9 Nov 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of law; Judge Beattie's findings that the ongoing condition was degenerative and not attributable to the 2004 injury were supported by the medical evidence and did not disclose an error of law.
19 Aug 2013
On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence (CAP and Dr du Plessis), supported by radiology and timing of symptoms, established the appellant's ongoing condition in September 2007 was symptomatic pre-existing multi-level degenerative cervical spondylosis aggravated by the June 2005 accident rather than new accident-caused pathology; therefore the respondent correctly suspended entitlements under s117(1).
12 Aug 2013
The applicant failed to identify any serious and bona fide question of law under s162; her case merely disputed the weight and conclusions of Dr Lynch's expert evidence (a factual matter) and raised policy issues for Parliament, therefore leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.
19 Dec 2012
The court accepted the respondent's medical evidence (Hadlow) that the appellant's chronic pain is due to degenerative and constitutional spinal conditions (Scheuermann's disease and spondylitic changes) unrelated to covered injury; therefore the respondent was entitled to suspend entitlements under section 117 and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Jul 2012
Because the respondent subsequently granted cover and entitlements sought by the appellant, the appeal became redundant; the suspension decision dated 26 January 2011 under s117 was therefore quashed and the appellant's entitlements restored.
18 Oct 2011
Because the preponderant specialist medical evidence established the appellant's ongoing ankle pathology derived from the 2005 calcaneal fracture (with secondary degenerative change requiring subtalar fusion), the respondent correctly attributed ongoing entitlements to the 2005 injury and correctly ceased entitlements arising from the 2008 incident.
17 Oct 2011
The appeal fails because (1) ACC had no legal obligation to pay or contribute as the surgery incurred no cost to ACC (publicly funded), and (2) the medical evidence made it more probable than not that the June 2010 surgery treated a re‑tear caused by a subsequent incident (duvet twisting) not the covered 18 November 2008 injury, so the treatment was not attributable to the covered injury; accordingly ACC had no liability and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Aug 2011
The application for leave to appeal was struck out because the appellant and her counsel repeatedly failed to comply with directions to file submissions, did not engage with repeated communications from the registrar, and thus the application was abandoned and properly dismissed for non-prosecution.
16 Sept 2010
The District Court concluded that the medical evidence (particularly reports from Messrs Thorn and Muir, and consideration of Dr Noonan and Dr Glass) provided a proper evidential foundation to support Work Aon/ACC's suspension of entitlements because the claimant's current condition was attributable to degenerative changes and thoracic pathology not the covered lumbar sprain, and the appellant failed to identify any serious and arguable question of law; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
3 Mar 2010
On balance of probabilities the court preferred the body of medical opinion (notably Mr Robertson and earlier treating specialists) that the appellant's ongoing chronic low back pain is attributable to the original disc injuries and subsequent failed surgery (with aggravation in 2002) rather than being wholly or substantially caused by degenerative aging; therefore ACC was not entitled to be satisfied that entitlements should be suspended and its decision was quashed.