9 Oct 2017
s103(2) requires incapacity to work that arises from the claimant's physical or mental personal injury; inability to work resulting from child care after the claimant has recovered from pregnancy/childbirth is not inability 'because of' the personal injury and therefore does not qualify for weekly compensation under the Act.
12 Dec 2014
On the available and unchallenged medical evidence the appellant did not establish an identifiable physical injury or a plausible causal link between the MMR immunisation and the subsequent neurological and developmental changes; therefore the appellant failed to meet the legal requirement for cover and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Oct 2014
The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the GP's failure to monitor and treat caused a new or discrete physical personal injury to her; the symptoms alleged were attributable to pregnancy/post-partum or pre-existing disease and thus no compensable treatment injury to the mother arose, so the appeal is dismissed.
6 Dec 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no fairly arguable question of law: the 2001 Act does not cover PTSD caused solely by witnessing a fatality absent physical injury, and the District Court correctly applied the clear statutory provisions and transitional rules.
2 Sept 2011
On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffered a primary pain/myofascial pain syndrome with no cogent medical evidence of an accompanying physical injury (eg tendonitis, muscle strain or inflammation); therefore the condition did not amount to a 'personal injury' under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and cover properly declined; appeal dismissed.
15 Dec 2010
No question of law arose; Judge Ongley's finding that the physical injury was not a real and substantial cause of the appellant's ongoing condition was a factual conclusion open on the medical evidence, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
31 Aug 2010
Leave to appeal was granted because the questions whether pregnancy with fetal abnormality constitutes a "personal injury" under the Act and whether ACC may revoke a prior deemed decision are legal issues capable of bona fide and serious argument and are matters of public importance, thereby justifying High Court consideration.
8 Apr 2010
Because the Court of Appeal in ACC v D [2008] NZCA 576 held that pregnancy is not a physical injury and therefore not a "personal injury" under the 2001 Act, ACC's decision declining cover for the respondent's pregnancy must be restored.
24 Mar 2010
There was no evidence that the lumbar puncture caused any physiological or other physical injury outside the ordinary consequences of the procedure; because no qualifying physical injury existed, the appellant's conversion disorder cannot be classed as a mental injury resulting from physical injury under s26(2)(c) and therefore does not meet the statutory definition of a treatment injury under s32; ACC's declination of cover was correct.
23 Jan 2010
On the evidence the District Court found no reliable clinical support for tenosynovitis or pathological carpal tunnel syndrome and, applying Teen and related authority, held that NSAP absent an identifiable discrete physical injury is not a 'personal injury' under the Act; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and ACC's declinature of cover upheld.