LUMP SUMS have been re-introduced to ACC since April 1 2002. There are specific rules and guidelines. Netlaw provides you with a great deal of information on lump sums.
This topic specifically relates to lump sum payments you are able to receive under our ACC scheme.
YOU CAN NOW RECEIVE LUMP SUMS
The new Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 re-introduces lump-sum compensation. If you have suffered permanent impairment as a result of an injury that occurred after 1 April 2002, you will now qualify for a one-off payment.
(This replaces the "Independence Allowance", which consisted of regular payments for permanent disability.)
Your condition must have stabilised or it must be at least two years since the injury.
The impairment must be assessed by ACC as at least 10 percent.
For a 10% impairment, you would receive $2,500.
For an 80% impairment (for example, if you were a paraplegic), you would get the maximum of $100,000.
The impairment can be from:
a physical injury, or
mental injury caused by a physical injury, or
mental injury caused by sexual assault or abuse
Your impairment is assessed according to the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4th Edition (AMA4), in conjunction with the ACC User Handbook to AMA4.
•
Payment is based on an assessment of your level of impairment from all your injuries which occurred on or after 1 April 2002
•
If your impairment is assessed at less than 10 percent, you will not receive any payment
.....The first part of this topic has been displayed free of charge. Join up for $45 to have access to this and all other topics!
•
If your impairment is assessed at 80 percent or more, you’ll receive the maximum amount
Feedback / Reviews / Blogs on this topic
Feedback/Blogs/Reviews from related topic: ACC
"Hi to Netlaw. I found this a useful overview. I went to the ACC website and found it too difficult to follow. Jim (Dunedin)
"
Feedback/Blogs/Reviews from related topic: ACC
"I liked you Civil Index. Not much need for family or criminal but you civil index is very good to have at my fingertips. Thanks for providing this service T. (name withheld)"
"Great assistance. I agree with the above. Your civil topics are great. Better than we get at Polytech where I am studying Business Law. Terry -Dunedin - June 2007"
Feedback/Blogs/Reviews from related topic: ACC
"I found this interesting. I want to sue for punitive damages and I was interested to learn that our courts are pretty conservative. I think the Welfare have quite wrongly taken my kids and I have found out that the affidavit they gave to a Judge to get an order to uplift them was known to the Welfare to be incorrect. They told the Judge that I had drug convictions but when I found out 5 months ago that they thought that I proved then to them that this was untrue yet I have now found that they have still put this false evidence in an affidavit. But they have also told other people about my "drug convictions". You have to watch these people. (name witheld) - May 2007"
Feedback/Blogs/Reviews from related topic: ACC
"I'm making an enquiry on behalf of a relative who is paying child support for a person who is in his mid 30s now, the inland revenue who he is making these payments to told me it is not child support it is spouse support payments and he needs to go back to court to have the order changed. Who do we call now as he is not on a good income and should qualify for legal aid.
Netlaw replies: Yes, Spousal Maintenance is different from Child Support. The Family Court deals with Spousal maintenance but the IRD (Child Support Division) deals with kid's maintenance. Choose any family court lawyer and if he earns less than about $33,000 he should get legal aid."
Feedback/Blogs/Reviews from related topic: ACC
"I used to hear all sorts of stories about how some officers lie in the course of their work and thought it was probably rubbish. In most cases, officers work with integrity under difficult circumstances. However, I've just had first hand experience of an officer's lack of honesty in relation to a traffic offence. A kindergarten released private information about ourselves and our child to a policeman investigating an incident. They may have done so lawfully, thats a matter for someone else to decide. But then that policeman, on his official jobsheet, outrightly lied and said the information had come from another party (we have proved it did not).
The kindy refuses to tell us the basis on which they felt release of the info was warranted (i.e. the story the officer spun to them), or what information they gave to him. Since the jobsheet was falsified, we cant get it from there either, and we hardly trust Mr Plod to give us an accurate account now, can we?
Are they not obliged to tell to explain their handling of our private information, lawfully or otherwise?
Is there a provision or statute anywhere that allows officers to provide false statements on official documents to cover-up where they obtained information from?
Netlaw replies: We do know of a number of cases where police officers have lied and falsified evidence. We sincerely believe it is very rare in NZ. However, if you have clear evidence of this, not just a difference of opinion, then you must report it to the Police Complaints Authortity as well as the Commissioner of Police."
receive under our ACC scheme.
