New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Suspension of entitlements s116

Legal area

Court

22 Mar 2005

Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 81
Court

District Court

Contemporaneous GP and employer reports established a personal soft tissue injury on 8 October 2001 and the factual circumstances (lifting buckets and pulling a pulley) involved external force or resistance satisfying the s28 definition of 'accident'; therefore revocation of cover was incorrect and the original grant of cover on 24 October 2001 must be restored, with suspension (not revocation) being the appropriate remedy if continuing entitlements were in doubt.
23 Sept 2003

Warne v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 233
Court

District Court

Medical evidence (reports of Mr Inglis and Mr Burn) established annular tears and a disc prolapse attributable to the accidents and causative of the appellant’s present disabling symptoms; therefore the respondent’s suspension of entitlements under s116 was incorrect and the decision of 22 March 2002 (and the Review decision) was quashed and entitlements reinstated.
24 Jul 2003

McDonald v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 163
Court

District Court

The court accepted the weight of specialist medical evidence that the appellant's ongoing back pain is no longer causally connected to the 18 October 1994 accident, held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus on the balance of probabilities that the 1994 injury remains a substantial cause of his incapacity, and therefore upheld the respondent's lawful suspension of entitlements.
5 Feb 2002

Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2002] NZACC 40
Court

District Court

No contemporaneous medical evidence supported a back injury from the 18 July 1999 accident; independent specialist reports attributed the back pain to a mechanical degenerative lumbar condition or to gait changes after hip replacement; at best the accident may have exacerbated an asymptomatic pre‑existing condition which is excluded by s29(2) and s29(4); therefore ACC’s decision to decline/suspend entitlements was correct and must be upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation

Warne v Accident Compensation Corporation

McDonald v Accident Compensation Corporation

Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation