4 Oct 2017
The Authority correctly interpreted s 26B and, applying the Greenfield criteria to the material as at April 2011, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he applied for portability; therefore the Authority's decision to decline portability is upheld.
10 Feb 2016
The Authority's factual findings that Ms D was the principal caregiver immediately before separation were open on the evidence and correctly brought s 70B(3) into play; the Court will apply the statutory scheme as enacted and therefore dismisses the appellant's challenge.
15 Nov 2004
Clause 52 of Schedule 1 to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 2001 unambiguously requires cessation of weekly compensation when a recipient attains the New Zealand superannuation qualification age (65); ACC therefore lawfully ceased payments and the appellant's Human Rights Act and Employment Act arguments do not alter that statutory mandate.
17 Jul 2003
The 12 November 2001 letter was a 'decision' within s13(b) because it determined that ACC would not provide entitlements for the earlier period (pre‑21 October 1997); the reviewer erred in declining jurisdiction, so the review decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh review on the substantive question whether ACC can pay arrears predating the written application date.
8 Aug 2001
On the balance of probabilities the tribunal accepts the specialist musculoskeletal and rheumatology opinions (Dr Burry and Dr Tait) that the appellant continues to suffer features of a lumbosacral strain causally connected to the compensable accidents; those findings outweigh the orthopaedic opinion that attributes symptoms solely to pre-existing degenerative change, and therefore the respondent's decision to cease entitlements was incorrect and is revoked.
7 Aug 2001
The court found on the balance of the evidence that the appellant's chronic pain syndrome is a mental consequence of the personal injury of 28 March 1989; the necessary causal connection was established and predisposing or perpetuating factors do not negate statutory entitlement, therefore the respondent's decision to suspend entitlements was incorrect and is revoked.
25 Oct 2000
Because the only accepted injury was the lumbar spine and Dr Thomson correctly applied the AMA Guides to assess a 5% whole person impairment for that accepted injury, which is below the statutory 10% threshold, the respondent's decision to terminate the independence allowance was lawful and must be upheld.
27 Jun 2000
The Court found that the appellant's regional pain syndrome was triggered by and remains causally connected to the covered work-related medial and lateral epicondylitis; therefore the respondent's decision under s73(1) to cease entitlements was incorrect and must be revoked, with entitlements restored from the date they were ceased.
8 Apr 1999
Balancing the three medical opinions and the factual matrix (no prior back problems, continuous symptoms from time of 1993 injury, Dr Doube's clinical examination and opinion), the Court found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's ongoing back problems are attributable to the 1993 injury; therefore the respondent's decision cancelling cover was wrong and is revoked.
18 Aug 1995
The appeal was dismissed because the statutory scheme and the Dentists Costs Regulations limit the Corporation's liability to the amounts specified in the schedule (including the 50% reduction for a previously crowned tooth), and there is no lawful basis for the Corporation to pay more than those amounts.