New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Occupational assessment (vioa)

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2016

Harkess v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 171
Court

District Court

The VIOA was factually flawed for failing to assess significant remuneration disparity, the claimant's lack of requisite qualifications/skills (including computer literacy), the sheltered nature of his current employment and inadequate rigour in establishing a new 'Plumber's Hand' work type; the VIMA was flawed in under‑quantifying claimant's pain and relying on lack of regular analgesic use without adequate basis. Those combined flaws meant the vocational independence decision could not stand and must be quashed and entitlements reinstated from 18 November 2013.
30 Nov 2015

Kerr v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 363
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the Corporation's vocational independence decision was based on thorough and contemporaneous VIOA and VIMA assessments that properly considered the claimant's visual limitations, episodic keratitis, headaches and safety issues; the work trial was supportive but not the determining factor; Dr Anderson's criticisms did not undermine the robustness of the original assessments and later deterioration does not invalidate the earlier decision absent reassessment.
12 Mar 2015

Lewis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 64
Court

District Court

The VIOA was set aside because the assessor repeatedly copied prior IOA material and failed to analyze or relate rehabilitation outcomes, aids, workstation requirements and training to the specific job standards and the claimant's demonstrated limitations; the VIMA was set aside because it failed to engage with the practical evidence of the work trial and the effects of long‑term medication and therefore did not adequately establish that the claimant could sustain 30 hours or more per week. Consequently the Corporation's decision of 25 September 2012 finding vocational independence was quashe…
2 Sept 2010

Emerson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 150
Court

District Court

The judge declined to dismiss the appeal on the existing material because concerns about the appellant's mental health (depression and seizure risk) and their impact on vocational independence were unresolved; although medical assessors (notably Dr Waite) supported vocational independence, further concise expert psychiatric evidence was required to determine whether the mental health consequences of the covered injury preclude vocational independence, and the court directed further evidentiary steps and a teleconference with counsel before final determination.

New Zealand Case Law

Harkess v Accident Compensation Corporation

Kerr v Accident Compensation Corporation

Lewis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Emerson v Accident Compensation Corporation