New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to diagnose

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2018

Boulton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 133
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove any realised physical injury caused by the 2003 failure to diagnose FMD other than the already accepted atrophy of the right kidney; FMD is an underlying health condition and the progression and symptoms (including TRH and speculative end‑organ damage or increased future risk) do not constitute a compensable 'personal injury' under the Act, therefore ACC's decision of 17 February 2017 declining cover for FMD and associated conditions is correct and must be upheld.
31 Aug 2015

Ridealgh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 258
Court

District Court

On the available evidence, primarily the specialist opinion of Dr Moughan, the appellant's vitamin B12 deficiency, while diagnosed, did not demonstrate physical injury (such as macrocytic anaemia or neurological damage) and the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that any physical injury was caused by the treatment or a failure to diagnose/treat in a timely manner; accordingly the treatment injury claim fails and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Jul 2015

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 220
Court

District Court

Even if there was a delayed or missed diagnosis, the appellant failed to establish any injury caused by the treatment or by the failure to diagnose and there was no material worsening of outcome or need for different treatment; therefore no treatment injury under s32 and the appeal must be dismissed.
27 Mar 2013

Hislop v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 84
Court

District Court

On the facts and expert evidence the appellant's presentation contained diagnostically significant features of SAH that should have led to referral to a competent/senior practitioner and consideration of CT imaging; the failure to do so meant the later, more serious SAH was not an ordinary consequence of proper treatment and therefore constituted a treatment injury under ss32 and 33 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; appeal allowed and cover granted.
20 May 2011

Lamb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 156
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the available expert evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that a diagnosable and treatable acute subdural haematoma existed and that failure to arrange neurosurgical assessment, CT scanning or transfer caused the appellant's worse outcome; therefore no treatment injury under s32 was proven.
15 Sept 2010

Roberts v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 158
Court

District Court

On the facts and contemporaneous medical standards the GP and specialist could not reasonably have been expected to diagnose HH in the 1980s; by about 2000 the appellant's arthropathy was already established and venesection thereafter would not have prevented or altered its course; therefore the statutory criteria for a treatment injury under ss32–33 were not met and the decline of cover was correctly confirmed.
12 May 2008

Newton-King v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 102
Court

District Court

The court held that the appellant's non-treatment (failure to diagnose) in June 2001 was not treatment properly given despite absence of negligence, therefore the statutory criteria for medical mishap (including rarity) were not met and cover for medical mishap could not be established.
14 Aug 2007

Roborgh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 186
Court

District Court

Appeal dismissed: the initial ophthalmic screening met the relevant standard of care and causation was not established that earlier diagnosis would probably have enabled successful treatment; even if the missed follow-up was a treatment failure, s5(7) of the 1992 Act excludes adverse consequences of failure to diagnose/treat absent negligence, and loss of opportunity alone does not attract cover.
18 Jul 2005

Rand-Wildbore v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 213
Court

District Court

Overwhelming and considered medical opinion established that complicated diverticulitis was not apparent during the March 2003 admission, the hospital investigations and treatment met the required standard of care, there is no expert evidence of medical error, and consequently the appellant did not sustain medical misadventure or coverable injury under the Act; appeal dismissed.
7 May 2003

Verscheren v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 78
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities appellant did not prove that Dr Rose fell below the standard of care; given the presenting symptoms consistent with irritable bowel syndrome, the use and result of ultrasound were reasonable and within accepted practice, the independent medical opinion was credible and ACC complied with s70, therefore no medical error under s36 was established.