New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical error vs medical mishap

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2011

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 211
Court

District Court

The review officer's explicit finding that there was no medical error constituted a decision that had the effect of revoking the Corporation's earlier decision granting cover for medical error; the review officer was not required to use a particular form of words to achieve that effect and the Corporation validly exercised its power to decide subsequently on medical mishap, with its decision declining mishap not affecting the review officer's finding on error.
12 Dec 2006

Harman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 309
Court

District Court

The court held the pleural perforation resulted from a slip in surgical technique amounting to medical error because such an injury would not occur if the subpectoral dissection had been performed to the standard of skill reasonably expected of the specialist; the claimant's thinness was a known risk factor requiring greater caution but did not excuse the error; therefore the review decision granting cover for medical error was upheld.
4 Sept 2003

Morgan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 218
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she suffered a physical injury caused by medical misadventure; medical records and independent advice show treatment was for a chronic anxiety disorder, symptoms predated and overlapped with alleged withdrawal, and there is no reliable evidence of a physiological basis or causation linking the prescriptions to a brain injury; accordingly the review decision declining cover is upheld.
25 Jun 2003

Breedveld v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 138
Court

District Court

Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that clinicians breached the required standard of care; independent contemporaneous records and multiple expert reports supported that protocols were followed and the luer had been managed appropriately, therefore the classification as medical mishap (not medical error) was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Harman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Morgan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Breedveld v Accident Compensation Corporation