New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vocational independence

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2023

ROSS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 1405

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1405
Court

High Court

Because there was no reasonably current psychiatric/psychological evidence (post-2011) on which Dr Antoniadis could have properly concluded that the appellant's depressive disorder no longer precluded 30 hours/week work, and because his job-by-job reasoning did not address the covered mental injuries, the District Court's upholding of ACC's 2014 vocational independence decision was unsupported by evidence and therefore legally erroneous under Edwards v Bairstow; appeal allowed.
14 Mar 2022

ROSS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 448

Citation

[2022] NZHC 448
Court

High Court

Special leave was partially granted because, while the s110(3) point is not appealable (Splite), there is an arguable question of law whether there was any evidence that Ms Ross' depressive disorder had materially improved since 2007 such that the District Court's finding of vocational independence could be sustained; accordingly leave is granted limited to that issue (Edwards v Bairstow lens).
25 Feb 2021

JANET GASKIN v ACC [2021] NZCA 27

Citation

[2021] NZCA 27
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 86(2) does not impose a legally mandated strict sequential process; contemporaneous consideration of return-to-work and alternative vocational options is permitted and required by a purposive reading of the Act to enable timely, effective rehabilitation and to avoid perverse delays.
27 Sept 2019

GASKIN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZHC 2455

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2455
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because no sufficiently arguable question of law was identified: the High Court found the District Court did not err in applying s110 given the available evidence; s86(2)(a) and (b) do not inevitably require a strict sequential approach and may be considered together in appropriate cases; there was no demonstrable failure by ACC to assess vocational rehabilitation in the way alleged; and the proposed additional appellate standard point was outside the leave granted and not sufficiently arguable.
20 Aug 2019

Milne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 99
Court

District Court

The Corporation carried out the required occupational and medical assessments under the Act and Schedule 1; the appellant, having demonstrated medical capacity for light/sedentary work and having completed targeted computer training adequate for initial entry and supported by medical opinion that 30 hours per week was sustainable, had achieved vocational independence in the two job options identified; accordingly the decision of 11 February 2016 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
8 Aug 2019

Franich v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

The Court found the vocational independence process was properly commenced and rehabilitation under the IRP was complete; the VIOA overstated suitability for four of the five VIMA job options because the claimant lacked tested computer/EFTPOS skills, but both VIOA and VIMA support the job of jeweller as vocationally and medically sustainable, so vocational independence exists only for the jeweller role.
16 Jul 2019

CO v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 79
Court

District Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that ACC followed appropriate, timely and adequate rehabilitation steps and conducted proper vocational independence occupational and medical assessments (notably Catherine White and Dr Kahan), that rehabilitation was complete and no further ACC-funded rehabilitation was due, and therefore the Corporation's decision of 16 March 2017 that the appellant had achieved vocational independence must stand.
16 Jul 2019

Norman v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late Review Application)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 80
Court

District Court

A 17 month delay in seeking review was outside the scope of 'extenuating circumstances' under s135(3); the appellant's contemporaneous actions (contact with GP, job searches, interaction with ACC) demonstrated she had not been incapacitated from pursuing her review rights, therefore the Corporation was correct to decline the late application and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Dec 2018

GASKIN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2018] NZHC 3190

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3190
Court

High Court

Special leave granted because the application raised arguable mixed questions of law and fact: whether the statutory s110 threshold (rehabilitation complete and vocational independence likely) was satisfied before ACC ordered a vocational independence assessment, and whether ACC complied with s86/87 in addressing return-to-work versus alternative employment; these legal questions merit appeal to the High Court.
28 Nov 2018

Danilo v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 188
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law that was seriously arguable was identified: s113 does not require proof of continuous incapacity but requires proof of a material deterioration or turning point when vocational independence was lost, and the District Court's factual finding that the turning point occurred on 21 February 2014 was open on the evidence and not legally erroneous.