New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cessation of weekly compensation

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2017

Gaskin v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 63
Court

District Court

The Court held that the Corporation followed a robust, statutory process: vocational rehabilitation and pain-focused treatment were provided and completed for the purposes of referral, the s 110(3) likelihood threshold was met given the medical and occupational assessments and the claimant's functional improvement, and the VIMA was not demonstrably flawed; therefore the decision finding vocational independence in six light job types was lawful and was upheld.
28 Sept 2012

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 319
Court

District Court

The claimant's persistent obstructive conduct, repeated failures to attend scheduled vocational appointments without credible medical justification, refusal to engage constructively (including challenges to assessor qualifications), and rejection of reasonable assistance amounted to an unreasonable failure to comply with s72; accordingly under s117(3) ACC validly ceased weekly compensation and the Court will uphold that decision.
2 Sept 2011

Beale v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 245
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found the issue of whether the right shoulder was a covered injury was outside the scope of the challenged decision to cease weekly compensation; the Corporation had earlier declined shoulder cover and had not made a new primary decision based on later medical reports, so the Court would not decide shoulder cover as part of this appeal and there was insufficient basis to overturn the cessation decision.
16 Feb 2010

Moore v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 26
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant entirely failed to prosecute the application for over three years, did not respond to his former solicitor or the Registry, could not be located and there was no prospect of the application proceeding; dismissal for want of prosecution was therefore appropriate.
3 Jun 2009

Corden v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 98
Court

District Court

ACC's decision was upheld because the occupational and medical assessments (including Dr Robb's VIMA) were thorough, properly disclosed, uncontradicted by independent medical or occupational evidence, and the appellant failed to produce clear and cogent evidence that the assessments were flawed or that vocational rehabilitation was inadequate; consequently the appellant was vocationally independent as a Caravan Park and Camping Ground Manager and ACC lawfully ceased weekly compensation.
5 Jan 2009

Stewart v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 1
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant was not fit to return to his pre-injury employment on 21 November 2005 because the essential elements of that employment were repetitive heavy manual handling which he could not safely perform; contemporaneous and later medical evidence, considered in context, established ongoing incapacity and thus ACC's decision to cease weekly compensation was incorrect.
24 Apr 2006

Hanmore v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 99
Court

District Court

The Court found NZFS did not ensure comprehensive vocational rehabilitation as required by s107 because the IRP and its implementation failed to address the appellant’s age and the limited transferability of his fire service skills, and the work trials/computer training were artificially time‑limited so they could not reasonably establish the appellant’s capacity to sustain 35 hours/week; consequently vocational independence was not established and the decision of 2 July 2004 was set aside, restoring the appellant’s entitlements.
27 Aug 2003

Siola'a v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 211
Court

District Court

The Court upheld Catalyst’s decision because the occupational and medical assessments were adequate to establish capacity for 30 or more hours per week; the appellant’s actual employment at the relevant duties and hours corroborated the assessments; the medical assessor’s reservation related only to a 35‑hour threshold and did not invalidate the 30‑hour finding; therefore Catalyst’s decision of 1 February 2002 was correct.
11 Jun 2003

McGregor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 113
Court

District Court

The Court held the occupational and medical assessors had insufficient and inadequate information about the appellant’s functional limitations (significant hearing loss, balance problems and effectively one-handed status) and therefore the respondent’s determination that the appellant had capacity for 30+ hours of work was unrealistic; accordingly the termination of weekly compensation was incorrect and the appeal succeeds, with leave to appeal out of time granted because the merits and lack of prejudice justified extension.
9 Nov 2001

Ching v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 312
Court

District Court

The Corporation lawfully assessed capacity under s51 and suspended weekly compensation pursuant to the mandatory requirement in s49, so it was not empowered to continue weekly payments during the course; payment of course costs remained discretionary under s19/s23 but the appellant did not raise that request during the Work Capacity Assessment so the Corporation never had the opportunity to exercise its discretion and the Reviewer correctly declined liability.