New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vima (vocational independence medical assessment)

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2017

Topp v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 92
Court

District Court

On the evidence the VIOA was not flawed and supported vocational independence as at 10 December 2014, but the VIMA was flawed because the medical assessor failed to engage with and apply the psychological pain management recommendations, medication/neuropathic pain issues and the claimant's functional limitations at home; those unresolved pain-management and work-trial issues meant the claimant was not likely to achieve vocational independence and the Corporation's decision to require participation in vocational independence process was unsupportable.
30 Nov 2016

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 311
Court

District Court

The Court found the Corporation ignited the vocational independence process prematurely because the s110(3) threshold was not satisfied given incomplete rehabilitation/medical information (including absence of recent GP input and unassessed post‑surgical PIN injuries); the VIOA failed to properly assess required tasks, literacy/numeracy/computer limitations and environmental modifications making three of four identified work types occupationally unsuitable; the VIMA contained significant analytical gaps and did not reliably establish capacity to sustain 30 hours/week. Accordingly the 29 June…
15 Dec 2015

Growcott v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 379
Court

District Court

On a holistic evaluation of all evidence and expert reports the Court preferred Dr Ryder‑Lewis' conclusions that the appellant could not realistically be expected to increase to 30 hours per week; the VIMA did not adequately reflect pain management in a full‑time environment, therefore the decision finding vocational independence was quashed.
30 Jun 2015

Grindlay v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 177
Court

District Court

The VIMA was valid because the assessor considered the claimant's medical impairments and multi-year post-injury work history and reasonably concluded those impairments did not prevent sustaining 35 hours or more per week in the identified work types; therefore the finding of vocational independence was properly made.
27 Feb 2015

Hodson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 49
Court

District Court

The VIOA contained significant flaws for multiple work types (Sales Representative, Dispatching and Receiving Clerk, Radio Dispatcher) and the VIMA by Dr Waite was flawed because it failed to assess the effects of the appellant's diagnosed chronic depression and failed to address specific, material worksheet requirements (eg prolonged driving, constant sitting, standing/walking, shift work). Because no work type was both occupationally and medically suitable, the Corporation's vocational independence decision of 27 January 2011 was unlawful and was set aside; the review decision was quashed a…
17 Sept 2014

Torrie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 222
Court

District Court

On the evidence before the Corporation the appellant was not likely to achieve vocational independence at the time of referral; the VIMA by Dr Reekie was inadequate because it failed to consider and reconcile key medical and occupational evidence (notably persistent pain, limited endurance, recommendations for pain specialist referral and slower pace), and therefore the vocational independence decision was invalid and must be set aside and entitlements reinstated.
2 Mar 2011

Black v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 59
Court

District Court

A VIMA must take into account all relevant covered injuries affecting capacity to work; failure to include the claimant's ongoing plantar fascia injury alongside the back injury rendered the VIMA and resulting vocational independence determinations flawed and unreliable, warranting quashing of those determinations and remittal for further rehabilitation planning addressing pain management before any further vocational independence decision.

New Zealand Case Law

Topp v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Growcott v Accident Compensation Corporation

Grindlay v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hodson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Torrie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Black v Accident Compensation Corporation