Fahy v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal is adjourned because the appellant's existing evidence is insufficient to overcome the respondent's assertion of prejudice from the delayed claim; the appellant must obtain a specialist medical report or otherwise produce evidence to enable the Corporation or the Court to determine causation and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] NZACC 73
- Parties
- Appellant: ADRIENNE FRANCES FAHY; Respondent: ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Pursuant to Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Adjourned Without Hearing; Awaiting Specialist Medical Report and Further Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal adjourned without hearing; matter remitted to allow appellant to obtain further medical evidence and to pursue a further decision by the Corporation; merits not decided.
- Legal Topics
- Limitation (12 Month Filing Requirement), Prejudice From Delay, Medical Causation Evidence, Adjournment for Further Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ADRIENNE FRANCES FAHY
Appellant
ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Adjourned Without Hearing; Awaiting Specialist Medical Report and Further Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim was filed within the statutory 12‑month period
- 2 Whether the Corporation is prejudiced by the delay such that the late claim may be refused
- 3 Whether the available evidence establishes causation between the 1987 motor accident and present symptoms
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is adjourned because the appellant's existing evidence is insufficient to overcome the respondent's assertion of prejudice from the delayed claim; the appellant must obtain a specialist medical report or otherwise produce evidence to enable the Corporation or the Court to determine causation and prejudice; merits remain unconsidered until further evidence or a further decision by the Corporation.
Court Disposition
Appeal adjourned without hearing; matter remitted to allow appellant to obtain further medical evidence and to pursue a further decision by the Corporation; merits not decided.
Orders
- Appeal adjourned to permit appellant to obtain a specialist medical report assessing history and medical condition to assist the Corporation
- Appellant to take up obtaining specialist report with the Corporation and may obtain a further decision or elect to present available evidence to the Court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT Decision No. 73 /96 HELD AT HAMILTON IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ADRIENNE FRANCES FAHY Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 7/96) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent HEARD on the 20th day of August 1996 APPEARANCES W F Fahy appellant's father T P Cleary for respondent DECISION OF JUDGE D A ONGLEY This appeal is adjourned without hearing it. The appellant was involved in a motor accident in October 1987. She did not lodge a claim for cover until February 1994 when her general practitioner certified cervical spinal injury resulting from the motor accident. She gave a history of incorrectly diagnosed headaches over the intervening years and it was not until she was examined by a chiropractor in 1994 that she was told the x-rays showed abnormalities indicating that her symptoms were caused by the accident. Her claim for cover was refused because it was not filed within 12 months. Following amendment of s 63 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 the Corporation informed the appellant that she could apply for her claim to be considered if the Corporation did not suffer prejudice. When she did apply the Corporation took the view that it was prejudiced in considering whether her injuries were the result of the motor - 2. vehicle accident, principally because there was no record of her seeking treatment soon after the accident, and therefore no medical record of the post-accident symptoms. When this appeal was set down the matter had been taken no further and the only supporting evidence that the appellant has consists of a rather general report from her chiropractor which does not help to prove that her present symptoms are caused by injuries relating to the accident. For the appellant to pursue the matter she will need a specialist's report assessing her history and medical condition with the view to assisting the Corporation in determining the claim. The appellant will take that up with the Corporation and she may obtain a further decision or, if there are difficulties involving time, she may elect to produce whatever evidence she has to the Court in support of this appeal. The appeal is adjourned to allow that to occur. The merits of the appeal have not been heard and in due course another Judge may hear the appeal if appropriate. DATED at WELLINGTON this 12 th day of September 1996 D A Ongley District Court Judge