New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reassessment procedure

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2008

Yeoman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 191
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the ACC-appointed assessor's March/April 2006 WPI assessment was wrong or procedurally defective; later medical opinions post-dating that assessment indicate deterioration rather than error and therefore do not overturn the decision. The appeal is dismissed, but the later evidence shows a likely increase in permanent impairment and a certificate should be obtained for a further WPI assessment following a specialist or multidisciplinary pain assessment.
1 Mar 2007

Downey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 41
Court

District Court

Dr Walker's assessment was properly conducted and peer reviewed; absent clear and cogent contrary medical evidence the Court must accept the assessor's conclusion; the assessed pre-1999 impairment (6%) was below the 10% threshold and, after deduction of the prior 30% Lump Sum, did not entitle the appellant to an Independence Allowance, therefore the respondent's decision of 10 June 2004 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
6 Oct 2006

R v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 238
Court

District Court

The Court found the assessment flawed because Dr Bailey, a general practitioner, adopted an apportionment influenced by an earlier psychiatrist's view formed without full disclosure of the sexual violations; apportionment of psychiatric impairment requires specialist psychiatric judgment, so the assessment was set aside and a new assessment ordered by a qualified psychiatrist not previously involved.
22 Apr 2004

Mark v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 120
Court

District Court

The court found that the respondent possessed information (the specialist report of Mr Grayson identifying osteoarthritis in the claimant's hip affecting function) that afforded reasonable grounds to believe the claimant's capacity for work may have deteriorated since the prior determination; therefore ACC was required to set in train a reassessment under s107. The respondent's decision refusing reassessment was quashed and reassessment was ordered.
28 Jan 2002

Shepherd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2002] NZACC 30
Court

District Court

The assessment by a trained AMA Guides assessor based on clinical findings (Dr Milne) was not flawed by the absence of x-rays because the clinical findings supported a 5% whole person impairment, subsequent x-rays disclosed degenerative/inflammatory changes unrelated to the covered traumatic injury and did not raise the impairment to the statutory 10% threshold; therefore the respondent's decision denying an independence allowance is upheld.
15 Feb 2000

Nola v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 25
Court

District Court

Because the respondent procured a valid assessment conducted by an assessor appointed under the Regulations using the AMA Guides (4th ed), confirmed on peer review, which produced a whole-person impairment of 5% (below the statutory 10% threshold), the statutory scheme required cessation of the independence allowance; absent evidence that the assessment was flawed the Review Officer and District Court correctly upheld the respondent's decision.
1 Jul 1999

Bull v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

Assessments by assessors appointed under the Regulations are not sacrosanct; where persuasive expert evidence demonstrates that an assessor failed to consider relevant impairments or misapplied the AMA Guides (here, failure to account for radiculopathy), the court will revoke the decision based on that assessment and remit the matter for reassessment by another duly appointed assessor.
3 Mar 1999

Elkerbout v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 45
Court

District Court

The Corporation misapplied s73(1) by cancelling the appellant's Home Help on the basis of alleged fraudulent acts without first conducting a proper reassessment under the Home Help Regulations; entitlement can only be lawfully withdrawn following a reassessment that establishes lack of need, therefore the cancellation was invalid and must be revoked.