New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical expert evidence

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2022

RITIKA v R [2022] NZCA 415

Citation

[2022] NZCA 415
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the evidence of the other injuries was admissible and highly probative because it formed part of an interconnected pattern relevant to how the charged injuries occurred and to opportunity; it was contextual rather than extraneous propensity evidence and did not require a full propensity direction. Nor was a lies direction required for the appellant given she denied lying, counsel did not request it, and the trial Judge's general directions and summing up sufficed; in the context of overwhelming, coherent medical evidence and no plausible alternative offender, there was no real…
20 May 2022

SOHAIL v THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 1130

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1130
Court

High Court

Special leave to appeal was refused because ACC was statutorily empowered to review and suspend or revoke entitlement when subsequent evidence undermined the factual basis for earlier payments; ACC was not estopped by earlier payments and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success or issue of principle warranting leave.
14 Mar 2022

ROSS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 448

Citation

[2022] NZHC 448
Court

High Court

Special leave was partially granted because, while the s110(3) point is not appealable (Splite), there is an arguable question of law whether there was any evidence that Ms Ross' depressive disorder had materially improved since 2007 such that the District Court's finding of vocational independence could be sustained; accordingly leave is granted limited to that issue (Edwards v Bairstow lens).
27 Jun 2019

Tukutama v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Surgery)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 71
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the Clinical Advisory Panel and independent orthopaedic assessment that the pathology for which surgery was sought was longstanding and/or pre-existing; the July 2016 accident at best aggravated pre-existing disease but did not cause the conditions requiring surgery, therefore ACC liability for the requested surgical treatment was not established and the appeal must be dismissed.
17 May 2019

Morgan v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 54
Court

District Court

No error of law was demonstrated: the District Court's finding that the applicant suffered CFS was a factual finding supported by medical evidence; even if MCS had been found, there was no evidence that paraquat exposure caused any physical injury; therefore no question of law for the High Court and leave is refused.
2 May 2019

Brereton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Surgery)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 38
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence of a longstanding degenerative subacromial impingement (including OS acromiale) rendering the supraspinatus tendon abnormal outweighed the treating surgeon's opinion of acute causation; the mechanism described was more consistent with rendering a pre-existing degenerative tear symptomatic rather than causing a new tear. Temporal coincidence alone did not establish causation under s25, so the injury requiring surgery is a gradual process injury not covered by ACC and the appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2019

R v GRAY [2019] NZHC 942

Citation

[2019] NZHC 942
Court

High Court

Medical expert evidence established that the infant sustained injuries (acute head trauma with retinal haemorrhages and multiple rib and long-bone fractures) that could not be explained by accidental overlaying, CPR or medical disease; the pattern and timing of injuries pointed to intentional application of severe acceleration/deceleration forces and chest compression by the defendant, and the severity and predictability of the harm allowed the court to infer intent to cause really serious harm; accordingly the Crown proved both charges beyond reasonable doubt.
27 Mar 2019

DAVIDOFF v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZHC 605

Citation

[2019] NZHC 605
Court

High Court

Special leave was denied because the applicant failed to establish any error of law: the District Court's adverse factual findings on scabies and assault injuries were supported by contemporaneous expert medical opinions and other evidence, the 2008 weekly compensation claim was barred by res judicata following prior litigation, and the WPI assessment was not shown to be materially flawed by credible expert evidence; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
29 Jan 2019

Inghams Enterprises v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover Issues)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 4
Court

District Court

The District Court allowed the appeal because there was insufficient evidence that the annular tear was caused by a series of accident events within the period identified by the Reviewer; the medical evidence did not establish that repeated lifting/twisting events were each substantially causative rather than constituting a gradual process, rendering the Reviewer's finding erroneous and requiring reinstatement of Inghams' decision declining cover.
6 Dec 2018

Cleverley v Accident Compensation Corporation (Time for making Claim)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 191
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities and to the requisite standard, a causal link between the 1979 accident and the 2013-identified lateral meniscal pathology; the Corporation reasonably found it was prejudiced by the 35-year delay given absence of contemporaneous medical records and conflicting expert opinions, and there was no compelling medical reasoning to prefer the appellant's experts.