Ministry of Justice

Appeal challenging the review decision. Sections 75-78, Accident Compensation Act 2011. Whether the Individual Rehabilitation Plan (IRP) finalised by ACC was reasonable and appropriately addressed the appellant’s rehabilitation needs. Held: The IRP was finalised prematurely and did not include all necessary and agreed upon actions for Appellant’s rehabilitation. IRP failed to include referral to pain specialist, general surgeon review, and neuropsychological assessment for cognitive decline. The review decision dated 28 June 2023 is quashed. The appeal is allowed, appellant is entitled to costs.

Appeal challenging the correctness of the corporation’s decision. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation was correct to decline an independence allowance for the appellant because his WPI assessment was below the 10% minimum threshold. Held: No error was established in the Corporation’s decision. Outcome: Appeal is dismissed.

Appeal against a reviewer’s decision. s 114 of the Accident Compensation Act. Whether the earlier decision declining the appellant from receiving interest on weekly compensation arrears payment was correct. Held: reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction over appellant’s application for review, because issue estoppel applied in regard to the interest payments claimed. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.

Claim for treatment injury – ss 32-33 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Acute injury to right wrist while working as a caregiver. Persistent lump later found on hand. Initially diagnosed as a cyst but later discovered to be an atypical fibro histiocytoma. Applicant underwent surgery. Applicant argued that series of events comprises a treatment injury. Held: initial cyst diagnosis reasonable. Standard medical practice was followed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Interpretation of decision – s 6, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s letter confirming earlier cover decision and clarifying condition was covered as a physical injury and not a mental injury constituted a reviewable decision. Letter was not a reviewable decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for cover for occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) - ss 26, 20(2)(e) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant's ONIHL was assessed at 4-5%, below the 6% threshold required for cover to be accepted. Appellant challenged this calculation. Held: material flaws in the assessments of both assessors. Did not undertake a clinical examination and take a careful history to underly the analysis. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant's application to review weekly compensation entitlement was dismissed. Late filing resulted from error or inadvertence by counsel. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant declined cover for lumbar disc prolapse. Late filing resulted from error or inadvertence of Appellant’s counsel. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Suspension of weekly compensation - s 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to suspend weekly compensation for lumbar injury. Whether causal link between injury by accident and ongoing pars defect condition. No evidence to support the view that the injury event caused a fracture or injury to a pre-existing pars defect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for interest on backdated weekly compensation - s 114(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant challenges decisions relating to backdated weekly compensation. Court found that it does not have jurisdiction to reconsider the calculation. Previous incorrect calculation has been corrected. No provision in the Act for interest to be paid on backdated weekly compensation from the date of injury. No unreasonable delay by the Corporation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal against impairment assessment. s 149 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant has established the Corporation’s earlier decision assessing his whole person impairment was incorrect? Whether the Corporation’s email relating to choice of whole person impairment assessor is a decision capable of review and appeal? Held: No evidence as to flaws or errors in the process or content of the whole person impairment assessment conducted on appellant. The email was in relation to an administrative question and does not constitute a decision under the Act. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant declined cover and weekly compensation.  Late filing resulted from understandable error or inadvertence. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Impairment Assessment: independence allowance – Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Lump Sum and Independence Allowance) Regulations 2002. Whether Corporation correctly assessed Appellant’s whole person impairment as 20%. Appellant failed to establish impairment assessment was flawed or incorrect. Corporation correctly assessed Appellant’s whole person impairment and resultant independence allowance. Outcome: appeal dismissed.