New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Work trial

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2013

Crook v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 418
Court

District Court

The Court preferred and adopted the opinion of the appointed vocational independence medical assessor (Dr Ruttenberg) as sufficiently detailed and supported by the medical and rehabilitation record; there was no objective medical evidence corroborating Dr Black's view that chronic pain prevented concentration or full-time work in the approved occupations, and incomplete/ongoing rehabilitation did not preclude a finding of vocational independence; therefore the review decision upholding vocational independence was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
11 Oct 2012

Simmonds v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 342
Court

District Court

Judge preferred the weight of the multidisciplinary medical, occupational and FCE evidence (notably Dr Marshall and prior assessors) over Dr Xiong's opinion, found rehabilitation under the IRP was substantially complete and that the barrier to full-time work was primarily pain belief/lack of confidence rather than an unremediable biomedical incapacity; accordingly the VIMA and ACC decision of 22 March 2011 were valid and the appeal must be dismissed.
18 Aug 2010

Dalton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 130
Court

District Court

The occupational assessments were flawed because they recommended entry-level occupations without adequate consideration of the appellant's pre-incapacity earnings and without providing or securing necessary, targeted vocational rehabilitation (notably supported CAD retraining/work trial); consequently the Corporation's vocational independence decision was unreasonable and is set aside pending proper vocational rehabilitation and reassessment.
18 Aug 2010

Richards v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 131
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the medical and occupational assessments as having adequately considered the claimant's injury, pain and rehabilitation; computer training was helpful but not essential and the claimant had an obligation to contribute; there was no cogent evidence the VIMA or VIOA were flawed or that further treatment (including pain clinic referral) was required to complete vocational rehabilitation; recommended sedentary/light job types were medically sustainable and the difference from pre-incapacity earnings did not render the assessment wrong, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
1 Feb 2010

H v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 14
Court

District Court

On balance of the evidence, including the work trial outcome and the specialist opinion of the treating rheumatologist that the appellant could not reasonably transition to 35+ hours per week and would benefit from a graduated return and further multidisciplinary rehabilitation, the court found the appellant lacked vocational independence in the identified job options and restored her compensation entitlements.
17 Sept 2007

Marbutt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 224
Court

District Court

The vocational independence medical assessment was flawed because the assessor incorrectly concluded that the recurrence of lower back symptoms was unlikely related to the 2003 injury; later uncontested specialist opinions established the appellant had injury-related deterioration at the time of assessment and could not sustain full-time work, therefore the review finding is quashed and the assessment set aside entitling the appellant to the rehabilitation and compensation entitlements he would otherwise have had.
19 May 2004

Gillespie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 140
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the core disputes were factual matters that had not been raised before the reviewer or at the appeal, Judge Willy's factual finding that the employer's condition was reasonable and that the appellant acted unreasonably was sustainable, and no proper point of law was shown that warranted High Court consideration.
14 May 1999

Cochrane v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 122
Court

District Court

The respondent reasonably required the appellant to undertake the work trial; medical and occupational therapy evidence showed the job was within his capabilities and tuition was offered; the appellant abandoned the trial before the scheduled two-week review without demonstrating inability to participate; therefore the refusal was unreasonable and suspension under s73(2) was justified.