New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Individual rehabilitation programme

Legal area

Court

14 May 1999

Cochrane v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 122
Court

District Court

The respondent reasonably required the appellant to undertake the work trial; medical and occupational therapy evidence showed the job was within his capabilities and tuition was offered; the appellant abandoned the trial before the scheduled two-week review without demonstrating inability to participate; therefore the refusal was unreasonable and suspension under s73(2) was justified.
22 Feb 1999

MacBeth v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 37
Court

District Court

On the full evidence, including material not before the review officer, the appellant's refusal of the South Pine position was not objectively unreasonable given his medical history, misunderstandings with case management and genuine concerns about pay and testing; therefore suspension under s73(2) was not justified and entitlements must be reinstated.
5 Jan 1999

Payton v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 1
Court

District Court

Because the Act requires that purchase or modification of a vehicle be included in an approved individual rehabilitation programme and that the Corporation meet costs only where it has given prior approval, the Corporation lacked authority to contribute to a vehicle purchased without prior approval; therefore the decision to decline assistance was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
2 Jul 1997

Cawley v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 135
Court

District Court

The individual rehabilitation programme did not create a binding contractual obligation to pay the full stated amount; the respondent lawfully exercised its discretion under the Regulations and section 20 of the Act to limit its contribution to $8,490 less the trade-in value, and that contribution was reasonable; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
13 Jun 1997

Elkington v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 122
Court

District Court

Given the appellant's repeated history of failing to provide required information and medical certificates, his inconsistent explanations regarding taxi earnings, and prior warnings, the failure to comply with the individual rehabilitation programme was unreasonable and entitled the respondent to cease weekly compensation under s73.
9 May 1997

Waitoa v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

The court upheld the Review Officer's finding that the evidence showed only a minimal risk from the proposed sedentary night duties, the appellant's subjective fear was insufficient to make refusal reasonable, and therefore the refusal to undertake the rehabilitation programme was objectively unreasonable and the appeal must be dismissed.
2 Aug 1996

Rodgers v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 53
Court

District Court

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.
28 Nov 1995

Robertson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 138
Court

District Court

The statutory and regulatory scheme unambiguously required prior assessment and written approval or inclusion in an approved Individual Rehabilitation Programme; because the vehicle was purchased without prior approval and not as part of an approved IRP and the 13-week bar applied, the respondent was legally precluded from approving retrospective assistance, and the appeal must be dismissed.
20 Mar 1995

Merritt v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

(1995) 1 BACR 101
Court

District Court

The District Court allowed the appeal and revoked the Corporation's decision because on the balance of probabilities the appellant's failure to continue the ward clerk role was reasonable given her back pain; consequently the Corporation's cessation of weekly compensation under s.73(2) was not justified and the Corporation must reassess entitlements.