18 Oct 1996
Boyle v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Citation
- [1996] NZACC 117
- Court
- District Court
The judge found the appellant was primarily a caregiver (not an earner), the MRI was necessary, appropriate and timely to avoid likely deterioration and potentially costly future care or surgery; because funding the MRI could avoid greater future costs and preserve caregiving capacity it met the s27(6) criteria and the respondent must meet the cost of the MRI and associated mileage.
- Mri funding
- Section 27 approval criteria
- Cost-effectiveness
- Specialists costs regulations regulation 11
- Principal economic activity
- Caregiver entitlement