23 Mar 2012
Kemara v Accident Compensation Corporation
- Citation
- [2012] NZACC 96
- Court
- District Court
On the evidence the case manager reasonably concluded under s110(3) that vocational independence was likely for the identified sedentary/light work at the time of referral; rehabilitation required by the IRP had been completed; inclusion of the additional work types was permissible because they were reasonably identified as suitable; therefore the review decision upholding vocational independence was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.