25 Feb 2021
Section 86(2) does not impose a legally mandated strict sequential process; contemporaneous consideration of return-to-work and alternative vocational options is permitted and required by a purposive reading of the Act to enable timely, effective rehabilitation and to avoid perverse delays.
20 May 2016
Special leave to appeal is dismissed because there is no question of law with a reasonable prospect of success: the Corporation reasonably concluded s110(3)(a) was satisfied based on existing occupational and medical evidence; the medical assessor had relevant prior reports and the claimant had opportunity to provide information so cl28(2) was not breached; the rehabilitation plan had been implemented and vocational rehabilitation was complete before the VI assessment; and the decision that the claimant had attained vocational independence was available on the evidence and rightly upheld by t…
19 May 2016
The VIOA was flawed in relation to the Lawn Mowing Contractor/Grounds Person option because the salary average constituted a significant departure from the appellant's pre‑injury earnings making it vocationally unsuitable; the VIMA was unsound because the medical assessor failed to coherently and consistently analyse key functional requirements (repetitive/prolonged tool use, cold‑environment aggravation, and risk of re‑injury) across recommended work types, so it did not provide a reliable basis to find capacity for 30+ hours per week. Consequently the Corporation's decision of 6 August 2014…
27 May 2015
The appeal was allowed because a more recent qualified support needs assessment (22 September 2014) reliably demonstrated higher attendant care and home help needs and because there was insufficient evidential basis to impute a greater reasonable contribution from family members; therefore the review decision was quashed and ACC must implement the 20 hours 40 minutes per week allocation and review the rehabilitation plan under s79.
27 Feb 2015
Dr Turner’s VIMA was legally flawed because it failed to engage with and reconcile material prior medical and psychological assessments and rehabilitation recommendations concerning pain management, fluctuating symptoms and need for a graduated return to work; consequently the conclusion that the appellant could sustain 35 or more hours per week was unsupportable and the Corporation’s decision was set aside.
17 Sept 2014
On the evidence before the Corporation the appellant was not likely to achieve vocational independence at the time of referral; the VIMA by Dr Reekie was inadequate because it failed to consider and reconcile key medical and occupational evidence (notably persistent pain, limited endurance, recommendations for pain specialist referral and slower pace), and therefore the vocational independence decision was invalid and must be set aside and entitlements reinstated.
28 Aug 2014
The Court held that on the evidence before the Corporation as at July 2008 there was not a reasonable basis to conclude Mr Briggs was likely to achieve vocational independence under s110(3) because rehabilitation remained incomplete after the October 2007 re‑injury and both the VIOA and VIMA were inadequate for failing to address the re‑injury, chronic synovitis, irregular swelling, impact on achievable hours and the practical resettlement needs of an older worker; accordingly the 5 September 2008 decision was set aside and the review decision quashed.
23 Nov 2012
The Court held that the vocational and medical assessments, taken together and conducted by qualified assessors considering the FCE, medical reports and occupational reports, were reasonable and not so deficient as to invalidate the vocational independence decision; absence of a work trial and criticisms of the FCE created caution but did not materially undermine the assessments, so the appeal was dismissed.
5 Nov 2012
The Court upheld the Reviewer and VIOA: the assessor reasonably matched the claimant's demonstrated computer aptitude and diverse work background to the approved clerical and light roles; the literacy report did not establish a barrier sufficient to overturn the assessor's qualified judgment; no equally qualified contrary opinion was produced, therefore the inclusion of Dispatch and Receiving Clerk, Stock Clerk and Warehouse Administrator was justified and the appeal must be dismissed.
13 Jul 2012
The Judge found that the advocate and claimant had reasonable grounds to complain that the case manager's communication could have hindered effective communication with the assessor; therefore the Reviewer erred in concluding the applicant did not act reasonably for s148(2)(b) purposes and the Reviewer's refusal to award costs was quashed; costs were to be awarded to the appellant for the review and fixed compensatory costs for the appeal.