Appeal on ACC cover for back injury fails

A former supermarket shelf stacker has failed to convince the courts she should be paid compensation for an injury she suffered on the job.

Janet Gaskin has been battling ACC since 2016 after it refused to cover her for an injury she suffered while working as a night filler in a Palmerston North supermarket.

That battle made its way to the Court of Appeal, but ended badly for her with the court declining it last month.

According to the judgment, given by Justice Murray Gilbert, Gaskin had to stop working after sustaining a back injury on the job in August 2013.

ACC accepted her claim for cover and paid compensation while she started treatment and rehabilitation.

However, it became plain she was not fit to go back to her old job.

She was assessed in September 2015 as being able to work 30 hours a week in six different roles and was told her compensation would stop in January 2016 since she could work full-time.

Her applications to ACC and the district and high courts to have the decision reviewed all failed.

Gaskin’s main complaint was being assessed for work independence before her rehabilitation had been completed, and she also argued that the assessment was flawed.

While she accepted it was not practicable to go back to her former job, there should have been a sequence of rehabilitation before any assessments, she said.

The judge said one of ACC’S goals was to minimise the economic, social and personal costs to the community.

While that involved helping with rehabilitation to ensure people got as much independence as possible, it had to assess how rehabilitation was going.

Gaskin’s rehabilitation plan was reviewed monthly, and she

The judge said there was nothing in law requiring ACC to be especially rigid in when and how it assessed people’s injuries and readiness for work.

was referred to multiple different specialists to try to find a solution to her pain.

She also finished a work-ready programme in 2015, which meant all vocational rehabilitation was completed. Furthermore, an occupational medicine specialist found she was ready to work 30 hours a week in a role such as light retail or office work.

The judge said there was nothing in law requiring ACC to be especially rigid in when and how it assessed people’s injuries and readiness for work.

Having a strict process meant some people may not get treatment as soon as they needed it, which was contrary to ACC’S goals, the judge said.

No order for costs was made against Gaskin.