New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vocational independence reassessment

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2017

Danilo v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 64
Court

District Court

There was insufficient contemporaneous evidence of a transformative deterioration in vocational independence in May 2009; the 2009 records show a short-lived exacerbation and do not establish the tipping point required for retrospective reinstatement, therefore the Corporation's discretionary determination to reinstate weekly compensation from 21 February 2014 was lawful and reasonable and must be upheld.
4 Apr 2017

Judkins v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 33
Court

District Court

The ARTP dated 21 November 2012 together with the ARC18 certificate of 26 February 2013 amounted to reasonable grounds under s109 for ACC to have believed Mr Judkins' vocational independence may have deteriorated; ACC should have arranged reassessment effective from 21 November 2012, and the court fixes the reassessment date at 21 November 2012 and allows the appeal.
29 Sept 2015

Young v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 300
Court

District Court

'All information necessary' was not present until ACC had cogent medical evidence demonstrating deterioration (Dr Nicholson report received 5 March 2012) and the financial reimbursement figure from WINZ (received 11 June 2012); the arrears payment on 20 June 2012 was within one month of receipt of that information and therefore no interest was payable under s114.
10 Jul 2015

Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 194
Court

District Court

Marsh's CoverPlus agreement was not an 'accident insurance contract' for the purposes of s342 of the 2001 Act, therefore the 2001 Act applies; Reviewer Walker's remarks on applicable Act were obiter because he declined jurisdiction and are not binding; no arguable question of law existed to justify leave to appeal.
24 Jan 2014

Shaw v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 12
Court

District Court

The court held that on the lower statutory threshold of whether vocational independence 'may have deteriorated' the combined medical evidence (GP Dr Searle, neuropsychologist Ms Dawa, and specialist neuropsychiatrist Dr Newburn) gave reasonable grounds to believe the claimant's work capacity had deteriorated or had been underestimated in 2000 due to covered head injury; therefore a reassessment under s109(2)(b) was required and the earlier refusal was quashed.
3 Oct 2013

Hart v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 313
Court

District Court

Where there is a clear chain of causation linking the claimant's later incapacity to the effects of an earlier assessed injury (including failure of a weakened injury site leading to re-injury), ACC has reasonable grounds to reassess vocational independence under s109(2)(b); the April 2010 patella event was sufficiently attributable to the May 2008 injury to trigger reassessment.
19 Aug 2010

Stevenson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 134
Court

District Court

The Court held that the GP's credible evidence that the claimant may be unable to sustain work established reasonable grounds under s109(2)(b) that vocational independence may have deteriorated; the review decision was quashed and a fresh vocational independence assessment was ordered.
4 Aug 2010

Craze v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

Craze v Accident Compensation Corporation
Court

District Court

Medical evidence showing worsening pain combined with newly noted sagittal imbalance in the lumbar spine met the statutory threshold of reasonable grounds that vocational independence may have deteriorated under s109(2)(b); therefore the respondent's refusal to reassess was unlawful and must be quashed and reassessment ordered.
15 Mar 2006

Brook v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 61
Court

District Court

The medical and occupational reassessments complied with the Act; Dr Porteous adequately considered the appellant's chronic pain and the Caradoc-Davies Independence Allowance report was not a relevant document for his assessment, therefore there was no cogent medical evidence showing the assessments were materially flawed and the respondent's decision that the appellant retained vocational independence was upheld.