencing answers, inadequate opportunity to consider responses) and therefore the Disability assessment cannot stand; consistent with Heaslip the correct remedy is to order a reassessment of entitlement under s.54 and the Regulations.