New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical expert assessment

Legal area

Court

16 Nov 2016

Dunn v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 298
Court

District Court

No question of law was established: both experts had regard to the prior injuries required by s109(2)(b); the issue was which expert's factual assessment of consequences (pain and function) to prefer. The judge lawfully preferred the cogent reasoning of the respondent's expert and correctly held that the assessor's incidental error about the scene of injury did not invalidate the assessment. Leave to appeal on a question of law was therefore refused.
30 Nov 2009

XXX v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 207
Court

District Court

Dr Tanner's assessment attributing 10% of a 40% Whole Person Impairment to the 2004 incident was not shown to be flawed; the assessor properly applied clinical judgment under the AMA Guides and Clause 59 of Schedule 1 to the Act, so the respondent's decision to award a lump sum based on that apportionment is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
6 Nov 2009

Chandra v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 196
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the accepted and most persuasive medical evidence (including neurologist Dr Snow and assessor Mr Farr) established no objective peripheral nerve or orthopedic impairment of the right ankle/foot attributable to the injury; findings point to a psychogenic/CRPS-type disorder without objective neuropathy, so the statutory threshold for lump sum entitlement was not met.
31 May 2006

Downes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 136
Court

District Court

The Court accepted Dr Wright's medical assessment as not flawed: despite chronic pain and left‑hand impairment the appellant is right‑hand dominant, can perform intermittent lifting primarily with the right hand, and can operate a taxi (typically automatic) for 35 or more hours per week; there were no outstanding treatment requirements at the time of the assessment, so the respondent's determination of Vocational Independence for Taxi Driver stands.
26 Jan 2005

Stockan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 20
Court

District Court

The court directed the respondent to initiate the ACC Handbook procedure for chronic pain syndrome: obtain a psychiatric assessment to determine whether the chronic pain syndrome is attributable to the covered injury (evaluated against DSM IV) and, if accepted, have the psychiatrist assess mental impairment percentage under the AMA Guides and issue a revised Independence Allowance assessment; if not accepted, issue a fresh decision stating non-attribution so the appellant may seek review/appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

Dunn v Accident Compensation Corporation

XXX v Accident Compensation Corporation

Chandra v Accident Compensation Corporation

Downes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Stockan v Accident Compensation Corporation