New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehabilitation completion

Legal area

Court

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.
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…
15 Aug 2014

Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 187
Court

District Court

The appeal is allowed because there was insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude the appellant was likely to achieve vocational independence when the process commenced, and the VIMA was materially flawed for failing to engage with and reconcile prior medical and functional evidence; therefore the Corporation's vocational independence decision of 17 February 2012 is set aside and the review decision quashed.
10 Jul 2013

Kidd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 202
Court

District Court

The VIMA by Dr Robb was flawed because it did not adequately take into account multiple prior medical reports and failed work trials demonstrating a consistent history of pain‑related incapacity and did not provide a sufficient rationale for discounting that evidence; accordingly the review decision upholding that assessment was quashed, the VIMA set aside and compensation reinstated.
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.
25 Jul 2012

Walch v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 247
Court

District Court

The medical evidence established no further surgical treatment was required and the treating specialists and Dr Prestage supported the appellant's capacity for light to medium work; the appellant failed to demonstrate any material flaw in the assessments, so the respondent's determination that the appellant had attained vocational independence (in the identified work‑types) was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jul 2012

Wainohu v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 244
Court

District Court

Because the medical and occupational assessments (notably Dr Ruttenberg's report) adequately addressed the appellant's pain and functional capacity, there was no contrary medical evidence or demonstrated procedural flaw, and the appellant's rehabilitation had been completed, the Court accepted the assessments and held the appellant had attained vocational independence, dismissing the appeal.
23 Mar 2012

Kemara v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 96
Court

District Court

On the evidence the case manager reasonably concluded under s110(3) that vocational independence was likely for the identified sedentary/light work at the time of referral; rehabilitation required by the IRP had been completed; inclusion of the additional work types was permissible because they were reasonably identified as suitable; therefore the review decision upholding vocational independence was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
2 Nov 2010

Marfell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 195
Court

District Court

The statutory scheme requires vocational independence to be determined by assessment on the day of medical examination and does not permit recording an earlier period of loss unless a separate assessment during that deterioration is undertaken; s113 allows backdating only where entitlement is regained at assessment, therefore the appellant's appeal fails and loss of weekly compensation on 30 April 2009 stands.