Hurren v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT Decision No. b J Jez L; HELD AT WELLINGTON DCA No. kfi jci4 UNDER THE Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to 58-94- 0197 Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN R. HURREN APPELLANT AND THE ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION RESPONDENT Heard at Hamilton on-: 28 September 1994 Date of Decision: J y · October 1994· Counsel: No appearance for the appellant P .J. Zumbach for the respondent RESERVED DECISION OF JUDGE J. W. IMRIE I have decided to dis.miss the appeal. 2. Introduction: On 29 September 1993 the appellant lodged a claim in respect of an injury he sustained on 26 August 1968 when he was seven years old. He described the accident as:- "Ran into wooden clothesline. Sharp edge - cracked head. Four stitches. That affected me - not sleeping." On 27 October 1993 the claim was declined because the accident happened before 1 April 1974 when the Accident Compensation scheme was introduced. The_ appellant applied for a review of that decision. In the application he said:- "Well I don't feel I will be able to get back to work. I lack sleeping and it has been going on for years. It has got me tired . and down. That is why I am applying for a claim." . rhe review was heard on 19 January 1994. Mr Hurren attended and · gave evidence. The decision was d·ated ·27 January· 1994. The Review . . . . . .. Officer confirmed the Corporation's decision that no cover was available for -accidents occurring prior to 1 April 1974 even though the effects may still be apparent after that date. ·In his · n _ otice of appeal.the appellant _advised that he was unable to go to _ - work because of his problem and was always going back to the doctor's and tbe hit .bn the head has always been bothering him. 3. · The appellant did not appear at the hearing of the appeal. Ms Zumbach for. the Corporation asked me to dismiss the appe-?l because of the failure of the appellant to appear. I decided to consider the merits of the appeal. Ms Zumbach presented submissions in writing. I appreciate the thoroughness of those submissions. In her submissions Ms Zumbach raises two points. First, the appellant's injury is not covered by the Accident Compensation scheme because it occurred before 1 April 1974. Secondly, notwithstanding the date of the injury, the concern was raised that there was no medical evidence to confirm that the appellant's current problems were caused by the injury. I have decided to dismiss the appeal because the accident occurred before Ap- ril 197 4. I have considered whether it was an error on the appellant's part in . . claiming that the accident occurred before 1 April 1974. When considering · _that I have kept in mind that _ in_ 1968 he was aged only _seven arid it is apparent_ from the documents on the Corp oratio ' n - s · file that his understanding _ _ .of the legislation is limited. However, the evidence he gave before the Review Officer makes it - clear that the accident occurred before 1 April 1974. The provisions of the 1972 Act which provided cover for accidents _such as the appellant I s did not - . _ come into force until.1-April 1974. Accordingly the· appeal is dis.missed. 4. It is not necessary for me to deal with the question of whether or no t _ the -appellant's current medical condition arises from the accident. In any case that would be a matter for a Judge sitting with medical assessors. The Corporation does not seek costs. (J.W. Imrie DCJ)