30 Jan 2015
The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for review to determine causation and prior approval, directing that the review preferably be conducted by a different reviewer to preserve the appearance of fairness and directing the appellant to compile any out-of-pocket disbursements for production at that review.
30 Oct 2014
No substantive evidence linked the enamel infractions to the 6 August 2009 accident: dentist's reports were equivocal, there was no contemporaneous record of infraction at treatment seven weeks after the accident, the three year delay undermined causation, and expert evidence showed likely non-accident causes; therefore ACC correctly declined cover and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Sept 2012
The appeal was dismissed because the Corporation's expert established that the current dental needs derived primarily from pre-existing dental disease rather than the accident, and the appellant failed to produce competent expert evidence to rebut that conclusion or demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying overturning the expert opinion; prior approval requirements also militated against funding.
25 Jul 2008
ACC lawfully applied the applicable transport regulations and is not required to pay further amounts because the appellant failed to prove actual taxi costs, the 1992/1999 regulations limit reimbursement to public transport or per-kilometre rates, and the 2002 regulations require prior approval and necessity for actual taxi fares which were not established.
15 May 2008
ACC's refusal to fund the joint replacement was reasonable and not unlawful: the procedure was not the generally accepted treatment for end‑stage hallux rigidus in New Zealand, was not shown to be necessary and appropriate, was highly unusual and outside the scope for which ACC would fund a podiatric surgeon absent contract or regulatory recognition; therefore the reviewer and ACC did not irrationally or improperly exercise their discretion.
3 Aug 2007
Regulation 11(4) requires prior approval for payment of actual transport costs above the standard 28 cents per kilometre; no such approval was sought or given for the period in question, therefore ACC had no statutory authority to reimburse more than 28 cents per kilometre and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Jan 1999
Because the Act requires that purchase or modification of a vehicle be included in an approved individual rehabilitation programme and that the Corporation meet costs only where it has given prior approval, the Corporation lacked authority to contribute to a vehicle purchased without prior approval; therefore the decision to decline assistance was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
20 Mar 1995
The court found on the balance of probabilities that prior verbal approval was given by the Corporation; the Schedule requires prior approval but its other listed requirements (specialist request and specified supporting information) were capable of being waived; having given verbal prior approval the Corporation must be taken to have waived the remaining requirements and therefore is liable to pay the CT cost to the extent specified in the Schedule.