Chand v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 69/96 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND 43/93 2039 IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN RYAN RAVINDRA CHAND of Canada Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 83/96) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE A W MIDDLETON ON THE PAPERS Both parties have provided me with submissions with a request that I issue a decision on the papers. The appellant is a Canadian citizen who was on holiday in New Zealand and was riding a luge operated by Skyline Skyrides at Rotorua on 17 July 1993. Apparently the luge went out of control and he went off the track and suffered a fractured femur. He was confined to bed for some six weeks, first in a hospital administered by Lakeland Health in Rotorua and secondly in Middlemore Hospital administered by South Auckland Health. As a result of the accident the appellant was forced to remain in New Zealand for a number of weeks before he could return to Canada. When his treatment was completed both hospitals submitted accounts for the services they had provided. The account from South Auckland Health was for 25 days of care at a total cost of $5,220.93. The respondent pursuant to the relevant regulations met the full amount of that account. The issue on appeal is the amount of reimbursement the respondent should make in respect of the costs claimed by Lakeland Health. 2 The respondent met some of the costs claimed by Lakeland Health and explained that certain parts of the claim could not be met because they were not amounts which were specified in the regulations made pursuant to Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992. The appellant applied for a review of the respondent's decision and the review was heard on the papers by Ms Clarridge Perry who confirmed the respondent's decision. It is against that decision which the appellant now appeals. In his submission Mr Singh stated that as a result of the accident the appellant and his family had to stay with Mr Singh for some ten weeks and the appellant's mother had to pay for the transport of the appellant from Rotorua to Middlemore Hospital. The appellant's mother had to obtain leave without pay from her Canadian employers in order to stay with her son. Mr Singh submitted that the expenses involved cannot be recovered by other means and that the appellant is looking to the respondent to meet the hospital bills incurred in New Zealand. Mr Singh submitted that the important issues were: "1. That if section 8 of the ACC Act covers for injury in New Zealand, than (sic) it should cover for all expanses. (sic) 2. The Government of New Zealand allows Visa free entry for Canadian Citizens and so should provide cover for their medical treatment in case of accident. 3. Rayan (sic) Chand does not have the resources to seek legal advise (sic) to claim any expanses (sic) otherwise." Mr Singh also referred me to a letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Services of the Department of Labour. However, that letter only confirms that the operators of the luge recognised that there were hazards in the operation as a result of which they are requiring participants to wear helmets and are developing another track which will not expose the public to the same degree of risks as was involved on this track. That, however, is an issue which is not relevant because the only issue before me is whether or not the respondent is required to meet the expenses incurred in the Rotorua Hospital. Mr Howman, counsel for the respondent has referred to the table in which the respondent set out the items appearing in the Lakeland Health invoice and the amounts paid by the respondent by way of reimbursement. I now repeat that table: Description Lakeland Amount Paid by Authority Invoice Corporation Admission to $216.44 $157.80 ARCI (Supplementary accident and Treatment Costs) emergency Regulations (No.2) 1993 Schedule Theatre Costs Admission to Ward $2,359.92 $602.50 ARCI (Supplementary (4 days) Treatment Costs) Regulations (No. 2) 1993 Schedule: 3 Accommodation Costs - (Day of Admission ($100.45), Day of Discharge ($100.45) and two days (2 x $200.80 = $602.50) Insertion of pin in $589.24 $401.65 Accident Compensation leg (Specialists Costs) Regulations (No. 2) 1990 - Schedule Item 212 Anaesthetist $127.60 $214.38 Accident Compensation (Anaesthetists Costs) Regulations 1990 - Regulation 4: Seven units at $26.80 per unit. Radiology $247.87 $86.10 Accident Compensation (Radiologists Costs) Regulations 1990 - Two images of femur. Laboratory Tests $24.33 Nil No payment made. $3,565.40 $1,462.43 While Mr Singh has referred to section 8 of the Act which grants cover under the Act for personal injury caused by an accident, the respondent does not dispute that provision. The issue is what amounts the respondent is required to pay because of the personal injury by accident suffered by the appellant. The requirements of the Act are that the respondent is required to pay towards costs of treatment only such amounts as are fixed by the regulations made under the Act in respect of the various types of treatment or specialist assistance given to an injured person. Each item of expenditure is covered by specific regulations which Mr Howman has detailed under the heading "Authority" in the table set out above. In each case the regulation states that the respondent is not permitted to pay more than the amount specified in the regulation for the specific services provided. In this case Mr Howman has detailed in his table the nature of the services provided and the amount which the specific regulation permits the respondent to pay. There is no discretion available to either the respondent or the Court to vary those amounts and accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. DATED at WELLINGTON this 10th day of September 1996 A W/Middleton District Court Judge dca83-96.doc (nr)