14 Mar 2019
The Reviewer had no jurisdiction because the review application did not validly identify a decision or grounds as required by s135(2); therefore the review decision dismissing the application was correct and the appeal had no prospect of success and is struck out.
26 Nov 2018
On the balance of probabilities the weight of the expert evidence (CAP, imaging reports and other specialist opinions) established the achilles condition was a gradual process/tendinosis rendered symptomatic by the 2014 event rather than caused by it; the appellant's surgeon's causation opinion was equivocal and did not outweigh the contrary medical evidence, therefore the need for surgery is not causally linked to the accident and cover is properly declined.
14 Aug 2018
For ACR 227/17 the appeal is dismissed: the reviewer correctly found ACC's original decision flawed and properly directed a new functional capacity evaluation and engineer assessment, but the appellant's refusal to undergo the directed FCE prevents ACC from making the new decision so there is nothing further the Court can compel; for ACR 008/18 the reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction because the review application was lodged outside the three‑month statutory time limit and the issue of extenuating circumstances under s135(3) had not been determined; the Court ordered a rehearing procedur…
8 Aug 2018
The appeals are dismissed because the substantive issue (date from which interest on the 2006 and 2007 arrears should run) has been finally determined by earlier District Court judgments and the High Court's refusal of special leave; issue estoppel/res judicata preclude relitigation and the material relied on is not new or sufficiently credible/reliable to displace those conclusions, therefore there is no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
27 Jul 2018
The court held that review applications must be made in writing and that the operative reviewable decision was the invoice/notice dated 30 November 2015; the 8 July 2016 email was only confirmation and did not create a new decision, therefore the review filed on 20 March 2017 was out of time and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Sept 2017
The 44 review applications were correctly dismissed because none identified specific Corporation decisions or outstanding entitlement claims with the particularity mandated by ss134 and 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, rendering them invalid and an abuse of the review process; the appellant's appeal is dismissed.
7 Sept 2017
Medical evidence established that the amputations were predominantly caused by the claimant's poorly controlled diabetes and related comorbidities rather than the August 2012 cut, the GP's antibiotic choice, or the December 2014 burns; accordingly the Corporation's decisions declining weekly compensation, declining treatment injury cover, and declining consequential cover were correct, and the reviewer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the 2006 MRSA decision or treat the complaint about delay as a reviewable decision.
8 May 2017
The Corporation correctly applied s53 by averaging fluctuating pre-accident earnings over the relevant 12-month period (including Seatranz and McNeill earnings) to reach a fair and reasonable ERC; the 2015 reconfirmations were not fresh reviewable decisions under the Act or s390 because the Corporation did not exercise its revision power to substitute a new decision; and the 24 September 2015 correspondence was a request to revise earlier decisions not a fresh claim for entitlements, so no unlawful delay accrued—therefore all appeals fail.
1 Feb 2017
The Corporation's letter did not constitute a 'decision' under s6 and the matter was res judicata; consequently no question of law suitable for leave under s162 was identified and the application for leave is dismissed.
30 Nov 2016
The March 2014 claim was properly declined for insufficient information and, crucially, the 2008 vocational independence decision meant incapacity arising from pre-2008 injuries could not ground entitlement to weekly compensation; no adequate medical evidence linked post-2008 injuries to incapacity. The s 134(1)(b) delay review was reasonable to file but unreasonable to proceed to hearing after ACC had issued its decision; accordingly the review decision is modified only to award costs for preparation and lodging the s 134(1)(b) review and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.