New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical assessment adequacy

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2013

Singh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 239
Court

District Court

On the available evidence the Corporation was not entitled to be 'not satisfied' that the appellant's chronic pain was not caused by covered injuries because substantial, qualified medical opinion supported a diagnosis of CRPS causally linked to a series of injuries; the suspension decision relied on opinions that did not adequately address the CRPS findings and failed to consider the possibility of cover from multiple covered injuries, therefore the review decision was quashed and the suspension set aside.
4 Sept 2007

Nelson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 209
Court

District Court

The respondent's February 22, 2005 determination of vocational independence was correct because there was no evidence at the time of that decision of adverse effects from a head injury; subsequent neuropsychological evidence did not undermine the medical assessor's conclusions, and any change since the decision must be pursued via s109(2)(b) reassessment.
17 Jun 2005

Bell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 179
Court

District Court

Rehabilitation objectives in the IRP were achieved and referral was not premature; the occupational assessor permissibly identified specific sales subcategories based on the appellant's skills and experience; the medical assessor conducted a thorough assessment, considered solvent exposure and fatigue and relied on medical panel findings, and absent clear compelling evidence to the contrary the decision that the appellant had capacity for work in four identified job types (30+ hours/week) was correct; appeal dismissed.
16 May 2005

Chalmers v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 158
Court

District Court

The court held that Dr Kahan's medical assessment met the s93–s100 statutory requirements: it provided adequate, job‑specific reasoning, addressed grip strength and chronic pain, and recorded the claimant's agreement; consequently the insurer's determination that the appellant had capacity for four nominated occupations and the suspension of weekly compensation was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 1999

Kaa v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 275
Court

District Court

The decision that the appellant had a capacity for work was set aside because the occupational assessment failed to identify material computer and downloading functions of the meter reader role and the medical assessment did not evaluate the appellant's ability to perform those specific functions; absent credible vocational and medical findings on those requirements the respondent's decision was fatally flawed.

New Zealand Case Law

Singh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Nelson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Bell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Chalmers v Accident Compensation Corporation

Kaa v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation