New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehabilitation plan

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2015

Barber v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 37
Court

District Court

The respondent's decision to cease weekly compensation was set aside because it was unreasonable and unreliable: ACC bypassed recommended graduated return-to-work testing, accepted an unexplained change in medical opinion without follow-up, and failed to obtain adequate medical evidence to support a finding of capacity to resume pre-injury employment; accordingly the cessation order was revoked and weekly compensation must continue.
19 Jul 2011

Syme v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 194
Court

District Court

The judge found that the appellant's brain injury and recurrent migraines caused periodic incapacity and impaired her ability to meet the three month time limit, constituting extenuating circumstances under s.135(3)(a); accordingly ACC's decision of 21 April 2010 declining to accept the late review application was incorrect and the late application must be accepted.
12 Sept 2008

Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 219
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not identify any question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument; the 2001 Act applied as the occupational assessment occurred on 9 April 2002, the contested matters were factual (including the validity of medical and occupational assessments) and Dr Marshall's assessment was not shown to be flawed; accordingly the District Court properly exercised its discretion to refuse leave.
10 Sept 2008

Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 205
Court

District Court

The Reviewer correctly found that neither the Consent to Disclosure Form nor the respondent's letter to the GP amounted to a 'decision' under s6 of the Act; therefore the Reviewer properly declined jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Feb 2007

Cade v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 34
Court

District Court

Appeal dismissed: although the occupational assessment was flawed in accepting computer skills for the general clerk/stock clerk role, the flaw affected only that job; the medical assessment was not deficient on the material available at the time; newly obtained evidence of anxiety, depression and cognitive deficits after the assessments raised questions but did not establish that the problems were injury-related to the degree necessary to overturn vocational independence findings and the appellant failed to discharge the required evidential burden.
31 May 2006

Jordan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 135
Court

District Court

Because (1) the requirement to undergo initial occupational and medical assessments is not a decision under section 6 of the Act and (2) the assessments were completed, there was no live issue for the Court to determine; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
2 Aug 2005

Martin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 232
Court

District Court

The medical assessor provided adequate analysis specific to the two certified occupations and considered posture variation, keyboarding demands and the appellant's work history and trial; the appellant failed to show a material flaw in the assessment and proffered only a conflicting medical opinion, therefore the decision that the appellant had vocational independence as a proofreader and general/office clerk was correct.
22 Jul 2005

Walker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 218
Court

District Court

The medical assessor's report was flawed for failing to address the central question of disability through pain and the cognitive impacts of medication; accordingly the vocational independence assessment was set aside and the Corporation was directed to review the individual rehabilitation plan and the occupational assessment before deciding further.
27 Mar 2003

Hirst v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 42
Court

District Court

The Court held that Dr Hartshorn’s contemporaneous assessment was not shown to be wrong and therefore the respondent’s decision that the appellant had a capacity for work was correct; the Reviewer's decision was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
9 Nov 2001

Ching v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 312
Court

District Court

The Corporation lawfully assessed capacity under s51 and suspended weekly compensation pursuant to the mandatory requirement in s49, so it was not empowered to continue weekly payments during the course; payment of course costs remained discretionary under s19/s23 but the appellant did not raise that request during the Work Capacity Assessment so the Corporation never had the opportunity to exercise its discretion and the Reviewer correctly declined liability.