New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent causation

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2019

Hussain v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Mental Injury)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 32
Court

District Court

Applying the but‑for and material contribution tests, the court found the overwhelming medical evidence showed the April 2011 head impact was a minor event whose effects had dissipated by the time of the July 2011 cerebrovascular infarct; the stroke and progressive vascular disease were the essential causal factors of the appellant's mild neurocognitive disorder, so the April 2011 injury did not cause the mental injury under s26(1)(c); therefore coverage for the mild neurocognitive disorder is declined and the review decision is upheld.
1 Nov 2018

McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation (Medical Mishap)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 172
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the weight of expert medical evidence establishes that Sotos syndrome (a 5q35 deletion) wholly or substantially caused the appellant's neurodisability; the attempted ECV is not shown to have caused any of the neurodisability and therefore there is no cover for medical mishap under the Act.
3 Mar 2008

BODY CORPORATE 169791 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-5225

Citation

openlaw-b520e027_6bb3_4471_9ab9_b508f51e402c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed Vero's applications to strike out the third party claim and for summary judgment because material factual disputes exist (notably the reason for the endorsement and causation of loss), s11 Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 may apply if the insured proves loss was not caused or contributed to by excluded events, and the fourth defendants' third party notice is valid because Onyx's negligence could be a concurrent cause connected to plaintiffs' claims.
11 Feb 2004

Caithness v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

The MRI showed extensive medial compartment osteoarthritis with degenerative medial meniscal tearing; the respondent's expert evidence that the pathology was long‑standing degenerative disease was preferred over the applicant's expert because of inconsistent history and lack of adequate explanation linking trauma to the degenerative changes; therefore the condition was not attributable to the 21 December 2001 accident and ACC's suspension of entitlements and refusal to fund surgery were correctly upheld.
27 Aug 2003

Gable v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 212
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that any post traumatic stress disorder he suffers is an outcome of the physical injuries sustained in the 20 September 1995 assault because the causal link is undermined by significant pre-existing and subsequent stressors, inconsistent and late disclosure of key facts (the gun/holster incident), and conflicting medical opinions; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

Hussain v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Mental Injury)

McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation (Medical Mishap)

BODY CORPORATE 169791 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-5225

Caithness v Accident Compensation Corporation

Gable v Accident Compensation Corporation