21 Aug 2019
The offer to backdate lapsed when the appellant failed to make himself available for a further Initial Medical Assessment within a reasonable period (weeks not months); no exceptional circumstances existed under s117(3B) and it is not inequitable to refuse backdating, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
7 Aug 2019
The District Court accepted Judge Powell's factual findings that the Corporation did not have all information necessary to determine incapacity until the dates identified (notably receipt of Toxicology Panel advice on 2 May 2012) and that cover had not been wrongly declined earlier; therefore interest properly runs from one month after the date the Corporation received all necessary information and the application for leave to appeal raised factual complaints not errors of law and is dismissed.
27 Nov 2018
The Court accepted the contemporaneous clinical notes of Dr Campbell (as clarified by Dr Lobo) showing signs and symptoms of right carpal tunnel syndrome on 26 October 2004 and found the registrar's 6-month retrospective estimate and later commentary were incorrect; therefore the correct date of material deterioration is 26 October 2004 and weekly compensation must be backdated to that date.
4 Apr 2017
The ARTP dated 21 November 2012 together with the ARC18 certificate of 26 February 2013 amounted to reasonable grounds under s109 for ACC to have believed Mr Judkins' vocational independence may have deteriorated; ACC should have arranged reassessment effective from 21 November 2012, and the court fixes the reassessment date at 21 November 2012 and allows the appeal.
18 Jan 2015
The appellant failed to prove on cogent contemporaneous medical evidence that his vocational independence deteriorated as a result of the 2003 assault; the available evidence indicates the left shoulder became significantly problematic later (around 2009) and there is insufficient reliable evidence to backdate loss of vocational independence to 2003, so the appeal is dismissed.
18 Nov 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court did not err in law: the prior review decision that the appellant's refusal to sign the consent form was unreasonable was binding under s.147 (issue estoppel), ACC v Peck precluded entitlement to backdated weekly compensation for the period of non-compliance, and no exceptional circumstances existed to make refusal inequitable; therefore no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was shown.
6 Sept 2001
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant's attempt to re-open the 27 October 1993 suspension was time-barred by the unextendable three month statutory review period; the 5 April 2000 letter was not a decision attracting review rights; the 1993 suspension therefore remains binding until the respondent decides otherwise.