1 Jul 2014
ACC was entitled to reassess the extent of occupational hearing loss; expert evidence (Dr Stegehuis and peer review by Dr Gilbert) on the balance of probabilities supported a 6% occupational attribution, and percentage attribution is a matter of entitlement/assessment not an essential element of coverage; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
17 Apr 2012
Uncontroverted medical evidence established that the majority of the claimant's current hearing loss is age-related and only 2.7% is attributable to the covered work-related injury; under s81 and Schedule 1 an aid must be a direct consequence of the covered injury to be funded, therefore ACC lawfully declined to fund replacement hearing aids and the appeal is dismissed.
17 Jan 2011
Business overheads and related office expenses are not reimbursable as vocational rehabilitation because loss of income is addressed by weekly compensation and preserving business goodwill is not a recoverable rehabilitation cost; however the Lifelink alarm is fundable because the need for it results very substantially from the covered treatment injury and is a direct consequence within social rehabilitation, so ACC must fund the alarm.
19 Nov 2010
The reviewer and primary decision were quashed because the decision of Care Advantage relied on materially incomplete and incorrect assessment information such that a fair and informed exercise of discretion could not be shown; ACC is properly respondent under the accreditation agreement and there was insufficient evidence that the existing computer was unsuitable or that an upgrade was necessary for social rehabilitation.
9 Jan 2007
ACC correctly declined funding because qualified assessment did not establish the bed was necessary to achieve rehabilitation or independence gains, the sleep issues were materially contributed to by non-injury-related sleep apnoea, and the requested bed is an ordinary household item not of a type normally provided by rehabilitation providers under s81, so ACC properly exercised its discretion.
30 Mar 2005
Although the claimant's injuries created some additional need, ordinary household items (bed, fridge, washing machine) are not 'of a type normally provided by a rehabilitation provider' under s81(4)(c)(iv) and therefore do not meet the statutory prerequisites for ACC liability; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
22 Jan 2003
Leave to appeal was declined because the appellant failed to demonstrate that Judge Barber misapplied the statute: there was no prescription or medical assessment as required by Clauses 41 and 42, and saline solution or a water purifier did not constitute 'treatment' under Schedule 1 absent such medical assessment; consequently the respondent correctly exercised its discretion to decline assistance.
28 Nov 1995
Regulation 6's prohibition on funding an aid with a "similar function" must be interpreted in the factual context of the claimant; a manual wheelchair that only enables limited indoor movement and prevents carrying items and external access is not "similar" to an electric scooter that restores outside mobility and independence. Applying s.26's objective, the respondent's refusal failed to account for the scooter's rehabilitative effect and the appeal is allowed.
21 Nov 1995
Because the regulations permit payment only for aids necessary to achieve independence in daily living and the appellant retained some ability to write and had no demonstrated need for written communication for daily independence, a computer was not a necessary aid under the regulations and the Corporation acted reasonably in refusing payment.
9 May 1995
The Corporation is bound by the Act and Regulations and has no discretion beyond them; because the appellant permanently moved and ceased to incur travel costs the Corporation cannot continue to pay transport or the accommodation payments tied to transport, and a cordless telephone is not an item "specifically designed for use by disabled persons" and is therefore excluded under the Regulations, so the appeal is dismissed.