1 Jun 2022
s36's deeming of the date of mental injury to first treatment does not govern the meaning of "suffered" in the s6 definition of "potential earner"; for purposes of s105 potential earner entitlement the ordinary (actual) date of injury applies, so the appellant may qualify and the appeal is allowed and remitted to ACC for assessment.
8 May 2017
The Corporation correctly applied s53 by averaging fluctuating pre-accident earnings over the relevant 12-month period (including Seatranz and McNeill earnings) to reach a fair and reasonable ERC; the 2015 reconfirmations were not fresh reviewable decisions under the Act or s390 because the Corporation did not exercise its revision power to substitute a new decision; and the 24 September 2015 correspondence was a request to revise earlier decisions not a fresh claim for entitlements, so no unlawful delay accrued—therefore all appeals fail.
10 Nov 2015
The Corporation had all information necessary by April 1989 to calculate and make ERC payments in respect of pre-accident NZ Post earnings but did not have sufficient information in April 1989 to determine prospective NZ Army earnings; accordingly interest is payable from 1 July 1992 on ERC assessed on NZ Post earnings but not on prospective Army earnings.
16 Oct 2014
The Court refused to disturb the Corporation's decision and the Review Officer's decision because the parties accepted the Vandy approach and the proper mechanism for addressing alleged earlier assaults is for fresh claims to be filed and decided by the Corporation; however the Corporation should investigate alleged 2008 assaults if claims are made.
15 Sept 2014
The 28 September 2009 decision was procedurally unsafe and unclear as to which claim it addressed; accordingly the court quashed that decision, directed ACC to allocate a separate claim number to the 18 August 2005 right ankle and right finger injury and ordered ACC to re-evaluate any entitlement to loss of earnings under the August 2005 claim, noting the quashing is not determinative of the outcome and that there is no entitlement for the 1996/1999 accidents.
30 Aug 2010
The Court has no jurisdiction to permit relitigation of matters already finally determined by the Appeal Authority and the High Court; the Reviewer's finding of no jurisdiction was correct, the appellant's allegations of a false document do not displace issue estoppel or abuse of process, and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Sept 2009
Medical evidence showed no medical clearance that the appellant regained capacity for his pre-accident employment as a wool-presser; therefore under s103(2) he remained incapacitated for that employment and e.r.c. could not be based on subsequent bakery earnings (which are relevant only for abatement).
22 Nov 2001
The court held the appellant remained an "earner" despite being on unpaid leave because her contract subsisted; clause 9(3) expressly permits excluding full or part weeks of unpaid leave from the 52-week divisor when calculating weekly earnings, so the appellant is entitled to earnings-related compensation calculated by excluding unpaid weeks, yielding a weekly entitlement of $787.11.
3 Mar 1999
Medical evidence established pre-existing degenerative changes at L5-S1 and that the appellant's continuing symptoms are substantially attributable to the degenerative (ageing) process rather than solely to the 1996 accident; accordingly the respondent was entitled to decline earnings-related compensation under s.37A and the appeal is dismissed.
3 Feb 1999
The District Court concluded that the provisions of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 apply to the age cessation limits for earnings-related compensation, and therefore the 1992 Act governs the appellant's entitlement.