New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reassessment under s109

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2018

Horne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 173
Court

District Court

Issue estoppel applied: Judge Joyce's earlier judgment conclusively determined that the automotive parts salesperson work type was occupationally suitable for the applicant between the same parties and on the same issue, thereby precluding the applicant from re‑arguing that suitability in the s109 reassessment appeal; challenges to subsequent VIOAs are limited to new work types or where material changes in circumstances are shown.
25 Jun 2015

Wolland v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 167
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was declined because no question of law arose: the District Court's factual finding that there were no reasonable grounds under s109 to reassess vocational independence was supported by contemporaneous medical evidence showing no objective deterioration and indicating pain was due to degenerative change rather than the injury; subjective self-reporting of pain alone cannot, without corroborative clinical evidence, establish reasonable grounds for reassessment.
29 May 2015

Hiko v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 127
Court

District Court

On a s109 reassessment the medical assessor's professional judgment comparing the claimant's current functional capacity with the unmodified generic requirements of identified work types determines vocational independence; here Dr Yarnell's VIMA validly concluded the claimant remained vocationally independent in four work types (despite recommending further investigation), and there was insufficient evidence that any nominated work type equated to the pre-injury occupation or that the worksheets were impermissibly modified (except the General Clerk finding was set aside).
28 Jan 2011

Salmon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 30
Court

District Court

The Court found the VIMA relied on by ACC was erroneous in concluding the appellant could work 35+ hours per week: the evidence, including a comprehensive pain assessment and employer observations, established the appellant has an injury‑related chronic pain condition limiting her to substantially less than full‑time work (about 20–24 hours with regular aerobic exercise), so the review decision and ACC's vocational independence assessment were set aside.
31 Mar 2010

Blackie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 53
Court

District Court

The Court found that the appellant's covered injuries had deteriorated and, given the specialist pain management opinion and a combined Whole Person Impairment of 74% under the AMA Guides, the appellant could not realistically sustain full-time employment; the respondent's 6 May 2008 decision was therefore overturned and the appellant declared wholly incapacitated effective 6 May 2008.
23 Mar 2006

Down v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 65
Court

District Court

Pre-amendment s109 is to be read as concerned with deterioration of the injury-related conditions that informed the prior vocational independence/capacity assessment; medical evidence established a probable deterioration by 1 October 2002 in symptoms attributable in part to the covered chronic tenosynovitis/tenosynovitis leading to an entrenched chronic pain disorder, and therefore ACC had reasonable grounds to reassess vocational independence. The ACC decision of 1 October 2002 is set aside and reassessment is directed.

New Zealand Case Law

Horne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Wolland v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hiko v Accident Compensation Corporation

Salmon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Blackie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Down v Accident Compensation Corporation