13 Nov 2001
Bidois v Accident Compensation Corporation
- Citation
- [2001] NZACC 318
- Court
- District Court
Dr Sprott's medical assessment was inadequate because it failed to comply with s100(1)(d) by not identifying task characteristics for each job option and giving reasons why the appellant could perform them; Dr Wigley's detailed task-by-task analysis created sufficient doubt about capacity to prefer the appellant's evidence; consequently the respondent's decision that the appellant had a capacity for work was revoked and weekly compensation restored.