New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Definition of accident (s25)

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2018

Reesby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Surgery)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 162
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish that the medial meniscal and patello-femoral chondral pathologies were caused by the 6 April 2015 accident; the CAP's analysis, supporting evidence of pre-existing symptoms, delay in claim, equivocal imaging and continued activity outweighed the treating surgeon's tentative opinion, therefore ACC's refusal to fund surgery was correct and the review decision is upheld.
21 Nov 2017

Taylor Preston v Accident Compensation Corporation and Michael Prodger (Cover Issues)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 138
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the reviewer's factual findings and medical evidence (notably the treating orthopaedic surgeon) that the supraspinatus tear was traumatic and consistent with the claimant's account of wrenching his shoulder while trying to catch a falling carcass; the claimant's inconsistencies were explainable and not fatal, permitting a robust inference of causation and therefore cover under s28 was properly granted by the reviewer and the appeal was dismissed.
3 Apr 2008

Sam v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 69
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the causal mechanism of the perinatal hypoxic event; without established causation the injury cannot be shown to be 'caused by an accident'. Even if an external cause is assumed, s25(1)(a) does not apply because while in utero the foetus forms part of the mother and any qualifying force must be external to the mother's body; s25(1)(e) does not apply because 'exposure to extremes of environment' contemplates exposure external to the body and the mother was not exposed to such an extreme environment. Therefore ACC's decision to dec…
15 Mar 2006

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 63
Court

District Court

Medical opinion from multiple specialists established the T4 compression fracture required considerable external force and there was no evidence of underlying bone pathology; absence of a pinpointed event or date does not preclude inferring an accident from the medical and other evidence; therefore on the balance of probabilities the injury was caused by an accident and cover must be granted.

New Zealand Case Law

Reesby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Surgery)

Taylor Preston v Accident Compensation Corporation and Michael Prodger (Cover Issues)

Sam v Accident Compensation Corporation

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation