ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

... .

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 25 July 2014 - 07:39 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 26 July 2014 - 06:43 PM

I have a copy of the case and it looks complete.

Just searched the copy and was reported in the NZAR case number M1738/92. There is also the first two pages missing this is the Judges explanation.

Attached File(s)


0

#3 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1910
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:53 PM

The ability of having access to judgements is a worthwhile tool to give the claimant a right to defend their claims to rightfull etitlements , but has to be a administered with the appropriate and other means ? ie to get a result in the claimants favour
0

#4 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:44 PM

View Posttommy, on 26 July 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

The ability of having access to judgements is a worthwhile tool to give the claimant a right to defend their claims to rightfull etitlements , but has to be a administered with the appropriate and other means ? ie to get a result in the claimants favour


This King judgement dated 15th July 1993;2 August1993
was never published in the NZ court system.
King 171/94 is available online.
I have both , but unless ACC. stated rehab. was completed , no permanent benefit was offered.
Under the 82 Act sec.59 was for temp ERC. which most are still on Temp.ERC. sec. 60 was for permanent ERC. after all rehab.
or training was completed.

Would I have described that correctly?.
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 26 July 2014 - 11:48 PM

Modified Post 2 with copy of decision
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 July 2014 - 12:26 PM

View Postgreg, on 26 July 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

This King judgement dated 15th July 1993;2 August1993
was never published in the NZ court system.
King 171/94 is available online.
I have both , but unless ACC. stated rehab. was completed , no permanent benefit was offered.
Under the 82 Act sec.59 was for temp ERC. which most are still on Temp.ERC. sec. 60 was for permanent ERC. after all rehab.
or training was completed.

Would I have described that correctly?.


Greg it is good that we have discussions about the meaning of the various sections of the act's as they have gone by. What you have said was quite commonly occurring and the way in which many had interpreted these section. However these are big and fairly complex sections that carry far more meaning than what you have described.

Essentially ACC are required to immediately determine whether the injury has caused a temporary or permanent incapacity, s59 or s60. For example of a professional tapdancer has lost both of their legs they immediately go to s60 which means permanent retirement with the ACC under no obligation to provide medical treatment to return to the preinjury occupation as that would be a complete impossibility. Obviously they were still provide medical treatment to make them comfortable etc. The ACC would be forbidden to provide any funding towards rehabilitation into a new occupation in this circumstance! Should someone who is permanently incapacitated subsequently utilise the residual capacity in a new occupation, obviously without the ACC Assistant, the ACC would be entitled to an abatement of earnings from any earnings generated by the claimant in that new occupation. From the 80% through to 100% preinjury occupation was untouched by the ACC with the instruction manual relied upon by the case managers describing a scaled calculation for the balance. Under s60 the calculation for earnings compensation was based on projected earnings as opposed to historical earnings which of course for a person in a growing career part would be substantially more! This is the reason why the ACC are very resistant to s60 decisions. However I must point out that someone who is permanently incapacitated have no obligation whatsoever to engage in any other work.


With regards to a temporary incapacity we are talking about medical treatment or time being the mechanism of healing, such as a simple broken leg, with the expectation is that in a reasonable amount of time they would return to the preinjury occupation on schedule in a predictable fashion. This would be an immediate temporary incapacity decision under s59. Earnings compensation was based on 80% of the pre-injury earnings. Under section 59 the ACC were to encourage rehabilitation into the preinjury occupation on a part-time basis et cetera to reduce their liability and would even attempt to promote rehabilitation into a new occupation with the claimants consent.

However it gets more complex when a person has an indefinable situation where the medical profession are tracking a deteriorating situation and do not have a guarantee of recovery. Still the ACC have six months to make a decision. Leading up to the 1992 legislation ACC made an active decision not to make decisions either way. However the ACC would treat everybody in a loose fashion significantly consistent with s59 .

In those days the ACC disregarded company bonuses, fringe benefit earnings such as company vehicle fuel, food, telephone allowances and suchlike which was remedied by the courts some years later with this issue being more common in the higher income group.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users