infonews.co.nz
INDEX
POLITICS

ACC needs to "Do the Right Thing"

Wednesday 3 March 2010, 10:29AM

By Acclaim Otago

553 views

OTAGO

In June 2009 ACC announced that 170 ACC Clients were to lose compensation based on a 2006 District Court decision (Giltrap v ACC 141/2006) due to the fact that the people were not earners at the time of their injury. “Acclaim Otago is very pleased to see that Judge Beattie in his recent decision (Vandy v ACC 23/2010) has made the situation very clear for those people who were non earners at the time of injury but who were subsequently incapacitated by that injury at a later date when they were earners and their entitlement to weekly compensation” says Denise Powell, spokesperson for Acclaim Otago.

“ACC made it very clear that the decision to disentitle people from weekly compensation based on their earner status at the time of injury after the Giltrap decision was because ACC was bound by legislation and that ACC had to abide by that legislation once it had been clarified by the courts. The district court has once again clarified the situation regarding people’s entitlement to earnings related compensation if they were an earner at the time of incapacity and therefore ACC, by their own admission, is bound to act on that.”

“We expect ACC to follow the same process as previously and conduct a thorough investigation of their files to identify those people who were disentitled as a result of the Giltrap decision and reinstate and back pay them. Likewise, we expect ACC to identify those people who have applied for weekly compensation since March 2009 and were declined because they were not earners at the time of the injury but actually were earners at the time of incapacity.”

“Judge Beattie has made it very clear that if people are earners at the time of incapacity which is caused by a previous injury then they are entitled to weekly compensation. It does not matter at all what their earning status was at the time of the injury. ACC now needs to show the New Zealand public that their previous removal of this entitlement was not simply a cost saving measure as was suggested at the time and be seen to ‘do the right thing’ for injured New Zealanders” Powell concludes.