New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Medical and vocational assessment

  • 28 Feb 2014

    Clancy-Buchanan v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2014] NZACC 37
    Court
    District Court

    The VIMA by Dr Turner was thorough, consistent with prior assessors and the GP, properly addressed pain and medication and found the appellant fit for sedentary/light roles up to 35 hours; later reports did not demonstrate flaws in the 2009 assessment or material change undermining that conclusion; therefore the decision of 26 May 2009 finding vocational independence in nine work types is upheld.

    • Vocational independence
    • Chronic pain syndrome
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Rehabilitation refusal and suitability
    • Extension of time for filing appeal

  • 22 Nov 2013

    Duff v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2013] NZACC 388
    Court
    District Court

    The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the review decision because at the time the Corporation declared vocational independence it had not properly assessed or given weight to the claimant's severe literacy, computer skill and motor‑control deficits and his physical mobility limitations; contemporaneous vocational and medical evidence (including later specialist and literacy assessments) demonstrated he could not perform the clerical/stock clerk/warehouse administrator roles, rendering the vocational independence determination unsound and requiring restoration of entitlements.

    • Vocational independence
    • Entitlement suspension
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Literacy and computer skills assessment
    • Procedural compliance with first schedule

  • 26 Mar 2009

    Little v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2009] NZACC 45
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the vocational independence procedure was commenced prematurely or defectively; the evidence demonstrates ACC offered adequate rehabilitation and the appellant consistently failed to cooperate or take up interventions, and the appointed assessors' conclusions were reasonable and not displaced by opposing opinion.

    • Vocational independence
    • Rehabilitation obligations
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Ramsay principles
    • Malingering

  • 13 Mar 2009

    Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2009] NZACC 36
    Court
    District Court

    The termination of weekly compensation was unreasonable because the appellant, through no fault or default, was unable to acquire the computer skills necessary to perform the jobs identified as vocationally suitable; ACC's obligation to provide rehabilitation does not permit termination where rehabilitation has demonstrably failed due to incapacity to learn the skills required, therefore the vocational independence decision was set aside and the appellant awarded compensation.

    • Vocational independence
    • Rehabilitation obligations
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Standard of proof

  • 2 Mar 2006

    Nadali v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2006] NZACC 53
    Court
    District Court

    Any failure to advise review rights on two IRP updates was not sufficient to invalidate the subsequent vocational independence procedure because those updates contained no matters of substance affecting entitlements or work readiness; the Vocational Independence and Independence Allowance assessments complied with statutory requirements and their medical and vocational opinions were unchallenged, therefore the respondent's determinations were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

    • Vocational independence
    • Independence allowance
    • Individual rehabilitation plan
    • Review rights
    • Medical and vocational assessment

  • 6 Sept 2001

    Eustace v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2001] NZACC 244
    Court
    District Court

    The medical and vocational assessments (notably Dr Seeman's and the vocational assessor's reports) provided reasoned findings that the appellant could perform the identified occupations for 30 or more hours per week and there was no clear and cogent evidence to undermine those assessments; therefore the respondent's determination that the appellant had capacity for work was correct and the appeal was dismissed.

    • Work capacity assessment
    • Section 15 capacity for work
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Review and appeal procedure

  • 4 Jul 2001

    Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2001] NZACC 170
    Court
    District Court

    The court accepted the expert occupational and medical assessments that, generically, the mail sorter role can be performed without sustained neck twisting and that the appellant was capable of working 30 or more hours per week; therefore ACC's determination that the appellant had a capacity for work under s51(2) was correct and is upheld.

    • Work capacity under s51(2)
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Expert evidence deference
    • Vocational rehabilitation

  • 3 Jul 2001

    Halliday v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2001] NZACC 168
    Court
    District Court

    The Court found no material flaw or omission in the vocational and medical assessments (notably Dr Marshall's report) sufficient to displace their findings; available medical material was adequate, the assessor considered the claimant's complaints including chronic shoulder pain, age is not a condition under s.100(2), and therefore the appellant has a capacity for work and the review decision is upheld.

    • Capacity for work
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Statutory interpretation of s15 and s100(2)
    • Entitlement to weekly compensation

  • 30 Oct 2000

    Hay v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2000] NZACC 292
    Court
    District Court

    The respondent properly completed the required rehabilitation and followed the published WCAP process; the vocational and medical assessors conducted adequate specialist assessments and reasonably concluded the appellant had capacity for sedentary work of at least 30 hours per week; procedural complaints and additional medical reports did not provide cogent evidence to displace those findings; therefore cessation of weekly compensation was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Work capacity assessment procedure (wcap)
    • Cessation of weekly compensation
    • Rehabilitation obligations
    • Natural justice
    • Medical and vocational assessment

  • 27 Oct 2000

    Flaus v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2000] NZACC 283
    Court
    District Court

    The District Court upheld the respondent's decision because the medical and vocational assessments were carried out in accordance with the Act, were not shown to be flawed, and established that the appellant had a capacity for light work (including supervisor, van/light deliveries and maintenance/handyman) when capacity is assessed in the abstract; accordingly the respondent's decision that the appellant has capacity for work was justified.

    • Capacity for work
    • Medical and vocational assessment
    • Review of administrative decision
    • Interpretation of s15