Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), I request the following information, held by ACC, relating to the handling of claims by current and former New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel (veterans) for service-related personal injuries under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. This request focuses on systemic issues identified in foundational reports such as the 1967 Woodhouse Report (principles of community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation, and administrative efficiency), the 1994 Trapski Report (adversarial bias, expert selection flaws, and imbalances for self-represented claimants), the 2015 Acclaim Otago Report, and the 2016 Dean Review, with particular emphasis on coordination under the Veterans’ Affairs Approved Information Sharing Agreement (AISA) effective 6 June 2024.

Please provide the information in electronic format (e.g., searchable PDF or Excel), disaggregated by year (2020–2025 where possible), and anonymized to protect privacy under the Privacy Act 2020. If any part requires transfer to another agency (e.g., VANZ or NZDF), please notify me within 20 working days and provide a copy of the transferred request.

1. Policies and Guidelines:

• Copies of all internal policies, guidelines, or operational manuals (current and any versions from 2020–2025) on processing veterans’ claims for service-related injuries (e.g., PTSD, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), blast trauma, or physical injuries sustained during or post-service), including criteria for recognizing “personal injury by accident” under s20–26 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 in a military context.
• Any guidance on applying Woodhouse principles (e.g., comprehensive entitlement for delayed-onset injuries) to veterans’ claims, including references to Trapski Report recommendations (e.g., independent expert monitoring, report-sharing protocols).

2. Expert Selection and Medical Assessments:

• Data on the selection of medical experts or panels (e.g., Clinical Advisory Panels) for veterans’ claims: number of assessments conducted annually (2020–2025), list of frequently used specialists (anonymized), and any complaints or overrides related to perceived bias (e.g., “doctor shopping” as critiqued in Trapski, pp. 106–109).
• Copies of templates or instructions provided to experts for veterans’ assessments (e.g., ACC167 forms), including how they address military-specific factors (e.g., service records from NZDF) and Whole Person Impairment (WPI) ratings under Schedule 1.
• Statistics on WPI outcomes for veterans’ claims: average ratings awarded (disaggregated by injury type, e.g., mental vs. physical), percentage of 0% ratings appealed/overturned, and any internal reviews of low-rating patterns (2020–2025).

3. Review and Appeal Outcomes:

• Aggregated data on veterans’ review applications (via FairWay Resolution) and appeals (District Court/High Court): number lodged annually (2020–2025), success rates (claimant wins), withdrawal rates, and reasons for declinature (e.g., causation, evidence gaps). Disaggregate by self-represented vs. represented claimants, and by injury type (e.g., PTSD/NIHL vs. physical trauma).
• Copies of any internal analyses or reports (2020–2025) on barriers for self-represented veterans, including references to Acclaim Otago (2015) or Dean Review (2016) findings (e.g., 30% success rate for self-reps vs. 50% with lawyers).

4. VANZ Coordination and AISA Implementation:

• Records of ACC-VANZ data-sharing under the 2024 AISA (e.g., number of veteran claims transferred/shared, average processing time reductions, and any disputes over eligibility mismatches, such as ACC declinatures later approved by VANZ).
• Any correspondence or reports (2020–2025) between ACC and VANZ/NZDF on coordination issues for veterans’ claims, including handling of lost/incomplete service records and top-up entitlements (e.g., 20% on weekly compensation).
• Statistics on dual ACC-VANZ claims: percentage where VANZ intervention led to revised ACC decisions (under s64/65), and any audits of AISA effectiveness (e.g., post-June 2024 implementation).

5. Costs and Compensation Impacts:

• Data on costs awards and compensation revisions for veterans’ claims (2020–2025): average amounts granted in successful reviews/appeals, and any adjustments for inflation (unchanged since 2008, per Dean Review).
• Internal evaluations of re-traumatization risks in veterans’ assessments (e.g., psychiatric exams), including compliance with UNCRPD obligations for disabled veterans.
If withholding any information, please specify the grounds under s18 of the OIA and consider partial release or consultation under s19. I request a response within 20 working days (by 7 November 2025). If extensions are needed, please notify me promptly.

Thank you for your assistance in promoting transparency and fairness in ACC processes for veterans.

Kind regards, Spencer Jones