New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transport for independence

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2018

Lowe v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 161
Court

District Court

Assessments undertaken under s84 established that due to Mr Lowe's significant visual impairment (congruous left homonymous hemianopia and reduced central vision) an enclosed mobility scooter would materially increase safety risks and further limit hazard perception; ACC considered the mandatory cl21 factors and reasonably exercised its discretionary power under s81 to decline funding, so there was no error of law or failure to take a relevant consideration and the decision to decline funding stands.
15 Mar 2017

Johnson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 21
Court

District Court

The Court found that although the Corporation's original assessment and funding of a 2WD vehicle fell within its discretionary assessment framework, changed circumstances (notably the applicant's broken quad bike and subsequent accident) required a fresh reassessment. The appeal was dismissed but the Corporation was ordered to conduct a comprehensive reassessment of transport for independence needs (including access to paddocks previously reached by quad bike) and to appoint a new assessor.
15 Mar 2017

Patterson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 23
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the weight of evidence from the qualified driving assessor and the Branch Advisory Psychologist established there was no injury-related need for an automatic transmission vehicle or the ancillary adaptations; the assessor observed safe driving in a manual vehicle, statutory assessment factors were considered under s84 and Schedule 1, and an automatic transmission was unlikely to remedy the attentional/fatigue issues and could create a false sense of security, therefore ACC properly exercised its discretion in declining funding.
4 Nov 2016

Pewhairangi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 294
Court

District Court

The respondent’s decision was quashed because it failed to take into account relevant considerations required by statute and evidence, notably the unchallenged medical link between the covered treatment injury and subsequent weight gain and the appellant’s demonstrated pre‑injury independence and practical inadequacies of taxi/rental alternatives; the respondent overemphasised non‑covered obesity and cost without proper assessment of cost‑to‑benefit for the claimant. The matter is remitted for reconsideration with directions to give proper weight to those factors.
30 Sept 2016

Knight v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 268
Court

District Court

The Corporation's decision was quashed because it was internally inconsistent and legally flawed: it incorrectly concluded there were no injury-related needs despite multiple assessments to the contrary, misapplied Schedule 1 clauses relied upon, and failed to consider or investigate the disposal issue (clause 22(2)(f)) by obtaining necessary evidence; the matter is remitted for reconsideration with specific regard to clauses 21 and 22 (including 22(2)(e) and (f)).
29 Jul 2016

Chalecki v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 203
Court

District Court

Reviewer Edmondson erred in finding issue estoppel and declining to treat the review as valid; the appellant had made an acknowledged claim which the Corporation failed to decide, attracting a deemed review decision under s146; purchase of an automatic vehicle falls within transport for independence under Schedule 1 cl 12 and s81, the assessor found injury‑related need and the Corporation raised no substantive challenge to entitlement or quantum; accordingly the Court confirms a deemed review decision awarding reimbursement of $30,000 for the purchase cost of an automatic vehicle.
29 Sept 2015

SB v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 297
Court

District Court

ACC's decision was unlawful because it failed to take into account relevant considerations (the appellant's changed medical condition and its potential effect on injury-related transport needs) and failed to obtain and consider a Transport for Independence Assessment before declining replacement funding; ACC also failed to communicate the criteria it applied. For these reasons the Court quashed the review decision and set aside ACC's decision of 27 March 2014 and allowed the appeal.
31 Aug 2015

R v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 247
Court

District Court

The Court upheld ACC's exercise of discretion: ACC relied on two qualified occupational therapist assessments which identified essential vehicle features and produced a reasonable funding contribution that would enable purchase of a vehicle meeting those essential needs; the additional advanced safety features relied on by medical witnesses were not shown to be necessary as a direct consequence of the covered injuries and did not amount to an error of law or failure to consider relevant factors, so ACC's decision of 2 September 2013 was correct and the review decision was quashed.
30 Oct 2013

Sharpe v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 360
Court

District Court

Court held ACC erred in law by concluding it had no jurisdiction to contribute to transport running costs in all circumstances; ACC must assess reasonableness of contributions in light of the claimant's particular circumstances. The attendant care reduction to 164 hours was a permissible exercise of discretion and was upheld.
1 May 2012

Longhurst v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 147
Court

District Court

Although the need for transport to access suitable employment was held to be a direct consequence of the injury, the Act requires that the key aspect 'transport for independence' be of a type normally provided by a rehabilitation provider; an ordinary unmodified motor vehicle is not such a type and the Corporation is not a 'rehabilitation provider', therefore ACC is not liable to fund the purchase and the appeal is dismissed.