1 Sept 2016
On the balance of probabilities the appellant did not prove a causal nexus between the 10 September 2014 accident and the need for the proposed L4/5 surgery; medical evidence establishes multi‑level, age‑related degenerative disc disease and temporality without medical explanation is insufficient to establish ACC liability, therefore the Corporation's refusal is upheld.
12 Apr 2012
Leave to appeal was declined because the impugned decision was a factual determination, grounded in medical evidence that the applicant's ongoing condition was attributable to pre‑existing degenerative disease (or prior surgery), and did not raise any question of law warranting High Court review; the applicant may instead bring a separate claim for a work‑related gradual process injury if he can produce the required evidence.
7 Mar 2012
The Court concluded the medical evidence did not establish, on the required causal standard, that the need for L3/4 surgery was caused by the 28 July 2006 accident; the appellant's pathology is multi-level degenerative disease and any symptomatic presentation does not convert that degenerative disease into a covered injury warranting ACC-funded surgery, therefore the respondent's decision to decline funding was correct and must be confirmed.
14 Sept 2011
On the balance of probabilities the weight of contemporaneous clinical expert evidence established that the claimant's ongoing condition is wholly or substantially caused by pre-existing degenerative disease and any effects of the covered injuries were temporary and are now spent; ACC was therefore entitled to suspend weekly entitlements on 2 July 2007 and has discharged its onus.
3 Mar 2011
On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that the further elective knee surgery was primarily required to treat a covered personal injury from the 1 July 2006 accident; medical evidence, including a 2009 MRI and Clinical Advisory Panel opinion, established significant degenerative osteoarthritis as the substantial cause of current symptoms, so ACC correctly declined funding under s.26.
4 Feb 2011
The Court accepted the specialist evidence (particularly Mr Barnes) that the 2001 lifting injury caused the L5/S1 disc protrusion and triggered subsequent degenerative change and found the respondent failed to establish a sufficient basis under s117 to suspend entitlements; accordingly the suspension decision was quashed and entitlements reinstated.
8 Apr 2009
On the evidence as a whole the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the golf incident substantially caused the rotator cuff tears or that any acute tear made a substantial contribution to the overall need for surgery; epidemiological and CAP opinion that degeneration and impingement were the dominant causes outweighed the treating surgeon's view, so the respondent's decision declining funding was upheld.
31 Jan 2008
ACC acted without sufficient grounds and without adequately investigating the causation issues; available medical opinion left real possibilities of a causal link between covered injuries and the appellant's chronic pain; accordingly the Court quashed the review and set aside ACC's 15 April 2005 decision and remitted the matter for a fresh decision taking into account current material and reasonable enquiries.
14 Aug 2007
Appeal allowed because the medical material relied on by ACC did not adequately address whether the appellant's underlying spinal condition was accident-related or the product of prior injuries or gradual process; Dr Reekie's opinion alone was insufficient to justify suspension under s117 and ACC failed to consider a realistic possibility that the degeneration might be accident-related, therefore the suspension/cancellation decision was not supported by the evidence.
19 Feb 2007
On the balance of medical evidence there was insufficient objective contemporaneous proof that the 1997 accident was a significant cause of the appellant's current lumbar and cervical conditions; the probable cause is pre-existing degenerative disease which became symptomatic, so suspension of entitlements was correctly made and the appeal is dismissed.