New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review of agency decision

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2013

Sherlock v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 293
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the treating surgeon's assessment and the MRI evidence showing moderate subacromial/subdeltoid bursal fluid together with absence of a supraspinatus tear on imaging 14 months prior; these facts made it more probable than not that the August 12, 2011 accident caused the rupture. Therefore ACC's decisions declining cover were incorrect and are quashed; cover and treatment (including surgery) are granted.
16 May 2013

Moffitt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 138
Court

District Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant sustained a partial subscapularis tendon tear in the 22 February 2011 accident which contributed to his incapacity; because some injury from the accident materially contributed to incapacity the appellant was entitled to weekly compensation from cessation of work in July 2011 until recovery after surgery in July 2012, so ACC's decision to decline weekly compensation was wrong and is revoked.
21 Oct 2011

Hall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 314
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the treating surgeon's credible opinion that the 10 May 2007 fall produced a sudden injurious change (acute L4/5 disc protrusion with instability) rather than a condition caused wholly or substantially by a pre‑existing degenerative process; accordingly the ACC review decision and the Corporation's declinature were quashed and funding required.
20 Dec 2010

Chilton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 235
Court

District Court

MRI confirmed adhesive capsulitis, an idiopathic condition not shown to be caused or materially contributed to by the appellant's employment tasks; therefore the statutory causation requirements of s.30 were not met and cover as a gradual process injury was rightly declined.
19 Aug 2008

Rayner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 185
Court

District Court

The Occupational Assessment, supported by medical assessment and the appellant's prior employment and transferable skills, validly established that the appellant has Capacity for Work as a Warehouse Manager for 35 or more hours per week; the appellant's unsupported testimony did not rebut the assessment and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Sept 2007

Shepherd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 217
Court

District Court

The court accepted Dr Marshall's detailed medical assessment as having adequately considered the appellant's chronic pain and functional limitations, found no demonstrable flaw disclosed by the contrary opinion of Dr Tait, and upheld the respondent's determination that the appellant attained vocational independence in the four identified work‑types.
13 Oct 2004

Kadler v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 327
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the evidence did not establish that the appellant's chronic pain was causally connected to the covered left thumb tendonitis; OOS was not a valid specific diagnosis so revocation of OOS cover was correct and suspension of entitlements was lawful; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
19 Mar 2004

G v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 64
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish the requisite pathological causal nexus between the 1990 accident and his current cerebral/cognitive problems; the 'but for' test and neuro‑psychological findings alone were insufficient in the face of a normal MRI, evidence of pre‑existing mental health issues and expert opinion that the testing lacks diagnostic specificity, therefore entitlement was not established and the appeal must be dismissed.
30 Sept 2003

Morresey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 240
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the musculoskeletal medicine specialist's contemporaneous hands-on findings (localized tenderness on palpation at left L5/S1) supported by other treating opinion that a soft tissue injury occurred; the orthopaedic experts' radiology-focused examinations were insufficient to exclude ongoing soft tissue pathology. On the balance of probabilities the appellant's current incapacity was substantially caused by the compensable soft tissue injury from the 12 April 1999 accident, so Catalyst's suspension was unlawful and entitlements must be reinstated.