New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of cover

Legal area

Court

30 May 2016

Albrey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 154
Court

District Court

On fresh review of all lay and medical evidence the Court drew an inference in favour of causation, giving significant weight to the mechanism and eyewitness account and the treating surgeon's consistent opinion, and held that the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that the right shoulder pathology was causally related to the 11 January 2014 accident; ACC's decline to extend cover was set aside.
31 Mar 2016

Spiteri v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 80
Court

District Court

The available medical evidence at the time of the Corporation's decision demonstrated the covered right leg contusion had not fully resolved and continued to cause incapacity for the period covered by Dr Mcmenamin's 8 April 2009 medical certificate; therefore the suspension of weekly compensation could not validly take effect before the expiry of that certificate (30 days from 8 April 2009). Conversely, the weight of specialist medical evidence (imaging and expert opinion) established that the cervical C5/6 protrusion and related neck/shoulder symptoms were degenerative and not caused by the…
13 Sept 2013

Byfield v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 295
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the assault of 6 May 2005 caused significant neck injury producing the appellant's cervical pathology (C5/6 and C6/7); the court preferred the opinion of Mr Finnis over Mr Welsh, accepted corroborative lay evidence of immediate neck symptoms, and concluded ACC's declinations were incorrect, so the decisions were quashed and cover must be extended to include the neck injury.
12 Mar 2012

Trembath v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 78
Court

District Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's physical injuries in 2001 and 2002 caused significant pain which led to the Chronic Pain Syndrome; the contrary aspect of Dr Monasterio's opinion (that the disorder began in childhood) was not supported by evidence and was set aside, so the necessary causative link existed and ACC's decision denying cover was quashed.
26 Apr 2011

Ballard v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 126
Court

District Court

The combined WPI was 21% and after deducting the previous lump sum percentage of 13% the resulting impairment was 8%, which is below the statutory 10% threshold; statutory scheme requires deduction of prior lump sum percentages from combined pre-1 July 1999 WPI, so the respondent's decision to decline independence allowance was legally correct.
31 Aug 2010

G N v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 148
Court

District Court

The Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his paranoid schizophrenia was a consequence of the 1975 head injury; contemporaneous medical records, normal CT/EEG, earlier psychiatric assessments and the insufficiency of Dr Newburn's retrospective opinion meant the ACC's decision to decline extension of cover was correctly upheld.
5 Jun 2003

Van der Swaluw v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 106
Court

District Court

Regulations required a written application to trigger commencement of attendant care and home help payments; the doctor's letter received 26 January 1999 satisfied the written application requirement for home help so entitlement was backdated to that date; no written application for attendant care existed before 30 June 1999 so attendant care could only be backdated to 1 July 1999; the Court's extension of cover did not amount to a deemed application for other entitlements.
21 Aug 2001

Van Der Swaluw v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 222
Court

District Court

On the evidence the court found a temporal and causal nexus: the 1995 finger injury was the precipitating event that led to a chronic pain disorder (a mental injury). Predisposing psychosocial factors do not disentitle the appellant. Therefore the somatoform pain disorder is an 'outcome' of the physical injury within s4 and cover must be extended.