New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vocational assessment

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2014

F v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 155
Court

District Court

The appeal succeeds because the vocational independence process was fundamentally flawed: the IRP dated 11 December 2009, which identified outstanding rehabilitation (pain management sessions, targeted computer training and work trials), had not been provided or completed and was not considered by the VIOA or VIMA; s107(3) mandates that vocational independence assessments ensure IRP rehabilitation has been completed—absence of that consideration renders the decision invalid and requires quashing of the review and respondent decisions.
21 Oct 2011

Elley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 321
Court

District Court

ACC acted unreasonably and contrary to s107 by treating comprehensive rehabilitation as complete and proceeding to vocational independence assessments without discussing or formally deciding to abandon the ongoing work hardening/physiotherapy component of the claimant's IRP; the failure to give the claimant an effective opportunity to address alternatives rendered the vocational independence decision invalid and required quashing and remittal for a new IRP and completion of comprehensive rehabilitation before reassessment.
30 May 2008

BIDLAKE V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV-2007-485-2665

Citation

openlaw-18781b40_6b82_4ada_85af_0795c1cef05d.pdf
Court

High Court

The failure to notify the claimant of his right to review the 2002 IRP did not have a significant practical consequence given the medical evidence and subsequent opportunities to seek review and appeal; and there was no breach of natural justice in not providing a separate opportunity to comment on the medical assessment prior to the vocational independence determination because no statute or common law principle required such a step and the review/appeal process was available to address any prejudice.
26 Jan 2005

La Rooy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 18
Court

District Court

Although ACC followed the statutory procedures and the appointed medical assessor concluded capacity for two occupations, the factual reality was that the appellant's manual dexterity and pace of work were commercially insufficient to meet the 30 hours per week requirement; therefore ACC's decision to suspend weekly compensation was incorrect and must be set aside with retrospective restoration of payments.
29 Jul 2004

Redmond v Allianz New Zealand Limited

Citation

[2004] NZACC 212
Court

District Court

The court found the vocational and medical assessments were not shown to be materially flawed, that Dr Kenny's medical assessment was sufficiently comprehensive and consistent with the medical evidence and job descriptions (including limitation to low to moderate, non-prolonged voice use), and therefore the reviewer's decision upholding the respondent's determination was correct; the appeal was dismissed.
18 May 2004

Carter v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 137
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to produce clear and cogent evidence that the occupational or medical assessments were flawed; three consistent occupational assessments and supporting medical opinion establish capacity for work under s15 and suitability for two job options, therefore the review decision is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Nov 2003

Neilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 299
Court

District Court

The appeal is allowed because the medical assessment was fundamentally defective: the medical assessor did not have or consider the updated occupational assessor's report as required by s100(1)(d), and the occupations relied on were improperly characterized such that the assessment could not establish a lawful capacity for work; consequently the decision determining loss of weekly compensation could not stand.
10 Oct 2003

Beecher v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 254
Court

District Court

The judge applied statutory requirements and Buffett: the correct test is whether the appellant can perform all functions required by the generic job description for hotel/motel receptionist for the statutory hours. The occupational assessment showed the appellant lacked current clerical skills required by the generic description and the medical evidence showed some generic receptionist roles required prolonged standing beyond her capacity; therefore the reviewer’s finding of capacity was incorrect, the appellant discharged the onus on appeal, and the reviewer’s decision was quashed with week…
25 Sept 2003

Schofield v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 235
Court

District Court

The capacity-to-work assessment was set aside because the nominated occupations were presented as limited subcategories dependent on the quantity of keyboarding, so the medical assessment rested on qualifications that made the jobs not genuinely generic; the assessment was therefore flawed and both the primary and review decisions were set aside, with the retraining issue to be the subject of a fresh primary decision.
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.