9 Jun 2015
The court held the respondent did not err in law or act unreasonably by relying on the existing SNAs (Meads and Brown) and exercising its s84 discretion to fund the assessed need; the competing retrospective assessment (Fran Smith) was misdirected by relying on family reports rather than objective assessment, so the review decision was upheld.
10 May 2009
The appellant is precluded by the binding Reviewer decision that his refusal to sign the consent form was unreasonable (issue estoppel under s147); ACC lawfully suspended additional weekly compensation under s117 for non-compliance and, following ACC v Peck, there is no entitlement to backdated payments for the period of non-compliance; Section 60 did not cover the additional post-2000 payments and no exceptional circumstances under amended s117(3)B existed to warrant payment, so ACC's refusal to pay the 29 Aug 2003–4 Oct 2004 period was correct.
23 Aug 2000
Appeal dismissed because appellant was neither receiving nor entitled to receive compensation immediately before 1 July 1992 (claim was not lodged until 22 September 1992), so s149 transitional provisions do not preserve entitlement to backdated attendant care; additionally appellant cannot satisfy s149(3)'s requirement of receiving attendant care at $350+ per week prior to 1 July 1992.