New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Neuropsychological assessment

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2016

Strong v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 273
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC had a sufficient evidential basis on 2 May 2011 to be not satisfied that the appellant's ongoing symptoms were causally related to a head injury from the 1990 accident; contemporaneous medical records and subsequent neurological/neuropsychological assessments outweighed later retrospective head‑injury opinions, and therefore the suspension of entitlements was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
29 May 2015

Brennan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 124
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC had a sufficient evidential basis at the time of the 14 September 2011 decision and, having regard to the totality of evidence now before the Court (notably reports of Dr Hegarty and Dr Finucane, motor sport evidence and motor sport specialist Associate Professor Olvey), the suspension of Mr Brennan's entitlements was correct; appeal dismissed.
8 Oct 2013

Ranson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 324
Court

District Court

ACC acted reasonably in deeming the IRP because it followed repeated specialist recommendations and had evidence that further psychological assessment would be unproductive; adopting an FCE was a rational step even if it could not fully determine medication-related cognitive effects; the appellant's refusal to agree was not reasonable; appeal dismissed and costs at review awarded.
11 Apr 2013

Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 98
Court

District Court

The Court upheld the respondent's decision that the appellant had attained vocational independence in respect of six work‑types as correct at the time (November 2009), relying on contemporaneous medical assessments (Dr Waite and Dr Kerr) which showed the limitations were physical (right shoulder pain) and the identified work‑types did not require high cognitive function; Dr Newburn's later neuropsychiatric opinion was generalised, post‑dated the decision and did not show the original assessment was flawed, though reconsideration under s109(2)(b) would be available if deterioration occurred.
28 May 2008

Sweeney v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 109
Court

District Court

The appeal is allowed because the IRP included a material neuropsychological assessment which ACC did not formally remove or implement and the vocational independence assessment proceeded without the necessary clinical neuropsychological information; that procedural and substantive defect meant the VIA/VIMA could not reliably establish vocational independence and the Corporation's decision was quashed.
4 Apr 2008

Grove v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 72
Court

District Court

The appeals were dismissed because there was no longer a live issue: the neuropsychological assessment had been undertaken and paid for by ACC and the non-compliance suspension was conceded, rendering the appeals moot; requests and remedies sought were outside the scope of the appealed decisions and continuation amounted to an improper use of process; accordingly the court dismissed the appeals and ordered payment toward costs as contemplated.
27 Feb 2001

O v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 32
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that she suffered physical injury in the alleged 3 June 1993 assault or that her migraines are causally linked to such an injury; objective medical evidence (x-rays, CT scan, neuropsychological and psychiatric reports) did not demonstrate organic injury; therefore ACC validly exercised its power under s73 to revoke earlier cover and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

Strong v Accident Compensation Corporation

Brennan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Ranson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation

Sweeney v Accident Compensation Corporation

Grove v Accident Compensation Corporation

O v Accident Compensation Corporation