New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sensitive claim

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2016

KR2 v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 276
Court

District Court

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant failed to establish a causal link between either the historic sexual abuse or risperidone treatment and a permanent physical injury causing erectile dysfunction; medical evidence shows at most a transient medication side effect that resolved and no identifiable treatment-caused physical injury, therefore both appeals are dismissed.
23 Feb 2016

P v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 36
Court

District Court

The assessor's 18 October 2013 WPI assessment of 10% stands because it complied with the statutory assessment regime and prescribed assessment tool; the sensitive claim was legally excluded from assessment by virtue of the independence allowance and clause 55D(3), and the chronic pain syndrome had not been accepted as a covered injury at the time of the assessment and therefore could not be taken into account.
18 Dec 2015

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 397
Court

District Court

Given detailed and consistent medical and occupational assessments (notably Dr Antoniadis' reports, the VIOA and Dr Waite's VIMA), and absence of credible medical evidence that the sensitive claim, hang gliding injuries, eyesight or lack of technology rendered the appellant incapable of the identified work types, the Corporation was entitled to commence and conclude the vocational independence process; therefore the decision finding vocational independence was correctly upheld.
16 Sept 2014

M v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 219
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the balanced and comprehensive medical evidence of Robyn Salisbury (22 Nov 2011) and Mark Davis (21 Nov 2013), found Mr M suffers PTSD and depressive disorder from the sensitive claim which caused periods of incapacity during the specified dates, and concluded the Corporation and Review Officer erred; therefore their decisions were quashed and the Corporation must calculate and pay entitlements including top-up compensation for the covered periods.
16 Jul 2014

A v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 169
Court

District Court

The Court found the independence allowance assessment was not demonstrably prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 and the AMA Guides because it failed to adequately identify and transparently apply the Guides and to consider in detail the most recent psychiatric evaluation (Dr Gutteridge). For that reason the decision on the independence allowance was quashed and remitted for reassessment by an alternate assessor, preferably a psychiatrist; the lump sum assessment was confirmed as there was no evidence to change it.
23 Aug 2013

CM v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 269
Court

District Court

The Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate a material factual error or contrary medical evidence that would render Dr Fenwicke's WPI assessments unsafe; the assessor's methodology complied with the AMA Guides, peer review supported the assessments, and the rejected earlier report did not materially influence the outcome.
16 Feb 2012

A v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 51
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a personal injury as defined by the Act; there is no convincing evidence of a failure to provide treatment or of treatment causing a personal injury; expert and clinical records demonstrate appropriate treatment and pre-existing psychiatric conditions that negate causation, therefore ACC's decision to decline cover is upheld.
17 Oct 2011

G v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 297
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the psychiatrist's evidence that the assessed psychiatric impairment (net 23%) was attributable to covered sexual traumatisation and was not reduced on the basis of a non‑covered schizophrenia diagnosis; combined with 2% for knee injuries and deduction of a prior 10% Lump Sum award, the respondent's decision calculating a 15% net WPI for Independence Allowance was correct and supported by the evidence, so the appeal is dismissed.
2 Sept 2011

A B v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 244
Court

District Court

Clause 59 mandates a combined assessment of whole-person impairment including all relevant mental injuries (covered sensitive claims, head injury consequences, and non-coverable factors) so that the assessor can apportion overlapping impairments; therefore the appellant cannot obtain an assessment limited to the head injury alone and ACC's decision requiring combined assessment was correct.
4 May 2011

G F v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 132
Court

District Court

The omission to consider the appellant's sensitive claim did not undermine the medical assessment because there was no evidence that the sensitive claim affected the appellant's physical ability to perform the four identified work-types (including continued part-time work as a Community Support Worker); therefore the Vocational Independence determination was sustainable and the ACC decision stands.