ACC’s Cull of 170 ‘Giltrap’ Claimants Wrong

ACC’s Cull of 170 ‘Giltrap’ Claimants Wrong

In June 2009 ACC issued decisions stopping weekly compensation to 170 sexually abused claimants because it claimed a District Court decision of ‘Giltrap’ in 2006 meant they could not be compensated for loss of earnings. However, in a recent District Court decision of ‘Vandy’ Judge Beattie has turned the ‘Giltrap’ decision on its head.

Judge Beattie’s comments are quite telling and worth quoting:

[25] The Court of Appeal has on a number of occasions identified that the provisions of the Act should be given a generous and unniggardly interpretation, and I find it to be the case that if the interpretation is given to it as Judge Ongley identified, albeit most reluctantly, then that interpretation is far from generous and is denying weekly compensation to the category of persons who were not earners at the time of injury but who subsequently became earners and at some later point the injury caused them to be
unable to continue as an earner.

[26] I acknowledge that this decision is one which may be charting a new course, and further acknowledge that the provisions of Section 103(2) simply continue on with the more or less exact wording of comparable sections of earlier statutes, namely Section 85 of the 1998 Act and Section 37(A) of the 1992 Act.
- Vandy v ACC (DC 23/2010)

Access Support Services has already overturned a number of decisions where claimants have been “giltrapped” by ACC. However, there are a significant number of claimants who would not have challenged ACC’s decision with the 3 month time limit.

“ACC has been operating a miserly interpretation of the ACC legislation, some of it quite wrong, since the current Minister of ACC changed the ACC Board last year” says Mr Wadsworth, head of Access Support Services. “I wonder if ACC will be as quick to revoke those decisions in light of the ‘Vandy’ decision.”

Access Support Services recommends those claimants who have had their weekly compensation payments stopped because of the ‘Giltrap’ decision request ACC recommence compensation from the date of cessation and ask for a new decision to be issued so they exercise their review rights, if necessary.

Read Judge Beattie’s decision in full - Vandy v ACC (DC 23/2010)

ENDS

© Scoop Media