1 Feb 2019
On the contemporaneous financial records, work logs and medical and FCE evidence the claimant's pre-injury employment was part-time taxi driving and ACC had sufficient evidence to conclude by December 2014 that the claimant was not incapacitated from that pre-injury employment; therefore suspension under s117 was lawful.
6 Dec 2018
The Court found ACC's 2010 suspension procedure was flawed (non-compliance with s117(2) and inadequate investigation of employer/actual pre-injury duties), the conciliation process improperly extinguished review rights, and on a robust view of the totality of medical and contemporaneous evidence the appellant had capacity until his last day of work but became incapacitated on 25 May 2012; therefore ACC's decision denying reinstatement from 2010 was set aside and the reviewer decision quashed.
20 Jun 2018
No arguable point of law arises from Judge Powell's judgment because ACC was not required to process treatment claims while 'all entitlements' were lawfully suspended, the relevant issues had been conclusively determined by prior judgments, and allowing the appeal would be a collateral attack and an abuse of process; accordingly leave to appeal is refused.
28 Mar 2017
The plaintiff's review application lacked merit and was abusive/collateral; she acted unreasonably in pursuing a hopeless claim, entitling the Commissioner to costs on a category 2B scale with a 50% uplift under r 14.6(3)(b)(ii); the specific quantum claimed was reasonable, and disbursements were recoverable.
2 Aug 2016
No error in the VIMA was demonstrated; the VIMA represented the relevant snapshot and the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the reviewer was wrong or that the VIMA conclusions were incorrect; any later deterioration does not invalidate the VIMA as of its date; appeal dismissed.
20 May 2016
The reviewer and the Court preferred the comprehensive medical opinion of Dr Strack that the appellant's ongoing shoulder and joint problems are predominantly attributable to pre‑existing degenerative disease (DISH and diabetes‑related tendinopathy) rather than to the 16 August 2011 covered injury; given the quality and scope of the evidence available at the time the second respondent had a sufficient basis under s117 to be 'not satisfied' that entitlements should continue and complied with s54/s64, so the suspension upheld and the appeal dismissed.
18 Dec 2015
Costs were declined because the appellant provided no evidence of costs incurred, the appeal was settled before a hearing, the matter was of low complexity, the appellant's lengthy delays caused additional procedural expense and self-inflicted costs, and the respondent's prior generous $1,500 offer was rejected without justification.
10 Sept 2015
The Court concluded on the balance of probabilities that a review application was more likely than not lodged and that the reviewer's conclusion of no evidence of lodgement was erroneous; the Court quashed the reviewer's jurisdictional decision and directed the parties to file submissions on the appropriate next steps, reserving the deemed decision issue for those submissions under the Court's powers in s 161(2).
28 Jan 2015
The Court held that although the Corporation's notice complied with s64(4) by cross‑referencing the information sheet, the appellant established extenuating circumstances (wife's Alzheimer’s, medication‑related confusion and inadequate support) that met the threshold for an extension; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the extension of time granted.
1 Jul 2014
The appeal is allowed and the Corporation's 20 December 2011 decision and the reviewer L A Clarke's 23 July 2012 decision (Review No. 547583) are quashed because the WPI assessment may not have followed the AMA Guides, relevant factors were not adequately considered, and there is new information warranting an up-to-date review; statutory recordkeeping concerns further support intervention.