New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timeliness of claim

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2014

Parsons v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 38
Court

District Court

On the balance of the qualified medical evidence (notably reports of Nicholls, Nicholson and Hunter) the appellant's hip disease was attributable to pre-existing degenerative changes and spondylolisthesis rather than the alleged bus incident; coupled with the late lodgement and lack of persuasive medical causation evidence, the Corporation's decision to decline cover was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
28 Sept 2012

Burnie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 321
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the umbilical hernia was caused by the alleged lifting event; the significant delay in reporting and assessment, absence of contemporaneous medical evidence of trauma, and medical opinion and literature supporting a natural genesis meant causation was not established and the appeal must be dismissed.
15 Jul 2011

Shepherd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 188
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish that his employment had the particular property or characteristic which caused or materially contributed to his rotator cuff condition under s.30(2); the occupational medical evidence (Dr Chew) that the condition is a degenerative pre-existing process and that criteria 1 and 3 are not satisfied was more persuasive than competing opinion, therefore ACC's decision of 11 May 2010 to decline cover was correct and must be upheld.
11 Nov 2010

Bartram v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 200
Court

District Court

Insufficient evidence established that the November 2007 fall caused a full thickness supraspinatus tear; medical evidence and expert opinion more plausibly indicate a pre-existing degenerative rotator cuff tear rendered symptomatic by the fall, which is not coverable; therefore respondent's decline of cover was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Apr 2005

Sweeney v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 137
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the preponderance of medical evidence and contemporaneous records show rubeotic glaucoma was developing before the 1993 accident and the known medical timeframe for rubeotic glaucoma makes it implausible that the accident caused the condition; the claimant therefore failed to establish causation on the balance of probabilities.
5 Dec 2003

Hall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 316
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his current incapacity was caused by an accident for which he had cover; the 4 January 1995 claim had been validly disentitled due to non-compliance with s.64(ARCI Act 1992) in the face of an employer dispute, and the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence meant the causal link was not established.

New Zealand Case Law

Parsons v Accident Compensation Corporation

Burnie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Shepherd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Bartram v Accident Compensation Corporation

Sweeney v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hall v Accident Compensation Corporation