New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Chronic regional pain syndrome (crps)

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2016

Pepper v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 5
Court

District Court

Although ACC had a sufficient basis to be 'not satisfied' and to suspend entitlements, on fresh review and weighing competing expert opinions the Court preferred Dr de Groot's specialist assessment applying LANSS and the Budapest Criteria; the Court found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant has CRPS causally linked to the 17 March 2012 fall and quashed the respondent's suspension decision and reinstated cover.
31 Aug 2015

Walch v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 241
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because there was no reliable, corroborated medical evidence diagnosing CRPS; the sole ARC18 asserting CRPS lacked reasoning and was undermined by prior correspondence from the appellant's advocate requesting that diagnosis, and the Branch Medical Adviser and other clinicians did not identify CRPS, so ACC's refusal to add CRPS to cover and the reviewer’s decision were correct.
24 Mar 2014

Pandit v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 82
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the medical evidence did not identify a specific physical injury underlying the chronic regional pain syndrome, the decision turned on facts for which no appeal as of right exists, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of law or that the Judge's conclusion was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
8 Aug 2013

Singh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 239
Court

District Court

On the available evidence the Corporation was not entitled to be 'not satisfied' that the appellant's chronic pain was not caused by covered injuries because substantial, qualified medical opinion supported a diagnosis of CRPS causally linked to a series of injuries; the suspension decision relied on opinions that did not adequately address the CRPS findings and failed to consider the possibility of cover from multiple covered injuries, therefore the review decision was quashed and the suspension set aside.
16 May 2012

Barwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

ACC's s103 incapacity determination was quashed because it proceeded to a finding of capacity based on incomplete and insufficient inquiry: it relied on medical opinion without adequate assessment of the functional demands of claimant's actual pre-injury/senior audit role (notably untested sustained keyboard/computer requirements) and without pursuing appropriate rehabilitation or a work trial; exclusion of subjective non-injury factors from the capacity question was legally permissible but ACC nonetheless failed to obtain the specific functional information necessary to validly determine cap…
26 Aug 2010

Kemp v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 132
Court

District Court

The medical assessor's opinion that the appellant was fit for full time work including occasional keyboard use was credible and not sufficiently contradicted by the rehabilitation records or treating practitioners; the evidence was inconclusive, the appellant's lack of cooperation and preference for self-employment reduced the need for further interventions, and the identified jobs were broadly commensurate with pre-incapacity earnings; therefore the assessment was not incorrect and the appeal must be dismissed.
25 Jul 2008

Stevens v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 167
Court

District Court

On an objective assessment of the medical evidence the Court found, on balance, that the appellant experienced continuous symptoms from the 2004 neck injury and that the regional chronic pain syndrome is causally linked to that injury; accordingly ACC's decision of 20 September 2005 to suspend entitlements was quashed and entitlements restored.

New Zealand Case Law

Pepper v Accident Compensation Corporation

Walch v Accident Compensation Corporation

Pandit v Accident Compensation Corporation

Singh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Barwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Kemp v Accident Compensation Corporation

Stevens v Accident Compensation Corporation