ACC v Campbell
ACC claimants requiring 24 hour attendant Care:
For those of you who were injured prior to the new attendant care regulations which established a right to 24 hour care and your caregivers/family there is an important decision you should all be aware of,
ARCIC v Campbell ( High Court, Wellington 1 March, 14 April 1996 Heron and Ellis, JJ AP 200/95).
This case found that ACC had not been correctly paying claimants or their caregivers their entitlements to attendant care and their caregivers replacement earnings for work they may have had to give up to care for the injured person.
If you think you may be affected by the decision I would advise you to take the case, to your lawyer and put in a claim. Do not first approach ACC as they are trying to minimise the amounts they will have to pay out under the decision.
The money you may spend on legal fees will be well worth it. Also be aware that settlements are likely to be taxed at a rate of 33% so any settlement you get needs to cover that - I would suggest an interest payment from ACC for all the years the money was not paid.
If any of you affected have questions I would be happy to answer them on the list or by private email.
Errolyn Jones Barrister
[email protected] <
[email protected]>
Accident Rehabilitation & Compensation Insurance Corporation v Campbell
High Court, Wellington 1 March, 14 April 1996 Heron and Ellis, JJ AP 200/95
Accident compensation Pecuniary loss unrelated to earnings Necessary care for person requiring constant personal attention. Seriously injured claimants requiring care for 24 hours per day.
Whether corporation having discretion to fund care for less than 24 hours "Necessary care" Accident Compensation Act 1982, s 80(3)
To Accident Rehabilitation & Compensation Insurance Corporation v Campbell