ACCforum: Horton V Acc 136 2001 Ai 104 01 - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Horton V Acc 136 2001 Ai 104 01 1998 Act work capacity

#1 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 January 2006 - 01:38 PM

DR Talwar
Dr ronald blair christian
dr kahan
Occupational assessor Miss McCallum
Dr Hancock


IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON

Decision No. 136 /2001

UNDER
The Accident Insurance Act 1998

AND
IN THE MATTER
of an appeal pursuant to section 152 of the Act

BETWEEN
DIANNE MARGARET HORTON
of Dunedin
Appellant
(Appeal No. Al 104/01)

AND
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act
Respondent

HEARING at DUNEDIN on the 24th day of May 2001

APPEARANCES/COUNSEL
H J Peart for appellant
A D Barnett for respondent

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A W MIDDLETON

[1] The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a capacity for work. The appellant, who was then employed as a shelf stacker at a New World supermarket, suffered an injury to her wrist in a work accident on 9 December 1995. She is at present employed in the same work, but for only eight hours per week. Both parties acknowledge that the appellant is not fit to return to her pre-accident employment on a full-time basis.

[2] The respondent required the appellant to enter into the Work Capacity Assessment Procedure after a vocational assessment was completed on 10 March 1999. Initially she underwent a medical assessment by Dr Talwar in April 1999, and then another medical assessment by Dr Christian in January 2000, and a further medical assessment by Dr Kahan on 25 March 2000. Although each of the assessors reached similar conclusions it is the latter assessment upon which the respondent made its decision that the appellant had a capacity to work for 30 hours or more per week as a retail assistant, information clerk and other receptionist, doorkeeper/usher and teacher's aide. That decision was issued by the respondent on 5 May 2000. The appellant applied for a review of that decision which was unsuccessful.

Attached File(s)


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