New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehabilitation obligations

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2015

Hopkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 174
Court

District Court

The reviewer’s decision was quashed because the respondent failed to appreciate and properly assess the totality of covered injuries (including mental consequences under the 1982 Act), did not ensure adequate rehabilitation prior to assessing vocational independence, and relied on medical/occupational assessments that inadequately addressed sustained employability given long workforce absence; therefore the vocational independence finding was unsafe and must be set aside and prior entitlements reinstated.
16 Jun 2015

Johns v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 149
Court

District Court

By consent the Court accepted ACC's concession that the suspension of entitlements in September 2009 should be overturned; the lawful and practical resolution required reinstatement of weekly compensation based on loss of potential earnings payable from the suspension date subject to confirmation of ongoing incapacity and intervening earnings, and acceptance that claimant continues to experience effects of the injury.
16 Apr 2015

RAMEKA v ACC [2015] NZHC 730

Citation

[2015] NZAR 685
Court

High Court

For the purposes of cl 14 (and related cls 15 and 17) of Schedule 1 to the Accident Compensation Act 2001 a 'household family member' requires a familial connection (eg spouse, partner, child, parent or other near relative or those encompassed by family-member definitions in relevant statutes); a non-related cohabiting carer, however close or long-standing the personal relationship, is not a family member and therefore not a household family member; consequently the District Court erred in finding that Mr George was a household family member.
31 Oct 2014

Randall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 298
Court

District Court

The 19 June 2009 letter was invalid and is quashed because it operated as a s117 suspension dependent on a s103 finding without adequate reasoning or support from the medical and occupational evidence; the medical evidence did not establish that the claimant could safely return to her pre-injury work given ongoing wrist/hand gradual process injury, therefore compensation is reinstated and the review decision is quashed with a direction that the claimant remains incapacitated for work.
7 Dec 2012

Vujcich v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 401
Court

District Court

No formal claim was lodged that would trigger a deemed decision; medical evidence on balance established that the claimant's right shoulder/neck problems were substantially due to pre-existing degenerative pathology disclosed by the accident rather than caused by it; the VIMA properly considered shoulder limitations and the vocational independence determination of 11 July 2008 was reasonable and supported by evidence; appeal dismissed.
23 Nov 2012

Anderton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 384
Court

District Court

Because the claimant declined to meaningfully participate in rehabilitation planning and the professional occupational and medical assessments reasonably supported a finding that he could perform four specified light/sedentary jobs for 30 or more hours per week, the Corporation did not fail its rehabilitation obligations and the decision finding vocational independence was upheld; appeal dismissed.
28 Sept 2012

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 319
Court

District Court

The claimant's persistent obstructive conduct, repeated failures to attend scheduled vocational appointments without credible medical justification, refusal to engage constructively (including challenges to assessor qualifications), and rejection of reasonable assistance amounted to an unreasonable failure to comply with s72; accordingly under s117(3) ACC validly ceased weekly compensation and the Court will uphold that decision.
24 Sept 2012

Collier v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 316
Court

District Court

On review of all evidence the Court found the balance of medical and multidisciplinary reports supported the Corporation's conclusion that the appellant was capable of 30+ hours of work in a range of light occupations; the appellant had received reasonable and extensive rehabilitation and had not demonstrated the requisite engagement or objective improvement, and the contrary expert opinion was out of step with the overall evidence; accordingly the Corporation's decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
19 Sept 2012

Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 313
Court

District Court

The Judge found as a matter of fact that Care Advantage reasonably deferred a decision on the programme because there was insufficient competent medical information; there was no positive legal obligation to fund a referral to Mr Cowley and therefore no arguable question of law for leave to appeal, so the application was dismissed.
25 May 2012

Tate v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 182
Court

District Court

On fresh evaluation of the evidence the Court found the reviewer and Corporation erred in concluding vocational independence; the court accepted the appellant's treating expert (Dr Wigley) as credible and persuasive regarding winging of the scapula and chronic pain syndrome which, together with inadequate rehabilitation and inability to sustain the postulated hours, meant the appellant was not vocationally independent, therefore the decision ceasing weekly compensation was quashed and weekly compensation and entitlements must be restored.