Bishop v Accident Compensation Corporation

Bishop v Accident Compensation Corporation

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that s7(1)(c) was satisfied for the carpal tunnel syndrome claim, and the District Court lacked jurisdiction under s91 to decide a new distinct diagnosis (regional pain syndrome) that was not the subject of the primary decision and review.

Citation
[1999] NZACC 213
Parties
Appellant: Derrick Samuel Bishop; First Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation; Second Respondent: L M Perry Ltd
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (section 91) / Decision on the Papers in District Court on Appeal From Review Officer
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Gradual Process Injury, Section 7(1) Criteria, Jurisdiction on Appeal Under Section 91, Review Officer Decision, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, New Evidence on Appeal
Accident Compensation Administrative Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Gradual Process Injury Section 7(1) Criteria Jurisdiction on Appeal Under Section 91 Review Officer Decision +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derrick Samuel Bishop

Appellant

Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

First Respondent

L M Perry Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (section 91) / Decision on the Papers in District Court on Appeal From Review Officer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome (or other regional pain syndrome) is a personal injury by gradual process within s7(1) of the Act
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of s7(1)(c) (risk significantly greater for worker) are satisfied on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the District Court on appeal has jurisdiction to decide a new distinct diagnosis not considered at primary review

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that s7(1)(c) was satisfied for the carpal tunnel syndrome claim, and the District Court lacked jurisdiction under s91 to decide a new distinct diagnosis (regional pain syndrome) that was not the subject of the primary decision and review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • First respondent to consider afresh any claim for cover alleging a different gradual process injury (regional pain syndrome) at primary level and permit review if claim is declined.