23 Aug 2018
No question of law was identified for High Court referral: the District Court correctly interpreted s86(2) as permitting concurrent consideration of return to pre-injury work and alternative employment, made factual findings that the assessment process and VIMA were robust and that s110(3) prerequisites were met, and therefore the leave application is dismissed.
2 Dec 2016
Majority held the appeal should be dismissed: the Corporation had information that reasonably supported the s 110(3)(a) conclusion because a suitably qualified Branch Medical Advisor (Dr Taine) provided an expert opinion that, on the available file material, the claimant was likely to be able to sustain 30 hours work; and s 110(3)(b) was satisfied because the Corporation had completed the vocational rehabilitation it was liable to provide under the last agreed IRP.
7 Jul 2016
The application for leave was dismissed because the contested issues were factual determinations about the weight of competing medical evidence and whether rehabilitation had been completed; the District Court's preference for one medical opinion over another constituted a factual finding and did not raise a question of law properly referable to the High Court.
16 May 2014
The District Court held that the legal question whether ACC's requirement that a claimant undergo a vocational independence assessment constitutes a 'decision' under s6 and is reviewable under s134 is a question of law capable of bona fide argument and granted leave to appeal to the High Court to determine that question; the Court did not resolve the substantive issue but found the matter sufficiently arguable given the statutory definition of 'decision' and McGrath guidance.
9 May 2013
The respondent's letter did not constitute a 'decision' under s6 affecting the appellant's entitlements and therefore was not reviewable under s134; the Reviewer's declination of jurisdiction was correct and the appeal is dismissed.