New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical assessment

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2019

Franich v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

The Court found the vocational independence process was properly commenced and rehabilitation under the IRP was complete; the VIOA overstated suitability for four of the five VIMA job options because the claimant lacked tested computer/EFTPOS skills, but both VIOA and VIMA support the job of jeweller as vocationally and medically sustainable, so vocational independence exists only for the jeweller role.
21 Sept 2017

Beals v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 117
Court

District Court

On the evidence the appellant had received appropriate multidisciplinary rehabilitation, no specialist recommended further injury‑related treatment, treating clinicians and the VIMA supported capacity for a full time sedentary to light role of 30 or more hours per week despite ongoing pain and medication, and therefore the VIOA and VIMA were not flawed and the appellant was likely to achieve vocational independence.
9 Jun 2016

Daley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 169
Court

District Court

The VIOA and VIMA underpinning the Corporation's decision were flawed because they failed to assess whether Mr Daley could sustain 30 hours per week in the identified work types given the severity of his dermatitis, the environmental/workplace limitations, and inaccuracies in his work history; therefore he was not vocationally independent as at 17 July 2014 and weekly compensation must be resumed.
31 Mar 2016

Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 82
Court

District Court

The District Court held that the WPI assessment by a qualified assessor was valid, that after deducting the prior 15% lump sum the appellant's WPI fell below the 10% statutory threshold for an independence allowance, and that no contrary expert evidence was produced; therefore the appeal failed.
11 Mar 2016

Martin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 59
Court

District Court

Omission to provide the IRP to the medical assessor was not fatal in the circumstances because the appellant failed to demonstrate a material consequence or prejudice undermining the integrity of the VIOA/VIMA; objective medical and occupational evidence consistently supported capacity for light work and the appellant's non‑cooperation and comorbidities explained rehabilitation shortcomings, therefore the VI determination was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
29 Jan 2016

Corbin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

The judge found the independent specialist opinions and objective records demonstrated longstanding degenerative spinal disease predating the accidents and that neither the 6 April 2010 nor the 5 January 2011 accidents was shown to be the primary cause of the need for surgery or incapacity; therefore ACC entitlements were not payable and the appeals were dismissed.
18 Dec 2015

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 397
Court

District Court

Given detailed and consistent medical and occupational assessments (notably Dr Antoniadis' reports, the VIOA and Dr Waite's VIMA), and absence of credible medical evidence that the sensitive claim, hang gliding injuries, eyesight or lack of technology rendered the appellant incapable of the identified work types, the Corporation was entitled to commence and conclude the vocational independence process; therefore the decision finding vocational independence was correctly upheld.
15 Dec 2015

Samuel v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 380
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the comprehensive VIMA of Dr Antoniadis and the VIOA based on generic work type detail sheets; the appellant failed to demonstrate that the generic descriptions were unrealistic or that rehabilitation or work trials were insufficient to preclude vocational independence; accordingly the appellant has achieved vocational independence in the job types automobile driver NEC and forklift operator for 30 hours per week.
29 Oct 2015

Shaw v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 323
Court

District Court

The VIOA was partially upheld: Gallery or Museum Guide is not vocationally suitable due to appellant's very low literacy; Forklift Driver and Weighbridge Operator are occupationally suitable. The CIMA by Dr Ruttenberg was set aside because it failed to adequately engage with key medical realities (effects of medication and injections on capacity, the impact of pain on endurance and sleep, and significant alcohol use) and misread the work trial context; the Court preferred Dr Nicholson's view that the appellant could not sustain 30+ hours per week in the identified roles. Consequently the Corp…
30 Jan 2015

Gordon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 25
Court

District Court

The VIOA was legally flawed because the assessor failed to adequately analyse significant remuneration disparity and failed to assess the availability of the identified work types in the claimant's locality; those flaws rendered the Stock Clerk and Alarm, Security or Surveillance Monitor work types unsuitable for the claimant and warranted quashing the review decision and setting aside the Corporation's decision.