New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cover eligibility

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2018

Estate of Trevarthen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Decline Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

Mesothelioma is a disease and, absent qualifying statutory carve-outs (s20(2)(e)-(h)), is excluded from the definition of personal injury under s26(2); alternatively, even accepting asbestos causation generally, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the asbestos inhalation occurred on the specific occasion required by s25(1)(b); accordingly ACC's decisions declining cover are affirmed and the reviewer erred in holding that mesothelioma per se met the statutory definition of personal injury.
29 Jun 2016

Wairau v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 178
Court

District Court

The evidence did not establish traumatic causation on the balance of probabilities: the temporal link between the lifting event and hernia was weak, the event was routine rather than a single strenuous incident, there was absence of significant pain at the time, and medical opinion and literature supported a non‑traumatic/gradual aetiology; therefore the reviewer and Corporation were correct to decline cover and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Sept 2014

Watts v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 209
Court

District Court

On the evidence the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the T8 fracture was caused by an identifiable accident or series of events rather than a gradual process, and although medical opinion supported traumatic causation by external force the evidence showed the appellant exceeded physiotherapist instructions and was not under professional direction so s20(2)(b) consequential treatment cover did not apply; therefore ACC's decline of cover stands and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Apr 2014

Gibson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 109
Court

District Court

The court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the scaphoid fracture occurred after 1 April 1974; medical evidence was inconclusive and the rugby injury circa 1963 was the more probable cause. Because the injury likely predated the ACC scheme the appellant is not entitled to cover and the respondent's decision is upheld.
28 Apr 2014

Sisnett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 97
Court

District Court

On the medical evidence from independent specialists and the operating surgeon, the claimant's cervical myelopathy and neurological deficits are attributable substantially to congenital canal narrowing, degenerative disc disease at C6/7 and diabetic peripheral neuropathy, not to the 2001 incident; therefore the condition is excluded from ACC cover under s26(2) and (4) and the appeal is dismissed.
22 Apr 2013

Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 113
Court

District Court

The preponderance of medical evidence established significant pre-existing cerebrovascular disease (multiple lacunar infarctions) that explained the cognitive decline; any effect of the cardiac surgery was at most an aggravation of that underlying condition and, as a matter of law under the Act, aggravation of an underlying disease does not constitute a treatment injury under s32, so the appellant is not entitled to ACC cover.
30 Nov 2012

Direen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 394
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove the supraspinatus full thickness tear was caused by the assault given the absence of contemporaneous shoulder pain or injury records, delayed symptom onset, and competing evidence of pre-existing pathology; therefore ACC's decision declining cover was correct.
14 Aug 2012

RN v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 273
Court

District Court

The Court dismissed the appeal: invasion of bodily integrity from sexual abuse, without evidence of distinct physical injury, does not automatically qualify as a 'physical injury' for the Act; s36's treatment rule meant the claimant's date of mental injury occurred when treated as that mental injury (after age 18), so she did not qualify as a potential earner; the Court had no jurisdiction to make a primary finding of physical injury that the Corporation had not addressed and the correct course is referral to the Corporation for a primary decision where appropriate.
15 Feb 2010

Crooks v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 24
Court

District Court

The District Court upheld ACC's decision because the medical evidence shows the need for the proposed surgery is substantially caused by pre-existing degenerative and developmental spinal disease (spondylolisthesis and stenosis), and a condition substantially caused by disease is not 'personal injury' under s.26(2) of the 2001 Act; therefore ACC has no entitlement to fund the surgery.
30 Oct 2009

Penman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 186
Court

District Court

Because the claim was lodged after 1 April 2002 s360 requires satisfaction of both the 2001 Act and the Act in force when the injury occurred; s26(1)(c) of the 2001 Act permits cover for mental injury only when caused by a physical injury and the appellant identified no physical injury, the claim therefore fails and cover is properly declined.