New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Entitlement restoration

Legal area

Court

9 May 2014

Amer v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 117
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the orthopaedic spinal specialist (Palmer) over the Corporation's advisers, accepted the appellant's clinical history and specialist examination on the balance of probabilities, and concluded the 15 February 2011 accident caused trauma-induced coccydynia responsible for ongoing incapacity; consequently the Corporation's July 2011 determination and the March 2012 review were erroneous and must be reversed.
17 May 2013

Loibl v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 139
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the treating orthopaedic surgeon's evidence that the rotator cuff tear was an acute injury caused by the 18 August 2011 fall and not a longstanding degenerative condition; therefore ACC's decision declining funding was quashed and ACC was ordered to fund the surgery and reimburse costs.
13 May 2011

Saunders v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 144
Court

District Court

The respondent's decision was quashed because the decisive medical assessment (Dr Waite) materially relied on an incorrect understanding of the appellant's non‑work activities (overstating his external activity hours), undermining its probative value on the critical issue of capacity to work 35+ hours; absent clear and cogent medical evidence establishing that capacity, the determination of vocational independence could not be sustained.
23 Jul 2004

Robinson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 205
Court

District Court

Given the appellant's psychiatric condition and evidence that gate keeper positions were not realistically available in his region, the gate keeper role was not a suitable occupation for the appellant; accordingly the primary decision was overturned and the appellant's entitlements restored.
9 Jul 2004

Snowling v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 194
Court

District Court

The court found the medical assessment, when considered with the occupational requirements and the appellant's demonstrated functional limits and failed work trial, did not support capacity for the generic duties of child care worker or telemarketer; the appellant proved a material flaw as the assessor had effectively relied on job‑specific accommodations and underestimated the impact of lifting, standing and sitting limitations, so the primary decision was set aside and entitlements restored.
10 Oct 2001

Loveridge v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 289
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the treating surgeon's opinion that the appellant continues to suffer incapacitating effects of an L5/S1 disc protrusion attributable to the 1987 accident, so the respondent's decision to suspend entitlements was wrong and must be revoked.

New Zealand Case Law

Amer v Accident Compensation Corporation

Loibl v Accident Compensation Corporation

Saunders v Accident Compensation Corporation

Robinson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Snowling v Accident Compensation Corporation

Loveridge v Accident Compensation Corporation