The New Zealand Supreme Court has upheld an appeal by Dunedin ACC claimant Karen McGrath and quashed a notice of "vocational independence" assessment sent to her by ACC in 2008.
Mrs McGrath's ankle was seriously injured in 2002 and chronic pain has since restricted her to part-time work, at present 11 hours a week.
The decision involved section 110 of the ACC legislation, which prevents ACC from requiring claimants to undergo "vocational independence tests", unless claimants are likely to be able to undertake full-time work for which they are suited, previously set at 35 hours a week, and now 30 hours.
In quashing the notice, the Chief Justice of New Zealand, Dame Sian Elias, and Supreme Court Justices Peter Blanchard, Andrew Tipping, John McGrath and William Young said the purpose of section 110 (3) was to protect claimants "from unnecessary assessments where there is no real prospect of vocational independence".
If ACC determines claimants have achieved "vocational independence", weekly earnings-related compensation payments are later ended.
Mrs Powell, who is president of Acclaim Otago, an ACC claimant advocacy group, said this landmark case was likely to prove significant for hundreds of seriously injured, long-term ACC claimants throughout New Zealand, including many in Otago.
The Supreme Court justices had said the work fitness tests were "intrusive and may be upsetting".
Simply going through the testing process lacked any "practical purpose" if they could not work full time, she said.
Mrs McGrath's appeal had succeeded but earlier related legal action, involving the High Court and Court of Appeal, had run for several years, which would have involved "quite a financial burden" as well as an "emotional burden".
Injured claimants who were often in pain should not have to rely on appealing ACC decisions to ensure their legal rights were upheld, she said.
Approached for comment, Cheryl Gall, ACC national manager business improvement, said ACC had already introduced a system of checks, involving section 110, before the court released its judgement.
"In this specific case, the Supreme Court decided we did not have sufficient up-to-date information on the client's injury before we made the decision to have the client assessed," she said.
The court had deemed ACC had a "legislative obligation" to ensure it had "sufficient up-to-date evidence" that someone was likely to be able to return to work for 30 hours a week before carrying out an assessment.
ACC had a quality assurance process in place which aimed to ensure a decision to refer a client for a vocational independence assessment was robust, she said.
