New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Capacity to work

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2017

Meredith v Matarese [2017] NZHC 3005

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3005
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's factual findings that the appellant was capable of sedentary employment and that no additional remission of arrears was warranted; however, because penalties and interest are Crown debts ranked below maintenance payments and are punitive in nature, remitting them would not prejudice the respondent and would increase the likelihood of repayment to her, so the Court remitted accrued penalties and interest and varied the repayment regime to weekly instalments of $70 until 31 March 2018 and $100 thereafter from 1 April 2018.
12 Apr 2017

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 39
Court

District Court

The Court upheld the Corporation's decision because Dr Ruttenberg's February 2015 VIMA was not shown to be flawed; the appellant failed to produce clear and cogent evidence to displace the assessor's contemporaneous medical opinion as to vocational independence on that date, and subsequent evidence of deterioration did not undermine the assessment as at 2 February 2015; Sales Clerk role excluded due to driving/safety concerns.
29 Feb 2016

Darwin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 45
Court

District Court

As at the date of the VIMA the preponderance of medical evidence supported Dr Antoniadis' conclusions that the appellant had capacity for the identified work types; the appellant failed to establish that none of those work types were sustainable and therefore the appeal dismissing overturning of the respondent's vocational independence determination fails.
14 Apr 2015

Nixon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 82
Court

District Court

There was no reasonably reliable contemporaneous or retrospective medical evidence to establish incapacity after 24 October 2011; the independent occupational assessment and physiotherapy records supported capacity by that date and no competing medical opinion existed, therefore ACC's decision to refuse ongoing weekly compensation was correct and must be confirmed.
28 Oct 2014

Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 280
Court

District Court

On the evidence and statutory framework the Court found the occupational and medical assessments sufficiently robust to conclude claimant has vocational independence for two job categories (radio dispatcher and order clerk); medication was not shown to preclude these roles; accordingly the Corporation's decision is modified and the review decision confirming vocational independence and ability to work 35 hours or more is upheld.
23 Nov 2012

AP v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 382
Court

District Court

The Court set aside ACC's decision terminating weekly compensation because the assessments relied on failed to give adequate weight to the interactive effect of PTSD, depression and chronic pain demonstrated by the long-standing treating neuropsychiatrist; the Corporation did not properly consider the interaction between withdrawing home help and terminating weekly compensation or the need for a graduated return to work, and on fresh consideration the appellant had not been shown to be fit for full-time pre-injury employment.
14 Aug 2012

MacPherson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 271
Court

District Court

On the balance of evidence the contemporaneous orthopaedic opinion of Mr Jones (5 June 1997) that the appellant had no present incapacity is preferred; there was insufficient cogent evidence that the appellant's chronic spinal symptoms were caused by covered injuries and ACC had sufficient basis in June 1997 to be not satisfied of continuing entitlement to weekly compensation, so the termination decision stands.
21 Oct 2011

Johnstone v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 312
Court

District Court

The District Court properly evaluated the medical evidence and reasonably concluded the appellant's later deterioration was due to degenerative lumbar disease not causally related to the covered accidents; no question of law arose meriting High Court scrutiny, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
11 Aug 2003

Ah-Sin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 184
Court

District Court

Judge Beattie correctly applied the facts and medical evidence and reasonably concluded there were no grounds to believe the appellant's capacity had deteriorated since the earlier determination; his decision did not disclose an error of law and leave to appeal is refused.
25 Jun 2003

Graham v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 137
Court

District Court

The District Court held the respondent reasonably concluded vocational rehabilitation had been completed for the purposes of s.89(3), properly initiated the WRAP process, and relied on vocational and medical assessors whose reasoned reports justified the finding that the appellant had capacity to work 30–35 hours per week in suitable clerical assistant or warehouse receiver roles; the appeal was dismissed.