4 Nov 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because no bona fide and serious point of law remained: the 12 October 2011 letter was declaratory and not a reviewable decision, and s284 reporting obligations arise only for information obtained in the course of processing claims; ACC had already granted cover before the request for further investigation, so no reporting duty arose.
15 May 2013
The appeal is dismissed insofar as it seeks to re-litigate claims previously considered and found not reviewable for lack of new evidence; however the specific allegation that treatment by Dr Orr in 2003 gave rise to a treatment injury had not previously been considered as a treatment injury claim and must be treated as a fresh claim for consideration by the respondent.
11 Mar 2013
The Corporation was not required by statute to make a fresh decision based on overall fairness or to backdate the independence allowance; the 31 January 2012 letter did not constitute a new reviewable decision and the refusal to make a decision which the Corporation had no statutory power to make was not reviewable; therefore the review and appeal are dismissed.
9 Nov 2012
The 15 October 2004 letter was a valid, reviewable decision; because it remained unchallenged the 23 September 2008 letter could not be treated as a new decision and there was no tenable question of law warranting leave to appeal to the High Court, so the application for leave is dismissed.
9 Dec 2008
The appeal is dismissed because the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time and no enlargement was granted, the substantive claim lacked merit on the medical evidence which established no causal link between the covered injuries and cervical degeneration, and the 19 October 2006 letter merely confirmed an earlier decision that had been reviewed and upheld so res judicata applied.
18 Jun 2007
The District Court confirmed that the Reviewers were correct to decline jurisdiction because the appellant failed to identify a reviewable decision or raised matters already determined (res judicata) and where payments had been made; accordingly all four appeals were dismissed as ill-conceived.
27 Oct 2006
The Corporation's communications and administrative arrangements (appointment scheduling and requests for change of case manager/office) were not 'decisions' affecting entitlements as defined by the Act, therefore they were not reviewable under s134 and the reviewer (and this Court) had no jurisdiction to entertain the review; appeal dismissed.
27 Oct 2006
The 13 July 2005 communication was an administrative request and not a 'decision' within the meaning of s6 and s134 of the 2001 Act; therefore the reviewer properly declined jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Oct 2006
The 26 May 2005 letter was administrative correspondence and not a 'decision' within the statutory definition; therefore the reviewer and this Court lacked jurisdiction to review it and the appeal must be dismissed.
27 Oct 2006
The communications and actions complained of were administrative in nature and did not constitute a 'decision' within the statutory definition; therefore the reviewer and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's review and the appeal is dismissed.