10 Jun 2015
The reviewer and ACC lawfully and reasonably exercised their discretion by relying on the SNA assessments and clause 14 criteria; the reviewer conducted a substantive fresh review under s145 and there was no demonstrable error in methodology or failure to consider relevant matters, so the reduction in funded attendant care was justified and the appeal is dismissed.
22 Jul 2009
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish that ACC acted unreasonably in fixing attendant care rates or that he was entitled to parity or automatic indexing to agency rates; ACC must act reasonably and consider the clause 14 matters but is not bound to link future rates to agency indexes and the Court will not impose such a constraint absent evidence of unreasonableness.
9 May 1995
The District Court held the Corporation acted within its regulatory discretion under r6 and r13 in assessing necessity and cost-effectiveness and in requiring claimant contribution; the application of the cushioning principle was not improper and the Review Officer's grant of $5,000 was a reasonable exercise of discretion and not unreasonable or against the weight of the evidence, therefore the appeal was dismissed.