New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Occupational suitability

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2017

Ryland v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 66
Court

District Court

The VIMA complied with clause 28(1)(d) because the assessor reviewed and took into account the VIOA (and later explained the inadvertent use of IOA work sheets) and, on review of the evidence, three work types (Warehouse Administrator, Production Coordinator and Sales Assistant (Recreational and Sporting Goods)) were occupationally suitable such that the appellant is vocationally independent in those roles, while Dispatching and Receiving Clerk, Order Clerk and Stock Clerk were unsuitable due to lack of relevant experience or unacceptable income disparity; the appeal is dismissed.
30 Nov 2016

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 311
Court

District Court

The Court found the Corporation ignited the vocational independence process prematurely because the s110(3) threshold was not satisfied given incomplete rehabilitation/medical information (including absence of recent GP input and unassessed post‑surgical PIN injuries); the VIOA failed to properly assess required tasks, literacy/numeracy/computer limitations and environmental modifications making three of four identified work types occupationally unsuitable; the VIMA contained significant analytical gaps and did not reliably establish capacity to sustain 30 hours/week. Accordingly the 29 June…
29 May 2015

Crook v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 123
Court

District Court

The correct legal test required the Corporation to ensure the claimant was likely to achieve vocational independence and that any outstanding vocational rehabilitation (not merely medical treatment) was complete before proceeding; vocational independence requires a work type to be both occupationally suitable (claimant can perform all tasks, including licensing/qualification requirements) and medically sustainable; because the VIOA recommended multiple overbroad or unqualified work types and the VIMA failed to address material medication effects, no work type was shown to be both occupational…
29 May 2015

Martin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 130
Court

District Court

The Sales Representative (Building and Plumbing Supplies) work type was neither occupationally nor medically suitable because the assessor did not demonstrate that the appellant's limited quarry experience and identified skills matched the generic work tasks and because the medical assessment failed to account for driving restrictions; the Weighbridge Operator work type was both occupationally and medically suitable because the appellant had relevant weighbridge experience, the work sheet did not require the level of computer or bilateral repetitive hand use alleged, and the VIMA confirmed me…
27 Feb 2015

Hodson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 49
Court

District Court

The VIOA contained significant flaws for multiple work types (Sales Representative, Dispatching and Receiving Clerk, Radio Dispatcher) and the VIMA by Dr Waite was flawed because it failed to assess the effects of the appellant's diagnosed chronic depression and failed to address specific, material worksheet requirements (eg prolonged driving, constant sitting, standing/walking, shift work). Because no work type was both occupationally and medically suitable, the Corporation's vocational independence decision of 27 January 2011 was unlawful and was set aside; the review decision was quashed a…
30 Oct 2014

Swain v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 281
Court

District Court

The VIMA failed to address the significant limitation of the claimant's inability to tolerate prolonged sitting for five of seven work types, rendering those five medically unsuitable; however two work types (admissions clerk and office cashier) did not require constant sitting and were both occupationally and medically suitable, therefore the claimant had vocational independence and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Sept 2014

Azad v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 243
Court

District Court

The Carpark Attendant and Dispatching and Receiving Clerk work types were occupationally unsuitable; the Weighbridge Operator and Dispatching and Receiving Clerk work types were not medically suitable due to inability to squat and flaws in the VIMA analysis; the Product Assembler (Medical Supplies) was both occupationally and medically suitable; one suitable work type suffices for vocational independence, therefore the Corporation's decision that the appellant was vocationally independent as at 28 May 2012 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Feb 2012

Drage v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 33
Court

District Court

Even if the appellant lacked the NZIS qualification for the Personal Trainer work-type, the evidence established he was occupationally and medically capable of engaging in at least one other suitable work-type (Furniture Polisher, Panelbeater, Spray Painter), and under s107 vocational independence is satisfied by capability in one work-type; therefore the reviewer's decision was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
24 Jan 2012

Rowan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 22
Court

District Court

The Court upheld the respondent's decision that the appellant retained vocational independence because the medical reassessment by Dr Kahan reasonably determined the appellant could perform the five identified work-types full time, the occupational suitability of those work-types remained binding absent compelling occupational evidence to the contrary, and the competing reports did not displace Dr Kahan's contemporaneous assessment.
4 Aug 2010

Craze v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 122
Court

District Court

Dr Turner’s contemporaneous medical assessment provided a considered professional opinion that at least three (and up to four) work‑types were medically sustainable for 35+ hours per week and no medical evidence demonstrated material flaws in that assessment; therefore the respondent’s decision dated 18 January 2008 that the appellant had attained vocational independence was correct and must be upheld.