27 Apr 2010
T E v Accident Compensation Corporation
- Citation
- [2010] NZACC 64
- Court
- District Court
The District Court allowed the appeal because the Corporation's decision to apply significant apportionment and a 20% FWPI was not soundly based: critical factual assumptions about maternal psychiatric history, alcoholism and attachment dysfunction were unreliable or unsupported, and those assumptions materially affected apportionment and causal conclusions. The correct remedy is to quash the review decision and require the Corporation to obtain a fresh primary assessment under clause 59 of Schedule 1, providing the assessor with the full documentation and this judgment.