ACC challenges trauma decision
ACC will go back to court to fight a decision that saw a man, who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after pulling people from a collapsed building during the February 2011 earthquake, awarded cover.
ACC lodged an appeal to the High Court on Wednesday, two-and-a-half weeks after a landmark court decision was made in Christchurch builder Bill Toomey’s favour.
Toomey’s claim was denied because his mental health injury was not triggered at work.
‘‘ACC is seeking leave to appeal the decision because we want to clarify the law in this area,’’ ACC spokesman James Funnell said.
Toomey would ‘‘definitely’’ receive his full entitlement, regardless of the outcome, Funnell said.
‘‘This is covered by our legislation which states that appeal proceedings have no impact on the outcome of a prior decision.’’
Toomey said news of the appeal was a set back to his recovery.
‘‘I’ve gone from a high two-and-a half-weeks ago to wanting to punch somebody. Rightly or wrongly, that’s how I feel.’’
‘‘It was getting better because of the help I’ve had and this has just knocked it back, well and truly.’’
After the court decision was released on April 28, a case manager called to see what help they could offer him.
About two days later, the assistance was subject to an appeal.
‘‘I honestly now I think they are just afraid . . . ’oh heck, if we look after Bill who else are we going to have to look after’ . . . it shouldn’t be about the money.’’
Lawyer Louise Newman said a judge would consider if there was grounds for an appeal. The process could take up to three months.
ACC argued Toomey was not entitled to cover as he was not working at the time of the earthquake.
It might be concerned his case would set a precedent and other volunteer workers would make claims, she said.
In Toomey’s case, emergency services asked him to help rescue people immediately after the earthquake happened because he had specialist skills as a builder.
‘‘He went down there with the intention of volunteering to help out where he could, but the only reason he was taken in to the building itself was because they asked if anyone had building experience in order to help them with that,’’ Newman said.
Under the ACC Act, the definition of employment involved pecuniary gain.
Newman said Toomey was able to set his own terms of employment, including where and when he worked, as he was self-employed.