New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reassessment for deterioration

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2014

Greenwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 236
Court

District Court

The VIOA was set aside because it added a disability services officer role without evidence the appellant met entry requirements and failed to demonstrate updated clerical and computing skills for the identified despatch and stock clerk roles. The VIMA was set aside because Dr Antoniadis failed to adequately account for the appellant's chronic neuropathic pain, allodynia, post‑traumatic deterioration, and the effects of analgesic medication on safety and sustained work capacity; credible specialist evidence showed the appellant cannot sustain 30 hours or more per week. Accordingly the review…
14 Dec 2009

Hood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 221
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because Dr Marshall's October 2006 assessment correctly reflected the appellant's medical condition at that time; subsequent deterioration shown by Dr Strack occurred after the VIMA and therefore does not render the original decision flawed, although the deterioration attributable to the covered injury justifies reassessment under the Act.
22 Jun 2005

Rivers v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 188
Court

District Court

The review officer correctly reinstated weekly compensation from the date he quashed the respondent's decision (26 March 2004); there was factual ambiguity about deterioration, no evidence of unreasonable delay by ACC, and no basis to displace the statutory starting point under s113 or to exercise discretion to backdate to April 2003.
13 Jun 2005

Bondarenko v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 173
Court

District Court

The court found on the facts that ACC provided the vocational rehabilitation required by the IRP, the occupational and medical assessments were not fatally flawed, and the claimant’s sustained full‑time employment in the identified role for over two years constituted strong factual evidence supporting capacity for 35 hours per week; procedural defects did not cause prejudice and did not invalidate the decision, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
13 Mar 2003

J v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 36
Court

District Court

The respondent's decision of 25 October 2001 was correct because the relevant assessments in September 2001 showed 5% whole person impairment for the lumbar spine and 0% for the sensitive claim, which is below the 20% threshold required for an independence allowance; the later medical report post-dates the assessment and may justify future reassessment but does not affect the correctness of the respondent's decision at the time it was made.

New Zealand Case Law

Greenwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Rivers v Accident Compensation Corporation

Bondarenko v Accident Compensation Corporation

J v Accident Compensation Corporation