New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Vocational rehabilitation entitlements

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2013

Carey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 330
Court

District Court

The appellant had not demonstrably acquired or retained the requisite computer and related literacy skills despite Corporation-funded training; independent assessment (Gist) showed skills were inadequate; the Corporation failed to ensure training effectiveness (including literacy assessment and objective testing) and therefore the decision finding vocational independence was erroneous and is set aside.
24 Jul 2007

McLean v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 172
Court

District Court

The Corporation lawfully finalised the IRP on 5 May 2006 because it followed the statutory Schedule 1 process and related provisions, made reasonable efforts to consult, and the appellant failed to engage or propose alternative rehabilitation measures; the 1994 settlement letter did not create an entitlement to rehabilitation specifically targeted to restore pre-injury income.
27 Mar 2003

W v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 47
Court

District Court

Although agreement to an IRP constitutes a decision under clause 9(1), an IRP does not grant entitlements and therefore is not a 'decision on the claim' under s.134; accordingly the May 2002 IRP was not reviewable and the appeal is dismissed.