New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical causation evidence

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2019

R v TAWA [2019] NZHC 2451

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2451
Court

High Court

The s147 discharge was refused because the Crown adduced sufficient evidence, including the pathologist's opinion that the brain swelling was likely the cumulative result of both the fall and being run over, from which a properly directed jury could reasonably find that the defendant's driving over the deceased was a substantial and operative cause of death; medical evidence need not quantify contributions nor exclude the possibility the victim may have died absent the second act.
2 Mar 2004

Mete v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 28
Court

District Court

The Reviewer erred by refusing costs in blanket fashion; the applicant acted reasonably in lodging the review and is therefore entitled to costs for lodging the review and for the Haddad report, but the additional disbursements for reports from Dr Worsley and Dr Cox were not reasonably incurred and are not recoverable; appellate costs of $350 were awarded.
14 May 2003

Helms v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the weight of medical evidence (Dr Dryson) that the appellant’s disc extrusion arose from underlying degenerative disc disease and that repetitive getting up and sitting at work did not causally contribute; the asserted causative activity is common in non-employment life (the precipitating event occurred at home) and there was no evidence of a significantly greater risk for employees performing such tasks; accordingly the appellant failed to satisfy section 33 and entitlement was properly declined.
19 Oct 2000

Alexander v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 273
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's ongoing symptoms are causally connected to the acknowledged work-related injury (right lateral epicondylitis arising from repetitive keyboarding and a poorly adjusted workstation) and therefore the appellant is entitled to ACC cover under section 7; the reviewers' conclusion that ongoing symptoms were unrelated was erroneous given the totality and timing of medical and workplace evidence.
18 Aug 2000

Slade v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 212
Court

District Court

The Court found on the facts that the appellant's lumbar disc prolapse occurred at the instant of twisting combined with sneezing/coughing (internally produced forces) and that the subsequent bump against the chair and his stitches did not constitute an external causative force; therefore the event did not meet the statutory definition of 'accident' in s3 of the 1992 Act and the respondent's revocation of cover was correct.
16 Nov 1999

Hall v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 326
Court

District Court

Judge accepted that the appellant did not receive notice of the review hearing and that this denial of notice entitled him to a rehearing; the matter is remitted for a review hearing and the appellant must be given an opportunity to obtain and present medical evidence supporting causation.
24 Mar 1999

Funnell v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 77
Court

District Court

Medical evidence established the appellant had pre-existing medial compartment osteoarthritis which, although asymptomatic before the fall, was the substantial cause of her ongoing symptoms and need for total knee replacement; the fall only precipitated or accelerated the symptomatic disease and therefore s10 excludes cover and the cancellation of weekly compensation was correctly affirmed.
13 Feb 1997

Innes v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 20
Court

District Court

On the medical evidence the appellant's back pain is reproduced by the specific bending/straightening/twisting movements required at work and those movements materially contributed to development and maintenance of his condition; applying the eggshell skull principle the appellant satisfied s7(1)(c) and thus entitlement to cover under s7 was established, so the appeal is allowed.
12 Sept 1996

Fahy v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 73
Court

District Court

The appeal is adjourned because the appellant's existing evidence is insufficient to overcome the respondent's assertion of prejudice from the delayed claim; the appellant must obtain a specialist medical report or otherwise produce evidence to enable the Corporation or the Court to determine causation and prejudice; merits remain unconsidered until further evidence or a further decision by the Corporation.