New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Traumatic brain injury

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2023

HALES v R [2023] NZHC 670

Citation

[2023] NZHC 670
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the District Court failed to give adequate discounts for established personal mitigating factors (childhood trauma, traumatic brain injury, mental health issues). Starting point accepted as within range (4.5 years/54 months). Applying a 25% guilty plea discount and a further 20% discount for personal factors reduced the sentence to 30 months (two and a half years) imprisonment; home detention was not available.
15 Apr 2016

P (CA479/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 128

Citation

[2016] NZCA 128
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court's starting point of 7.5 years was within the available range but a six-year starting point would appropriately reflect the baseline for manslaughter; however, having allowed a 40% discount for the appellant's youth and traumatic brain injury (and remorse as reflected in reports), the substituted sentence is four years and six months imprisonment; an MPI was unnecessary and inappropriate because it would impede individualized rehabilitation and community protection is better achieved via parole and youth transition planning.
6 Nov 2015

EO v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 333
Court

District Court

Having evaluated the totality of lay and expert evidence and applying Ambros and LS, the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's 1988 traumatic brain injury was a material and credible causative factor in the development of his paranoid schizophrenia, making the schizophrenia a covered consequence and entitling the appellant to the 25% whole person impairment rating.
18 Jan 2015

Bell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 9
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because, on the balance of probabilities, the collaborative expert evidence persuasively establishes that there was insufficient objective evidence of a traumatic brain injury causally sufficient to produce the diagnosed psychosis; the psychotic illness was more likely pre-existing or inevitable and the assault at best precipitated symptoms, so ACC's refusal of cover is confirmed.
10 Jul 2013

Holterman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 207
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the weight of expert medical evidence, supported by contemporaneous hospital records and neuropsychological testing, established there was no causal link between the appellant's current condition and the 1985 or 1995 accidents and the Corporation's suspension of entitlements was therefore justified.
21 Oct 2011

Petersen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 318
Court

District Court

On the balance of all medical and occupational evidence the Court found Dr Waite's vocational independence medical assessment was not flawed or unsafe: omissions of certain documents did not prejudice the assessment, contemporaneous evidence did not support a significant traumatic brain injury, Dr Newburn's contrary opinion lacked objective psychometric support and was critiqued by other experts, and the appellant's conditions (PTSD, depression, chronic pain) did not preclude the approved work types; therefore ACC's vocational independence decision was reasonable and was upheld.
26 Sept 2011

Coster v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 274
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 8 August 2000 motor vehicle accident caused his ongoing brain injury; medical evidence was equivocal, contemporaneous records did not indicate brain injury, and there were plausible alternative causes (prior brain damage, substance abuse, later assault), so s360(2)(a) is not satisfied.
19 May 2009

Barrett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 83
Court

District Court

The Court found that, although assessors trained by ACC in the AMA Guides are presumed competent and independent, the specialist opinions of a neuropsychiatrist and psychiatrist demonstrated probable material omissions and misapplications in the assessor's Chapter 4 traumatic brain injury assessment; those deficiencies amounted to clear and cogent evidence of a material flaw, warranting setting aside the respondent's decision and quashing the Reviewer’s decision and remitting for review, preferably by a psychiatrist trained in use of the Guides.
4 Sept 2007

Mills v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 206
Court

District Court

The court preferred the opinions of the neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological experts (Dr Newburn, Dr Milne, Dr Menkes) over the contrary neurological and advisory reports and, on the balance of probabilities, found that the appellant suffered a traumatic brain injury in the February 1978 assault; therefore the respondent's decision refusing cover for TBI was quashed and cover for TBI must be granted, without deciding causation of subsequent sequelae.
2 Jul 2007

Taylor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 143
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish that his incapacitating psychiatric condition from 1997 onwards was caused by the 1988 head injury; the Court preferred the respondent's expert analysis of extensive pre-accident psychiatric and behavioural history and absence of objective post-concussion cognitive deficits, and therefore upheld the respondent's decision declining weekly compensation.