New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical evidence and expert opinion

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2016

Collins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 93
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the supraspinatus tear was caused by the October 2006 workplace accident because contemporaneous 2008 imaging and the specialist assessment (Hadlow) showed no shoulder injury, later imaging demonstrating the tear was dated between 2008 and 2012, temporal association was inadequate to prove causation, and ACC reasonably investigated the claim; therefore cover should not be extended and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Mar 2014

Buitink v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 58
Court

District Court

On the totality of the evidence the Court was satisfied the appellant did not suffer the alleged physical injuries on or about 9 February 2004 and failed to prove causation between any workplace chemical exposure and his later cognitive complaints; contemporaneous records, credible witness evidence from the employer, toxicology panel opinion and neuropsychological testing outweighed the appellant's accounts which the Court found unreliable and likely influenced or authored by him, therefore ACC's decline of cover was upheld.
25 May 2012

Livingston v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 183
Court

District Court

Medical evidence did not establish a causal nexus between the appellant's chronic, diffuse pain syndrome and the covered 22 November 2010 injury; the orthopaedic assessment attributed disability to a primary chronic pain syndrome of unidentifiable origin, therefore entitlement to weekly compensation could not be sustained and suspension of entitlements was appropriate.
8 Oct 2004

Catley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 323
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to identify a specific personal injury and to prove the three statutory elements of s30 on the balance of probabilities; the occupational medicine report found no physical injury or occupational causal link and the rheumatologist’s opinion did not specify the s30 property/characteristic or demonstrate a significantly greater risk, therefore cover under s30 is not established.
16 Jun 2004

R v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 161
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she sustained a physical injury or a mental injury consequent on a physical injury caused by medical error or mishap; specialist and imaging evidence showed no causal link between Ativan prescription or the cyst excision and her symptoms, and dependency without physiological evidence does not constitute a compensable physical injury under the Act.
20 Mar 2000

Cade v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 42
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffered a work-related personal injury (initial muscle strain from repetitive heavy writing) which precipitated a chronic pain syndrome; there was no evidence of non-work causation so s7(1)(a) and s7(1)(b) are satisfied and the appellant was at greater risk from the specific work task so s7(1)(c) is satisfied; therefore the Review Officer's decision denying cover is revoked and the appellant is entitled to cover under s7.

New Zealand Case Law

Collins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Buitink v Accident Compensation Corporation

Livingston v Accident Compensation Corporation

Catley v Accident Compensation Corporation

R v Accident Compensation Corporation

Cade v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation