New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Social rehabilitation

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2016

F v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 228
Court

District Court

The Court dismissed the appeals: (1) no entitlement to a computer or training because no injury-related need or formal assessment under social rehabilitation provisions was established; (2) backdated weekly compensation was not proved because the evidence failed to meet the required cogent and precise standard to establish incapacity for pre-injury employment under s103(2); (3) photophobia was not shown on the balance of probabilities to be causally linked to the 1989 accident and cover for it therefore fails under Ambros causation principles.
17 Jan 2011

Whiting v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 7
Court

District Court

Business overheads and related office expenses are not reimbursable as vocational rehabilitation because loss of income is addressed by weekly compensation and preserving business goodwill is not a recoverable rehabilitation cost; however the Lifelink alarm is fundable because the need for it results very substantially from the covered treatment injury and is a direct consequence within social rehabilitation, so ACC must fund the alarm.
13 Dec 2010

Carter v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 230
Court

District Court

Because the massage and naturopathy providers were not registered health professionals within the meaning of s.6, their services did not qualify as 'treatment' payable under Clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; therefore ACC's decision to decline reimbursement was correct and must be upheld.
19 Nov 2010

Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 208
Court

District Court

The reviewer and primary decision were quashed because the decision of Care Advantage relied on materially incomplete and incorrect assessment information such that a fair and informed exercise of discretion could not be shown; ACC is properly respondent under the accreditation agreement and there was insufficient evidence that the existing computer was unsuitable or that an upgrade was necessary for social rehabilitation.
22 Jan 2003

Witten-Evans v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 5
Court

District Court

Where an insured is unable to self‑fund rehabilitation, the insurer must fund necessary and appropriate home modifications identified by expert assessment; respondent improperly exercised discretion by imposing an arbitrary maximum contribution and excluding necessary elements (caregiver bedroom and lift); respondent must fund and implement the modifications as required and overseen by appointed designers/project manager.
5 Aug 1997

Haar v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 157
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the interpretation of 'in‑patient services' (whether it requires at least an overnight stay) is a question of law of sufficient importance to merit High Court determination, and because the applicant has raised a substantive additional ground that regulation 5 may be ultra vires or unreasonable in light of s26A.
18 Oct 1996

DC v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

Section 54(14) required deduction of prior lump sum percentages (41%) from the 29% assessed disability, leaving no entitlement to an Independence Allowance; Regulations 5 and 6 require permanent inability to drive or inability to travel as a passenger, and the occupational therapist's driving assessment established the appellant can drive an unmodified vehicle, so no vehicle assistance is payable.
28 Nov 1995

Robertson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 138
Court

District Court

The statutory and regulatory scheme unambiguously required prior assessment and written approval or inclusion in an approved Individual Rehabilitation Programme; because the vehicle was purchased without prior approval and not as part of an approved IRP and the 13-week bar applied, the respondent was legally precluded from approving retrospective assistance, and the appeal must be dismissed.
21 Nov 1995

Langstone v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 134
Court

District Court

Because the regulations permit payment only for aids necessary to achieve independence in daily living and the appellant retained some ability to write and had no demonstrated need for written communication for daily independence, a computer was not a necessary aid under the regulations and the Corporation acted reasonably in refusing payment.
9 May 1995

Layton v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 53
Court

District Court

The Corporation was wrong in law to treat the computer as capable of being provided only under social rehabilitation (s26) when the same multi-purpose aid could legitimately be considered under vocational rehabilitation (s22); however the assistance actually provided was sufficient to meet the social rehabilitation need, so the decision is set aside insofar as based on wrong reasoning but confirmed in effect because the subsidy compensated for the writing disability, and the Corporation must consider vocational rehabilitation under ss22-23 if the appellant seeks it and the statutory tests (ne…