27 Feb 2015
The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Corporation issued a subsequent decision on 28 February 2013 granting cover for BPD which overtook and rendered moot the earlier October 2012 primary decision and the Reviewer’s February 2013 decision; under s161 the Court could not grant the substantive relief sought once the primary decision had been superseded.
16 Oct 2014
The Court refused to disturb the Corporation's decision and the Review Officer's decision because the parties accepted the Vandy approach and the proper mechanism for addressing alleged earlier assaults is for fresh claims to be filed and decided by the Corporation; however the Corporation should investigate alleged 2008 assaults if claims are made.
22 Nov 2013
Medical literature now recognises at least a possible causal link between childhood sexual abuse and psychosis; on the evidence of this case the Court preferred Dr Codyre's opinion that the appellant's repeated childhood sexual abuse was a material and substantial cause of his schizophrenia on the balance of probabilities, therefore the ACC decisions denying entitlements were quashed and entitlements follow.
11 Oct 2013
Although peer review supported the 2009 15% WPI assessment, the choice of a motel room for the assessment caused severe distress to the claimant that likely prevented a proper assessment; therefore that assessment was unsafe and the review decision upholding it was quashed and a fresh assessment in appropriate medical surroundings was ordered.
20 Aug 2010
The accredited assessor's (Dr Todd) WPI assessment was a valid snapshot of the appellant's condition at the time, there was no clear and cogent evidence that the assessment was flawed or misapplied the AMA Guides, and differences with the later neuropsychiatric report reflected deterioration over time and differing consideration of pre‑existing factors; therefore ACC's decision increasing lump sum to reflect a combined WPI of 24% is upheld.
15 Apr 1997
The appellant ceased employment in March 1993 because of fear for her safety from physical assault and was not an earner immediately before the commencement of incapacity from the sexual abuse; therefore s.40 does not apply and she is not entitled to weekly compensation under the Act for the sexual abuse claim.
26 Apr 1996
The Court held that the Corporation lacked power under the 1992 Act to accept an application for review outside the statutory three month limit, but on the facts the original M46 claim form of 22 September 1992 was properly to be treated as covering multiple incidents of sexual abuse; accordingly the file is to be referred back to the Corporation to decide the appellant's lump sum claims (other than the 1979 rape) on the basis of that original claim form.
27 Jul 1995
The counsellor's November 1991 report provided sufficient disclosure before 1 October 1992 of distinct and severable incidents of sexual abuse so the appellant did not elect to limit the matter to a single incident; the manifest error in the initial claim form date cannot defeat recognition of multiple claims, therefore the review decision is revoked and the Corporation must determine which separate claims were lodged before the cutoff date.
9 May 1995
Judge Imrie held that the appellant had lodged a claim for multiple incidents of sexual abuse before 1 October 1992 because the M46 forms marked 'sensitive issue' together with the counsellor's correspondence were sufficient to put the Corporation on notice of sexual abuse; s.135(3) does not require full particulars before the cutoff and date boxes on forms do not automatically restrict claims for sexual abuse that often spans periods and is disclosed progressively through counselling; accordingly the claim must be dealt with under the 1982 Act and treated as covering incidents from 1968 to 1…