New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Independence allowance entitlement

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2013

Raharuhi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 354
Court

District Court

1982 Act did not apply because no claim was lodged within the 12‑month period required by s98; the 1992 Act applied to the 1993 claim; no formal cover decision was issued and under s66(1992) the uncompleted claim is to be treated as rejected; ACC’s letters of 2011 properly stated that no cover existed and the cessation of entitlements (including the independence allowance) was correct and lawful, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 May 2009

Boyd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with clearly notified directions including an 'unless' order, did not file submissions, did not appear at the hearing and gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay or non‑appearance, thereby satisfying the grounds for dismissal under s161(3)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.
4 Sept 2007

Townsend v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 204
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged decision raised no question of law and was a factual determination based on medical evidence with no contrary evidence to justify intervention.
11 Dec 2003

Te Huia v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 323
Court

District Court

Because section 442 requires deduction of the percentage for which a lump sum was previously paid (29%) from any newly assessed whole person impairment (27%), the residual impairment fell below the statutory 10% threshold in Clause 58; therefore no entitlement to an independence allowance exists and there is no arguable error of law requiring grant of leave to appeal.
10 Dec 2003

Gabites v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 321
Court

District Court

The court accepted the medical assessor’s use of the 1995 audiogram as the reading closest to exposure cessation to exclude later presbycusis-related deterioration, accepted the 5% tinnitus allowance as correctly applied and as constrained by the ACC User Handbook/Regulations, and found no expert evidence to overturn the assessor’s 6% whole person impairment assessment; therefore the appellant did not meet the 10% threshold for an independence allowance.
25 Aug 2003

Booth v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 202
Court

District Court

The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to prosecute it: after filing the notice of appeal the appellant gave no further instructions, counsel sought leave to withdraw, and repeated registry attempts to contact the appellant were unsuccessful, rendering the matter not ready for hearing.
21 Mar 2001

Hamlin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 59
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his retinal degeneration was causally connected to the 1987 paraquat exposure; medical evidence relied upon by the respondent outweighed the remote possibility advanced for the appellant, so the respondent was correct to exclude vision impairment from the assessment.
15 Dec 2000

Kingi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 337
Court

District Court

Dr Bennett's reassessment, supported by specialist respiratory reports and peer review, complied with the AMA Guides and there was no clear and cogent evidence of non‑compliance; therefore the 0% whole person impairment assessment and cessation of the independence allowance were correctly decided and are affirmed.
6 Nov 2000

Summers v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 304
Court

District Court

Dr Bell's reassessment, supported by available medical records and absent any expert evidence to the contrary, validly found a 15% whole person impairment reduced by the prior 10% lump sum to 5%, which is below the 10% threshold for independence allowance entitlement; therefore the respondent's decision to terminate the allowance was correct and is confirmed.
14 Jul 2000

Wain v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 175
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the certified medical Assessor, appointed and required to apply the AMA (4th ed) guides, assessed whole person impairment at 3%, below the statutory 10% threshold for an independence allowance, and the Court must accept that certified assessment and cannot substitute its own view.