New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Independence allowance

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2019

MC v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

Dr Henderson's WPI assessment complied with the prescribed AMA IV and ACC User Handbook methodology, was detailed and supported by a specialist peer review (Dr Dean); the appellant failed to provide cogent evidence or expert critique to establish on the balance of probabilities that the assessment was incorrect, therefore the ACC decision (WPI 18% for covered injuries) was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
17 Jul 2019

Tau v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover and Entitlements)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 85
Court

District Court

On the evidence the 1991 right hip injury was misdiagnosed — radiology and multiple expert opinions establish an accessory ossicle not an acute fracture — therefore revocation under s65 was valid; for the 2001 accident, expert evidence (examining ophthalmologist and document review) established on the balance of probabilities that trauma contributed materially to right eye corneal scarring and visual loss despite pre-existing keratoconus, so cover for visual loss is warranted; the 2015 lumbar sprain is spent and suspension of entitlements for that injury is lawful under s117 but the medical r…
14 Mar 2019

X v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 22
Court

District Court

The court directed the appellant to file specific medical certificates for the additional injuries so ACC can obtain a revised whole person impairment assessment; the appeal is left on foot and a resumed hearing is scheduled in six months to allow reassessment to proceed and determine whether the 10% statutory threshold for an independence allowance is met, in which case the appeal will be rendered nugatory, or if not met the appellant retains review and appeal rights.
9 Feb 2018

Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

Dr Schousboe's assessment was significantly flawed on its face because he identified emotional issues consistent with impairment but failed to calculate and then properly apportion impairment attributable to non-covered conditions as required by the ACC User Handbook; that flaw undermined the Corporation's decision to cease the independence allowance, necessitating quashing of the decision and a fresh assessment.
8 Feb 2018

U v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 28
Court

District Court

Dr Todd's mental injury assessment and the 15% apportionment were not shown to be flawed; Dr Xiong's second opinion was unreliable and insufficient to displace the assessment. However, regulatory and guide provisions (Independence Allowance Regulations, AMA4, ACC User Handbook) require combining impairments from all covered injuries into a single whole person impairment, therefore the Corporation's decision not to combine the 5% back impairment and 15% mental impairment was incorrect and the decisions are modified to provide an independence allowance based on the combined whole person impairm…
31 Jan 2018

O'Regan v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 9
Court

District Court

Court was satisfied on the evidence, including the claimant's prior acknowledgement and historical transaction records, that a lump sum payment was made in 1977 and therefore the corresponding ~33% impairment had to be deducted from the combined whole person impairment under s377(3)(b); accordingly the Corporation's calculation was lawful and the appeal was dismissed.
31 Jan 2018

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation (Application to extend time for filing)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 6
Court

District Court

Extension of time refused because the delay was inordinate (approximately nine years), the explanations for the delay were unsupported and insufficient, and the proposed appeal lacked any substantive merit on the evidence and expert material presented; absence of prejudice to the respondent did not outweigh those factors.
26 Jul 2017

Peters v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 75
Court

District Court

The 2010 impairment assessment by Dr Cheesman was flawed because it was founded on an uncertain factual matrix regarding the scope of cover for the May 1986 injury (and the relationship of subsequent surgeries to that cover), which undermined the apportionment analysis; accordingly the 2010 decision is set aside and the Corporation is directed to determine the scope of the 1986 cover and whether the later lumbar fusion addressed a traumatic fracture or consequences of earlier surgery before reassessing entitlement.
25 Jul 2017

Rowley v Accident Compensation Corporation (Lump Sum Payment)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 86
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Dr Schousboe's assessment was materially flawed; the assessor applied the AMA Guides and ACC User Handbook, the peer reviewer credibly explained differences with earlier assessments, and no credible expert evidence established error, therefore the WPI of 31% stands and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Jul 2017

D v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 83
Court

District Court

The assessor's WPI determination of 10% was upheld because the assessment complied with statutory requirements (AMA4 and ACC handbook), the 20% apportionment to non-injury conditions was justified and explained, and the appellant failed to provide clear, cogent expert evidence to demonstrate the assessment was flawed; therefore the Corporation's decision stands.