11 Jun 2013
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the District Court was bound by the High Court decision in Vandy, which addressed the statutory question under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and precluded granting leave in the circumstances before the Court.
6 Oct 2010
Medical evidence (reports of Dr Gavaghan and Mr Otto) established that the appellant's ongoing incapacity was caused by pre-existing age-related degenerative lumbar disease (merely exacerbated by earlier events), the appellant was not an earner immediately before June 2001, and no medically supported deterioration of assessed work capacity attributable to a covered injury was established; therefore the respondent's decision to decline weekly compensation from June 2001 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Aug 2008
The Occupational Assessment, supported by medical assessment and the appellant's prior employment and transferable skills, validly established that the appellant has Capacity for Work as a Warehouse Manager for 35 or more hours per week; the appellant's unsupported testimony did not rebut the assessment and the appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2008
The court found on the facts that the appellant's back injury was a covered injury that was part of the June 2000 assessment; accordingly deterioration of that back injury falls within s109(2)(b) and the respondent's decision of 9 March 2007 was unlawful. The respondent's decision was quashed and substituted with a determination that the appellant was no longer vocationally independent effective 4 September 2006, with s113 entitlements reinstated.
10 Aug 2007
The appellant failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that the occupational and medical assessments were flawed; those assessments established he has capacity to work 35 hours or more per week as a forklift operator (a role as described that does not require lifting/carrying); therefore ACC's decision that vocational independence had not deteriorated was correct and must be upheld.
12 Sept 2006
The court held that the two limbs of s37 are mutually exclusive; therefore the Corporation could cancel weekly compensation under s73(1) based on a finding the claimant was no longer incapacitated under s37 without first determining capacity under ss49/51, and the question of law asserted was not a serious or arguable point, so leave to appeal was refused.
30 May 2006
Dr Marshall's assessment sufficiently canvassed and factored in the appellant's chronic pain and, in the absence of cogent contrary medical reasoning, his opinion that the appellant had capacity for work as an Assistant Life Skills Tutor is upheld; however the capacity finding for Teacher Aide is quashed because of inconsistency with the appellant's lifting restrictions.
23 Mar 2006
Pre-amendment s109 is to be read as concerned with deterioration of the injury-related conditions that informed the prior vocational independence/capacity assessment; medical evidence established a probable deterioration by 1 October 2002 in symptoms attributable in part to the covered chronic tenosynovitis/tenosynovitis leading to an entrenched chronic pain disorder, and therefore ACC had reasonable grounds to reassess vocational independence. The ACC decision of 1 October 2002 is set aside and reassessment is directed.
27 Feb 2006
The December 1998 agreement could not lawfully terminate the appellant's statutory entitlement because the Act requires a formal determination under s37A or an assessment under s51 to cease weekly compensation; no such determination was made so the appellant remained incapacitated from his pre-accident bakery employment and the correct pre-incapacity income for calculating weekly compensation is his bakery earnings, not his Valley Craft Furniture earnings; accordingly the respondent's June 2000 calculation was incorrect and the respondent must recalculate and pay arrears and reinstate full co…
17 Jun 2005
The appeal was dismissed because the court found the Production Supervisor option could not be sustained due to likely bi‑manual requirements inconsistent with the medical evidence, but the Quality Controller – Manufacturing option was properly identified based on the appellant's broader transferable manufacturing and quality control experience and thus the appellant has attained a Capacity for Work in that employment option; the statutory incapacity test applies only to the employment held at the time of injury and did not preclude the Quality Controller option on these facts.