12 Aug 2016
The request to attend an Initial Occupational Assessment was a reasonable statutory requirement under s72 and the appellant's refusal to attend, given his stated reasons, was objectively unreasonable under s117; accordingly the respondent lawfully suspended weekly compensation and the review decision upholding that suspension is affirmed.
16 Oct 2012
ACC was not entitled, as a matter of law, to require the appellant to undergo an "updated initial occupational assessment" in the manner of its 27 August 2009 letter; ACC could have achieved its objectives by using the specific powers in s72 to require discrete inquiries or assessments without re‑labeling or re‑initiating the initial occupational assessment prescribed by s89.
16 May 2012
Special leave to appeal was granted limited to the legal question whether the Corporation was entitled as a matter of law to require an updated Initial Occupational Assessment in the circumstances described, having regard to relevant transitional provisions; no determination was made on the merits.
20 Jan 2012
The court held ACC's requirement that the appellant attend a further IOA to correct deficiencies in the earlier report was reasonable; the appellant's failure or refusal to attend after warning was unreasonable and entitled ACC under s117(3) to decline weekly compensation, so the appeal is dismissed.
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.
4 Jul 2008
Although the question raised is one of law, it is not capable of bona fide and serious argument because the law is settled by prior authorities including Weir; therefore leave to appeal to the High Court is refused.
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.
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.