New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehabilitation plans

Legal area

Court

4 Jul 2018

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v TERRY [2018] NZCA 236

Citation

[2018] NZCA 236
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave was granted because there is a serious question of law whether Cull J erred in holding that ACC's retrospective acceptance of weekly compensation required it to update Mr Terry's rehabilitation plan and follow the statutory vocational rehabilitation procedures in ss75,78,80,84,87 and 89; the point is factually and legally significant, capable of bona fide argument and of public importance given frequency of retrospective claims.
12 Mar 2015

Lewis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 64
Court

District Court

The VIOA was set aside because the assessor repeatedly copied prior IOA material and failed to analyze or relate rehabilitation outcomes, aids, workstation requirements and training to the specific job standards and the claimant's demonstrated limitations; the VIMA was set aside because it failed to engage with the practical evidence of the work trial and the effects of long‑term medication and therefore did not adequately establish that the claimant could sustain 30 hours or more per week. Consequently the Corporation's decision of 25 September 2012 finding vocational independence was quashe…
30 Oct 2014

Foley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 284
Court

District Court

There was insufficient evidence that the appellant was likely to achieve vocational independence because rehabilitation was incomplete (uncompleted work trials, unresolved mental health issues, unassessed effects of medication and inadequate reconciliation of pain management with sustained full‑time work), and the VIMCI failed to adequately explain or reconcile these limitations with its conclusion that the appellant could sustain 35+ hours per week; therefore the review and Corporation decisions were quashed/set aside.
9 Sept 2003

Maghzal v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 223
Court

District Court

The court held that ACC validly suspended the appellant's weekly compensation under s.116 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 and lawfully conditioned reinstatement on attendance at the agreed specialist assessment; the appellant's entitlements were properly reinstated from the date he attended that assessment (15 January 2003); the appeal was dismissed.
29 Aug 2000

Raimona v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 226
Court

District Court

ACC properly followed the WCAP procedures and the combined occupational and medical assessments established the appellant had capacity for suitable employment; the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he lacked capacity for work; accordingly ACC's decision to cease weekly compensation under ss49/51 was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v TERRY [2018] NZCA 236

Lewis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Foley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Maghzal v Accident Compensation Corporation

Raimona v Accident Compensation Corporation