New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review of medical evidence

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2018

Osborne v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 147
Court

District Court

The Court concluded ACC had a sufficient evidential basis (supported by multiple medical opinions and imaging/surgical findings) to determine the 11 March 2014 AC joint sprain was minor and its effects spent, and that the appellant's ongoing incapacity is more likely due to longstanding central sensitisation/regional pain syndromes and non-injury factors; therefore ACC lawfully suspended entitlements and the appellant failed to discharge the burden to establish the injury remained a material cause.
8 Aug 2018

Tamaniyaga v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 126
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the detailed analysis of independent renal specialists (Dr Hay, Dr Dittner, Dr Voss) concluding the cause of renal failure was uncertain and more consistent with progression of pre-existing chronic kidney disease present on arrival in New Zealand; the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that prescribed NSAIDs caused the injury, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
29 Apr 2016

Sutton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 117
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the evidence did not establish that the 13 June 2013 accident caused the pathology requiring surgery: the mechanism was indirect, there was delayed onset of symptoms, prior shoulder history existed, imaging and intraoperative findings and expert CAP advice supported a gradual degenerative process rather than a single traumatic cause; therefore ACC's declinature was correct and appeal was dismissed.
20 Dec 2013

Hayes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 419
Court

District Court

The appeal was allowed in part: the Court accepted the revised ENT calculation attributing 24.9% occupational NIHL and modified the review decision accordingly, but held ACC's statutory funding obligation remains limited to the amount prescribed by the applicable regulations and no further retrospective costs were awarded.
1 Aug 2012

Gose v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 256
Court

District Court

On the medical evidence as of May 2010 (notably Dr du Plessis) the appellant's ongoing incapacity was substantially attributable to a pre-existing pain disorder and opiate dependency excluded from cover; the earlier 2003 judgment did not bar relitigation given the possibility that the effect of the 1996 injury would cease, therefore suspension of weekly compensation under s117 was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Nov 2010

Harneiss v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 216
Court

District Court

The preponderance of competent medical evidence established that by December 2006 the appellant's ongoing symptoms reflected a chronic non-specific lumbar pain syndrome associated with pre-existing degenerative spinal pathology that had been aggravated or triggered by the May 2002 event but was not causally attributable to an ongoing physical injury from that accident; accordingly Care Advantage validly suspended entitlements under s117(1) and the suspension is upheld.
19 May 2009

C v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 77
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the reliable psychiatric evidence established a schizoaffective/bi-polar disorder of likely genetic/biological origin with no causative link to the alleged childhood sexual abuse, therefore the appellant is not entitled to ACC cover for her mental illness.
2 Sept 2004

King v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 262
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his 2003 condition was caused to any more than a minimal degree by the 1996 back strain; the orthopaedic evidence (Otto, Hopkins) that advanced degenerative disc disease is the predominant cause was preferred to Dr Hancock, therefore the respondent's decisions suspending entitlements and declining reassessment for an independence allowance were correct and must be upheld.
27 Aug 2004

JS v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 257
Court

District Court

The Court found the respondent's decision unsustainable because Dr Reeves' report was effectively a peer review dependent on a previously discredited report and lacked direct assessment; Dr Wisely's conclusion that no deduction was required because the appellant's pre-injury functioning was normal was accepted; given the appellant could not undergo further assessment the Court lawfully substituted its own impairment finding, fixing whole person impairment at 53% with no deduction.
5 Mar 2004

Morresey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 36
Court

District Court

Failure to ask an expert the precise 'exclusively' question does not automatically invalidate a s116 decision, but the expert evidence must still substantively satisfy the exclusivity test; here Dr Kerr's report was insufficient to establish the condition was exclusively due to disease or ageing and Mr Grant's opinion indicated ongoing attribution to the 1991 injury, therefore the suspension could not be sustained and must be quashed.