New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Initial medical assessment (ima)

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2009

Jolly v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 32
Court

District Court

The District Court upheld the Reviewer's decisions: the IRPs were not flawed; referral for a Functional Capacity Evaluation and subsequent referrals to independent occupational physicians were appropriate; ACC did not unreasonably delay processing an entitlement request; ACC did not breach s.88; and withholding weekly compensation for claimant's unreasonable failure to attend a scheduled assessment was lawful under s.117(3). All appeals dismissed.
21 Jun 2007

Gibb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 137
Court

District Court

The requirement to undergo initial occupational and medical assessments is an administrative/preparatory step to inform the statutory s86/s87 vocational rehabilitation decision and is not itself a reviewable decision on the claim; the reviewable decision arises when the Corporation decides whether and how to provide vocational rehabilitation (for example by making an IRP).
21 Jun 2007

Raitt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 136
Court

District Court

Where the facts are unremarkable, a decision by the Corporation to require initial occupational and medical assessments under s89 is a purely administrative decision and generally not reviewable; the Corporation is entitled to require and repeat such assessments to identify rehabilitation needs and s87(2)'s three year limit does not, without a primary decision to that effect, bar the Corporation from obtaining further IOA/IMA assessments.
16 Feb 2004

Towers v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 18
Court

District Court

The court held the updated IRP was properly finalised after a reasonable time; the second IOA and IMA were valid assessments conducted pursuant to ss85-96, were not biased or procedurally unfair, did not amount to vocational independence assessments requiring s110 notice, and the IRP as finalised was reasonable and must be implemented.

New Zealand Case Law

Jolly v Accident Compensation Corporation

Gibb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Raitt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Towers v Accident Compensation Corporation