New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment of work capacity

Legal area

Court

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.
26 Jun 2015

Hopkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 174
Court

District Court

The reviewer’s decision was quashed because the respondent failed to appreciate and properly assess the totality of covered injuries (including mental consequences under the 1982 Act), did not ensure adequate rehabilitation prior to assessing vocational independence, and relied on medical/occupational assessments that inadequately addressed sustained employability given long workforce absence; therefore the vocational independence finding was unsafe and must be set aside and prior entitlements reinstated.
31 Mar 2014

Haworth v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 84
Court

District Court

The VIMA was materially inadequate because it failed to assess the impact of the appellant's longstanding PTSD and the specific effect of anxiety related to the impending hip surgery (and related fatigue, sleep disturbance and medication) on his ability to work 30+ hours/week; that inadequacy was material to the vocational independence finding, therefore the decision of 16 November 2010 and the review decision were quashed and the appellant was not vocationally independent as at November 2010.
21 Oct 2011

Elliott v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 307
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of law capable of serious argument; the issues raised were matters of fact and weight of evidence which the Judge was entitled to decide, and the evidence did not demonstrate irrationality or legal error; depression alleged was not shown to be related to the covered injury and thus was not legally relevant to vocational independence.

New Zealand Case Law

Milne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Hopkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Haworth v Accident Compensation Corporation

Elliott v Accident Compensation Corporation