6 Dec 2012
The Court found the respondent's decision was premature because it relied solely on a single initial occupational medical assessment that failed to adequately account for consistent specialist psychiatric and psychological evidence of residual depressive symptoms; therefore the s103 incapacity determination was unsafe and was quashed with reinstatement of the appellant's prior status.
11 Apr 2011
ACC's request for updated initial occupational and medical assessments was reasonable; the appellant unreasonably withheld consent after ACC provided a copy of its original request (making him aware of its content), such that suspension of weekly compensation was lawful from 4 February 2010 onward, but not from 2 October 2009 to 4 February 2010 when ACC had failed to provide the 27 August 2009 letter.
21 May 2009
The court held that IOA and IMA requirements contained in an Individual Rehabilitation Plan are administrative steps provided for by s.89 and are not reviewable decisions; while an IRP may be a reviewable document, the specific requirements to undergo those assessments are reasonable and not objectionable.
25 Aug 2008
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the appellant subsequently underwent the required Initial Medical Assessment, entered into a new IRP which recognised her incapacity for full-time work, and both parties consented to dismissal.
11 Dec 2006
The court held that the requirement that the appellant undergo IOA/IMA under s89 and the provision of a draft IRP are administrative steps and not reviewable decisions under s134; alleged failure to suspend an assessment and alleged delay did not constitute a reviewable delay under s134(1)(b); accordingly the reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Dec 2006
The Court held that the statutory vocational rehabilitation framework permits ACC to require IOA and IMA assessments and to include vocational steps in an IRP without a separate fresh decision under ss86‑88 each time; the requirement to undergo an IMA when reasonably called upon is lawful and not a matter to which the claimant can object, and the appellant's repeated relitigation of the same point is without merit and dismissed.
8 Nov 2006
Where a claimant unreasonably refuses to undergo a required Initial Medical Assessment, the Corporation is entitled under s117(3) to withhold weekly compensation; the obligation to submit to IOA/IMA is a non‑negotiable prerequisite to determining vocational rehabilitation and is not itself a reviewable decision that nullifies appeal rights.
10 Oct 2006
The requirement in the IRP that the appellant undergo an IMA was reasonable and appropriate, not premature; the appellant must undergo an IMA when reasonably called upon by the respondent and cannot object to that requirement in the IRP.
31 May 2006
Because (1) the requirement to undergo initial occupational and medical assessments is not a decision under section 6 of the Act and (2) the assessments were completed, there was no live issue for the Court to determine; therefore the appeal is dismissed.