Having a
close friend living under the same roof providing around the clock care to a
paraplegic does not make that friend a “household family member” disqualified
from enhanced accident compensation care payments.
ACC legislation imposes a moral obligation on
family members to support and to care for accident victims. ACC pays extra when care is provided by other
than household family members.
A Porirua paraplegic injured in a 2004 motor
accident challenged an ACC ruling that her live-in friend was a household
family member not entitled to a sleepover allowance as part of ongoing ACC
compensation. Evidence was given of the
very close bond between the two. She had
previously cared for his mother. Now she
is a T7-T8 paraplegic and he cares for her round the clock in her own
home. He pays board. Between them they share the cost of food. His duties as a fulltime carer are formalised
through his employment by McIsaac Caregiving Agency Ltd.
ACC said the carer must be considered a “household
family member”: The two have a close personal relationship of long duration
which extends to sleeping in the same bed.
They described themselves as soul mates “with a bond very few people can
break”. Both deny any sexual
relationship exists.
In the absence of any definition in the Accident
Compensation Act of who might be a “household family member”, the High Court
was asked to look at parallel definitions in legislation governing areas as
diverse as social welfare and diplomatic immunity. Justice Brown ruled that “household family
members” for accident compensation must have a familial connection and that does
not extend beyond carers who are related by blood, marriage (including civil
unions and de facto relationships) or adoption.
It is not enough to just live under the same roof; there must be a
family connection.
Living arrangements in this case are such that
the two are plainly members of the same household, but the carer is not a
“household family member”, His Honour said.
Rameka
v. ACC – High Court (16.4.15)
15.029