TLP v Accident Compensation Corporation
Bruxism was found to be causatively linked to the appellant's covered injuries; therefore treatment with the prescribed medication Myorel is consequential upon those injuries and the respondent must fund it and reimburse any prescription charges paid by the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] NZACC 120
- Parties
- Appellant: TLP (AI 256/05); Respondent: ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 S149 / Reserved Decision on Appeal (judgment)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; appellant successful
- Legal Topics
- Bruxism Causation, Funding of Prescribed Medication, Reimbursement, Causation for Coverage
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
TLP (AI 256/05)
Appellant
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 S149 / Reserved Decision on Appeal (judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondent was correct to decline funding Myorel
- 2 Whether bruxism is consequential upon the appellant's covered injuries
- 3 Whether appellant is entitled to reimbursement of prescription charges
Ratio Decidendi
Bruxism was found to be causatively linked to the appellant's covered injuries; therefore treatment with the prescribed medication Myorel is consequential upon those injuries and the respondent must fund it and reimburse any prescription charges paid by the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; appellant successful
Orders
- Respondent to reimburse appellant for prescription charges for Myorel previously paid by the appellant
- Respondent to meet costs of treatment for bruxism as directed in the associated decision (Decision 119/2007)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ROTORUA Decision No. 120 /2007 IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN TLP (AI 256/05) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD at ROTORUA on 23 May 2007 APPEARANCES Mrs A Stewart and Mr T Carlysle, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr A D Barnett, Counsel for the Respondent. RESERVED DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] The issue in this appeal is whether the respondent was correct to decline to fund or reimburse the appellant for the costs of the prescribed medication Myorel. [2] On 19 January 2005 the respondent issued a decision declining to so fund on the basis that the particular medication, which had been prescribed by the appellant's GP, Dr Carl, was for the treatment of her Bruxism, which the respondent contended was not a condition consequential upon either of her covered injuries. [3] By virtue of this Court's decision in an associated appeal (Decision119/2007), I have determined that the medical condition of Bruxism is so causatively linked to the appellant's covered injuries and in that decision I directed that the costs of treatment for the appellant's Bruxism be met by the respondent. [4] Accordingly, it is the case that the cost of the prescribing of Myorel for the appellant is similarly so covered and the appellant is entitled to be reimbursed for any prescription charges for Myorel which hitherto she has had to meet herself. [5] The appellant is therefore successful in this appeal. DATED at AUCKLAND this 18th of June 2007 M J Beattie District Court Judge