24 Sept 2015
The IOA requirement was lawful and not inconsistent with the 2005 review or the mediated agreement, the IOA was not premature in absence of an up-to-date IRP because it is a prerequisite to an IRP, there was no evidence the assessor was biased, and the claimant's failure to attend was unreasonable such that suspension under s117(3)(a) was justified.
21 Jun 2007
The requirement to undergo initial occupational and medical assessments is an administrative/preparatory step to inform the statutory s86/s87 vocational rehabilitation decision and is not itself a reviewable decision on the claim; the reviewable decision arises when the Corporation decides whether and how to provide vocational rehabilitation (for example by making an IRP).
21 Jun 2007
Where the facts are unremarkable, a decision by the Corporation to require initial occupational and medical assessments under s89 is a purely administrative decision and generally not reviewable; the Corporation is entitled to require and repeat such assessments to identify rehabilitation needs and s87(2)'s three year limit does not, without a primary decision to that effect, bar the Corporation from obtaining further IOA/IMA assessments.
11 Jan 2006
The Court held ACC was legally entitled to recommence vocational rehabilitation assessments and obtain a new IOA under s109(1) read with s88 where it acted reasonably; ACC reasonably initiated a limited further IOA targeted to sedentary work based on medical opinion and claimant circumstances, the IOA was not tainted by unlawful direction, and ACC's reassessment and decision to cease weekly compensation were upheld.
16 Feb 2004
The court held the updated IRP was properly finalised after a reasonable time; the second IOA and IMA were valid assessments conducted pursuant to ss85-96, were not biased or procedurally unfair, did not amount to vocational independence assessments requiring s110 notice, and the IRP as finalised was reasonable and must be implemented.