2 Nov 2001
Application of s.442 required deduction of the 27.6% prior lump sum payment from the assessed 37% whole person impairment, producing a net impairment of 9.4% which is below the statutory 10% threshold for an independence allowance; therefore the appeal is dismissed and later injuries cannot affect the October 2000 assessment though they may justify a fresh assessment.
16 Mar 2001
The District Court held that the assessor's use of ACC training materials as interpretive guidance did not contravene the Act, that clause 59 permitted assessment after 52 weeks despite possible further improvement, and that the assessment complied with statutory requirements; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
23 Dec 1999
Because the appellant received the additional award based on Mr Otto's 30% assessment and that award was paid within the transitional period before the statutory cut‑off, and because the 1992 Act's s147 prevents new lump sum claims based on deterioration after 1 April 1993, the retrospective assessment by Mr Martin could not create an entitlement to a further lump sum; therefore the Review Officer's decision is correct and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Jul 1999
The Home Help decision was time‑barred under s89(5) because no written review application was made within three months and that statutory limit is mandatory; the approved assessor’s finding of 5% whole person impairment, when reduced by the prior 20% lump sum per s54(1), yields no net entitlement and fails the 10% threshold, so no independence allowance is payable.
21 May 1999
Under s54A(7) the respondent was obliged to deduct the total percentage of impairment previously compensated (29.1%) from the new AMA‑based assessment (15%), resulting in nil entitlement to an independence allowance; the court cannot overturn the assessor's medical determination.
21 Feb 1997
The appellant failed to notify a change of address and failed to provide required submissions; the respondent reasonably closed the file; section 147(1) is unambiguous that entitlement required payment on or before 30 June 1995 (except where payment results from a review or appeal decision) and no payment was made by that date; therefore the appellant is not entitled to lump sum compensation and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Nov 1995
The Act and the Regulations plainly require entitlement to be determined by the degree of disability calculated under the Regulations and the Second Schedule; the appellant's further assessed 45% degree of disability must be applied to the Schedule yielding the prescribed weekly rate ($9.00 plus CPI for the 40-49% band); the respondent and review officer correctly applied the law; appeal dismissed.