Section 100 — Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001: Entitlement to weekly compensation depends on claimant's incapacity for employment and vocational independence
Text of the provision Official document
100 Entitlement to weekly compensation depends on claimant's incapacity for employment and vocational independence (1) A claimant who has cover and who lodges a claim for weekly compensation— (a) is entitled to receive it if the Corporation determines that the claimant is incapacitated within the meaning of section 103(2) and the claimant is eligible under clause 32 or clause 44 of Schedule 1 for weekly compensation: (b) is entitled to receive it if the Corporation determines that the claimant is incapacitated within the meaning of section 103(2) and the claimant is eligible under section 210 for weekly compensation: (c) is entitled to receive it if the Corporation determines that the claimant is incapacitated within the meaning of section 105(2) and if the claimant is eligible under section 224 or clause 43 of Schedule 1 for weekly compensation: (d) is entitled to receive it if the Corporation determines that the claimant is incapacitated within the meaning of section 105(2) and if the claimant is eligible under clause 47 of Schedule 1 for weekly compensation. (2) While a claimant is receiving weekly compensation,— (a) section 103 or section 105 , as the case may be, continues to apply to the claimant; and (b) the Corporation may from time to time determine the claimant's incapacity under section 103 or section 105 , as the case may require; and (c) section 107 also applies to the claimant; and (d) the Corporation may from time to time determine the claimant's vocational independence under section 107 . (3) The claimant may lose his or her entitlement to weekly compensation through the operation of sections 103 to 112 . Compare: 1998 No 114 s 82
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →