[MG]

A claimant living in Australia successfully appealed against a decision by ACC that he was vocationally independent and able to work sustainably in 8 nominal job options because the medical assessor failed to identify the fact that the claimant suffered from a large disc prolapse, according to Judge Ongley. This case is interesting, IMHO, for the following reasons: (1) the claimant represented himself and the Judge seems to have been impressed with the coherent and logical form of his submissions; (2) while Judge Ongley did not accept that ACC was wrong to start the VI process because rehabilitation was incomplete, he nevertheless spent some time analysing this ground of the appeal and said some very useful things about the scope of ACC's discretionary power under s110 of the IPRCA; (3) the flaw in the medical assessment was identified by opinion evidence from a treating orthopaedic surgeon after the assessment, and ACC's decision, that the claimant's back had deteriorated as a result of his injury, although accompanied by some age-related degeneration, with the result that the claimant could not really be said to remain capable of working for 35 or more hours a week; (4) Judge Ongley took a robust and broad view of the evidence in light of the purpose of the Act, as stated in s3, as opposed to a narrow, technical view which, he implied, was urged on him by ACC's counsel. Well worth reading.  Mabbutt.pdf (423.74K)
Number of downloads: 44

[doppelganger]

I like that he said that the assessment should not be taken for just on the day of presentation but over a longer period.

that is something new that the judge is looking at.

[fairgo]

An individual took on ACC and AD Barnett. Good for him!! This goes right against the 'snapshot' principle of assessments, and rightly so.....

One of the hardest things I believe about having a back injury is the up and down nature of the 'disability' depending on how well the person manages their own symptoms. Of course if we are managing well and able to work part time then unfortunately all too often ACC sees this as being transferable to full time work.... which usually means we are unable to 'manage the injury'.

This is a very good decision. Well done Judge Ongley

[BLURB]

I found this Judgement to be very interesting and useful

I too informed each specialist that I was refered about the pain I experianced

I too informed the specialists that I would have problems increasing my hours from the 2 that my gp was allowing me to try to a full days work because of the pain etc.

So much the same to my situation

As far as I am concerned the Pain Management classes I was forced to attend did not help me in any way to get back into the work force

This is supported by information found on all my winz certs which state that I'm unfit to work because of back injury / pain

While writing this, my left leg is doing its thing again and my keft foot is ice cold ie no circulation .... because I sitting

there is more that I could write regarding my current condition but I won't

Just so much the same

cheers

[scared]

Absolutely aye Blurb. I see with my hubby that some days he isn't too terrible (maybe 1 out of 10, other days he is in so much pain and his balance is so off that he looks drunk. The snapshot doesn't work and they have to understand the whole problem for each individual cause every BODY is unique in it's symptoms.