New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review decision

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2018

McNoe v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 148
Court

District Court

The reviewer's decision to uphold ACC was correct because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the L4/5 disc prolapse and resultant radiculopathy were caused by the 5 September 2014 fall rather than by pre-existing degenerative stenotic disease; inconsistencies in expert reports, the temporal and treatment history, and radiological findings supported a degenerative origin or unmasking of pre-existing pathology, so ACC's exclusion applied.
15 Aug 2018

Pearson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 132
Court

District Court

The Court recalled the judgments to permit determination of costs; it upheld the Reviewer's refusal to award costs in ACR 249/16, ACR 250/16 and ACR 252/16 because those review applications were not reasonably brought; it directed an award of costs in ACR 251/16; and it ruled that costs may not be awarded by applying a multiplier across multiple review applications absent justification.
31 Jan 2018

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation (Application to extend time for filing)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 6
Court

District Court

Extension of time refused because the delay was inordinate (approximately nine years), the explanations for the delay were unsupported and insufficient, and the proposed appeal lacked any substantive merit on the evidence and expert material presented; absence of prejudice to the respondent did not outweigh those factors.
9 Feb 2017

Sidal v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 12
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the contemporaneous and early medical evidence (notably a July 2012 ultrasound showing no rotator cuff tear) and the detailed CAP and medical advisor opinions establish that the later identified rotator cuff tears and adhesive capsulitis are unlikely to have been caused by the lifting event on 16 April 2012; consequently the appellant did not prove causation and the appeal fails.
25 Nov 2016

Maharaj v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 307
Court

District Court

The strike out application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the original 14 May 2008 suspension decision had been revoked; consequently a live controversy remains and the appeal must proceed to hearing; the Corporation is to notify the Court if it formally revokes that decision, in which case the appeal would not be able to proceed.
6 Jul 2016

Skinner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 183
Court

District Court

The judge accepted the appellant's evidence as credible and on the balance of probabilities found the injury occurred on 25 November 2009; because incapacity is linked to the date of injury and the appellant was an earner then, his entitlement to weekly compensation was reinstated; leave to file the cross‑appeal was granted but the cross‑appeal dismissed.
9 Jun 2016

Daley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 169
Court

District Court

The VIOA and VIMA underpinning the Corporation's decision were flawed because they failed to assess whether Mr Daley could sustain 30 hours per week in the identified work types given the severity of his dermatitis, the environmental/workplace limitations, and inaccuracies in his work history; therefore he was not vocationally independent as at 17 July 2014 and weekly compensation must be resumed.
19 Apr 2016

Theodore v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 98
Court

District Court

Where an ACC accredited assessor has produced an AMA-guides-based impairment assessment, the assessment must stand unless the appellant furnishes clear and cogent evidence demonstrating a flaw or overlooked material factor; the appellant failed to do so and the assessment of 6% whole person impairment was accepted.
8 Dec 2015

Seymour-Huggett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 374
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the objective specialist dental opinion established that the bridge failure resulted from non-accident related chronic dental decay and periodontal disease, contemporaneous medical records did not record dental injury, and the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving a causal link to the 2011 accidents.
14 Apr 2015

Nixon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 82
Court

District Court

There was no reasonably reliable contemporaneous or retrospective medical evidence to establish incapacity after 24 October 2011; the independent occupational assessment and physiotherapy records supported capacity by that date and no competing medical opinion existed, therefore ACC's decision to refuse ongoing weekly compensation was correct and must be confirmed.