New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pain management

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2017

Topp v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 92
Court

District Court

On the evidence the VIOA was not flawed and supported vocational independence as at 10 December 2014, but the VIMA was flawed because the medical assessor failed to engage with and apply the psychological pain management recommendations, medication/neuropathic pain issues and the claimant's functional limitations at home; those unresolved pain-management and work-trial issues meant the claimant was not likely to achieve vocational independence and the Corporation's decision to require participation in vocational independence process was unsupportable.
12 Apr 2017

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 39
Court

District Court

The Court upheld the Corporation's decision because Dr Ruttenberg's February 2015 VIMA was not shown to be flawed; the appellant failed to produce clear and cogent evidence to displace the assessor's contemporaneous medical opinion as to vocational independence on that date, and subsequent evidence of deterioration did not undermine the assessment as at 2 February 2015; Sales Clerk role excluded due to driving/safety concerns.
8 Sept 2016

M v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 253
Court

District Court

The evidence did not reasonably support a conclusion that vocational independence was likely because pain management strategies recommended by a pain specialist had been trialled unsuccessfully, the work trial was incomplete and inconsistent, and the VIMA failed to engage adequately with unresolved pain, medication effects and sleep/fatigue findings in the FCE; accordingly the Corporation's decision to treat the appellant as vocationally independent was quashed.
21 Jan 2015

Mathews v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 12
Court

District Court

The appeal is allowed because the Corporation commenced the vocational independence process while recommended rehabilitation (notably a reading/literacy programme and a graduated return to work) remained outstanding and because the VIOA and VIMA were flawed — they failed to assess and reconcile literacy/computer/numeracy barriers, job‑task requirements, the effects of chronic pain and analgesic medication on function and endurance, and inconsistently treated earlier IMAs and work trial evidence — therefore the Corporation's decision that the claimant was vocationally independent was not reaso…
30 Sept 2014

Greenwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 236
Court

District Court

The VIOA was set aside because it added a disability services officer role without evidence the appellant met entry requirements and failed to demonstrate updated clerical and computing skills for the identified despatch and stock clerk roles. The VIMA was set aside because Dr Antoniadis failed to adequately account for the appellant's chronic neuropathic pain, allodynia, post‑traumatic deterioration, and the effects of analgesic medication on safety and sustained work capacity; credible specialist evidence showed the appellant cannot sustain 30 hours or more per week. Accordingly the review…
29 Apr 2014

Scanlan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 100
Court

District Court

The appeal was allowed because the VIMA was procedurally and substantively flawed: the confirmed job types all required computer competency which the claimant had only minimal, non-reinforced training and no access to a computer to practice; that rehabilitation shortcoming was material to the ability to perform the upheld occupations and made the vocational independence finding premature and unsafe, requiring quashing and reversal of the prior determinations.
29 Jul 2013

Allen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 223
Court

District Court

The Court allowed the appeal because subsequent expert evidence (literacy assessment and vocational opinion) and concerns about inadequate assessment of pain and medication demonstrated that the VIOA/VIMA process did not reliably establish a match between the appellant's transferable skills and the five work types; vocational independence was therefore not proven and the prior decision was set aside pending further assessment and management.
11 Oct 2012

Simmonds v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 342
Court

District Court

Judge preferred the weight of the multidisciplinary medical, occupational and FCE evidence (notably Dr Marshall and prior assessors) over Dr Xiong's opinion, found rehabilitation under the IRP was substantially complete and that the barrier to full-time work was primarily pain belief/lack of confidence rather than an unremediable biomedical incapacity; accordingly the VIMA and ACC decision of 22 March 2011 were valid and the appeal must be dismissed.
14 Aug 2012

Beale v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 277
Court

District Court

The Court preferred Dr Berry's opinion over the assessing specialist and reviewer, finding cogent evidence that the appellant's injury-related complex regional pain syndrome, impaired balance and associated risks limit her sustainable work capacity to part time (around 15–20 hours), so she was not vocationally independent. The notice and assessment process were not unreasonable, but the substantive assessment and decision could not be sustained; the review decision awarding vocational independence was quashed and weekly compensation reinstated.
7 Aug 2012

Angove v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 260
Court

District Court

The Court concluded the Corporation had sufficient objective evidence to proceed to vocational independence and to determine vocational independence on 18 May 2010; the occupational medical assessments (notably Dr Robb) and functional testing outweighed the later contrary opinion (Dr Wigley), so the decision was lawful and reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.