New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ageing exclusion

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2006

Morland v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 245
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's ongoing right hip problems (trochanteric bursitis and related pathology) are causally connected to the 13 May 2002 work-related lumbar sprain; the respondent's decision to cease treatment for the greater trochanter was incorrect and the hip condition is not shown to be caused wholly or substantially by ageing, therefore cover extends to the hip pathology arising from that accident.
11 Jul 2005

Patchett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 201
Court

District Court

On the evidence the Court preferred the view that the appellant’s left rotator cuff showed greater degenerative change materially contributed to by long-term employment tasks; s26(4) did not exclude cover because ageing was not the sole or substantial cause; s30(2) satisfied because (a) the employment tasks provided a causative property/characteristic contributing materially to degeneration, (b) non-employment activities were not materially causative, and (c) persons performing such tasks faced a significantly greater risk; therefore respondent’s decline of cover quashed and cover granted.
31 May 2004

Garton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 151
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his current symptoms are substantially caused by the 1988 accident; the medical evidence supports that the effects of the accident are spent and the present condition is attributable to pre-existing degenerative disease/ageing or chronic pain not demonstrably linked to a continuing physical injury, therefore the suspension under s117 was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Apr 2004

Lister v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 101
Court

District Court

Medical evidence, including contemporaneous x-ray reporting early osteoarthritic change in December 1989 and subsequent specialist opinions, established osteoarthrosis pre-dated or was present at the time of the accident so the 1989 incident merely ignited an underlying degenerative condition; appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his current symptoms are substantially caused by the accident, therefore suspension of entitlements was correct and appeal must be dismissed.
22 Dec 2003

Ali v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 337
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's symptoms were attributable to a pre-existing developmental spondylolisthesis demonstrated on MRI (Grade 1 L5 on S1 with foraminal disc bulge) rather than a new compensable injury; the appellant failed to prove the present incapacity is substantially caused by the 2002 accident and not substantially by ageing or pre-existing degeneration, therefore ACC's denial of entitlements was correctly upheld.
22 Dec 2003

Milne v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 340
Court

District Court

Weighing the medical evidence as a whole, the Judge found that the appellant discharged the onus on a balance of probabilities because credible medical opinion (Dr Doube, Dr Hancock) together with Mr Hopkins’ inability to say the symptoms were exclusively due to ageing established that the 1990 injury remains a substantial cause of the appellant’s ongoing symptoms; therefore the suspension was unlawful and entitlements must be reinstated.
19 Jun 2003

Felgate v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 128
Court

District Court

Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her current incapacity is substantially caused by the 1992 lifting accident rather than by pre-existing degenerative change and the ageing process; the respondent’s medical opinions were preferred and the suspension of cover is therefore upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

Morland v Accident Compensation Corporation

Patchett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Garton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Lister v Accident Compensation Corporation

Ali v Accident Compensation Corporation

Milne v Accident Compensation Corporation

Felgate v Accident Compensation Corporation