New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Whole person impairment assessment

  • 14 Mar 2019

    X v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

    Citation
    [2019] NZACC 22
    Court
    District Court

    The court directed the appellant to file specific medical certificates for the additional injuries so ACC can obtain a revised whole person impairment assessment; the appeal is left on foot and a resumed hearing is scheduled in six months to allow reassessment to proceed and determine whether the 10% statutory threshold for an independence allowance is met, in which case the appeal will be rendered nugatory, or if not met the appellant retains review and appeal rights.

    • Independence allowance
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Eligibility
    • Medical certificate requirement
    • Suppression order

  • 31 Oct 2018

    Purewa v Accident Compensation Corporation (Lump Sum Payment)

    Citation
    [2018] NZACC 171
    Court
    District Court

    In the absence of any competing expert medical evidence and given Dr Harman expressly considered injuries from both the 2015 and 2016 incidents in assessing a 26% whole person permanent impairment, the court must accept that assessment and the resulting lump sum payment of $13,092.31 was correctly calculated and covered impairment from both incidents; the appeal is therefore dismissed.

    • Lump sum payment
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Medical reassessment
    • Standard of review for expert evidence

  • 21 Feb 2018

    Kriletich v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Lump Sum Compensation)

    Citation
    [2018] NZACC 42
    Court
    District Court

    No identifiable flaw or compelling expert contrary opinion was established in relation to the assessors' WPI reports; the amended and peer-reviewed WPI figures (7%-8%) fall below the 10% statutory threshold for lump sum compensation, so the Corporation's decisions were correct and the appeal is dismissed; the Corporation validly exercised s65 to revoke and substitute its earlier decision.

    • Lump sum compensation
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Revision of decisions (s65)
    • Reviewer jurisdiction
    • Assessment peer review and expert evidence

  • 26 Jul 2017

    Peters v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment)

    Citation
    [2017] NZACC 75
    Court
    District Court

    The 2010 impairment assessment by Dr Cheesman was flawed because it was founded on an uncertain factual matrix regarding the scope of cover for the May 1986 injury (and the relationship of subsequent surgeries to that cover), which undermined the apportionment analysis; accordingly the 2010 decision is set aside and the Corporation is directed to determine the scope of the 1986 cover and whether the later lumbar fusion addressed a traumatic fracture or consequences of earlier surgery before reassessing entitlement.

    • Independence allowance
    • Lump sum compensation
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Apportionment
    • Reassessment
    • Scope of cover

  • 13 Jul 2017

    C v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment)

    Citation
    [2017] NZACC 80
    Court
    District Court

    The Court found no evidence that Dr Vickers misapplied the AMA4 or ACC procedures; his amended 29 May 2012 assessment was a proper reconsideration following peer review and therefore the Corporation's decision of 31 May 2012 adopting a 20% WPI was correct; appeal dismissed.

    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Lump sum independence allowance
    • Ama guides (4th ed) and acc user handbook
    • Assessment procedure
    • Suppression order

  • 14 Oct 2016

    JP v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2016] NZACC 283
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Dr Bailey's WPI assessment was flawed; the assessment was properly conducted, peer reviewed and the Reddy letter did not provide cogent expert evidence to overturn the 4% WPI.

    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Lump sum compensation
    • Treatment injury
    • Wpi calculation and peer review
    • Suppression order

  • 2 Feb 2016

    Whitworth v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2016] NZACC 30
    Court
    District Court

    The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to produce any contrary expert medical evidence to establish a traumatic brain injury; the available medical evidence (GCS 15, no focal neurology, specialist reports) supported the respondent's view that no TBI occurred, and there was no cogent basis to disturb the assessor's impairment determination (11% WPI) which properly excluded a non‑covered TBI.

    • Traumatic brain injury cover
    • Lump sum independence allowance
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Review of administrative decision
    • Failure to appear

  • 27 Jul 2015

    Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2015] NZACC 210
    Court
    District Court

    Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court decision raised no question of law: the dispute turned on factual and procedural issues (medical inability to perform WPI assessment due to surgery and resulting delay), and the applicant's broad grievances did not raise a bona fide legal issue under s162.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Question of law
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Procedural jurisdiction
    • Delay
    • Reassessment and retrospective calculation

  • 19 Dec 2014

    Poihegatama v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2014] NZACC 333
    Court
    District Court

    The assessor's report was flawed on at least one substantive ground (diagnosis and medication), therefore the Corporation's decision based on that assessment is set aside; the appropriate remedy is either reconsideration by the assessor with corrected diagnosis or reassessment by a different approved assessor as offered by ACC, with a deadline for the appellant to accept those options and, failing acceptance, a direction for reassessment by a new assessor.

    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Medical assessor review
    • Jurisdiction to award damages
    • Settlement options

  • 20 Feb 2014

    Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2014] NZACC 35
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal was dismissed because the assessor permissibly postponed assessment pending the claimant's recovery and stability after wrist surgery and there was no evidential or legal basis to order retrospective staged assessments; moreover the appellant had not shown ACC unreasonably delayed and procedural requirements for lump sum claims were not satisfied, confining the appeal to the original assessment scope.

    • Independence allowance
    • Lump sum award
    • Unreasonable delay
    • Review of administrative decision
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Scope of review