New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causation (balance of probabilities)

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2018

Halvorson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 118
Court

District Court

The Court held the Corporation was not prejudiced under s53(2) because contemporaneous and historical medical records (GP notes, ACC referral form, 1987 x‑rays, surgical notes) and subsequent expert evidence provided a sufficient evidential basis for decision making; on the balance of probabilities the 9 February 1987 trampoline accident caused an acquired spondylolisthesis and was a significant contributor to subsequent surgeries, therefore the appeal is allowed and the Corporation's decision is quashed.
2 Dec 2013

C V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA314/2011 [2013] NZCA 590 [2 December 2013]

Citation

[2013] NZCA 590
Court

Court of Appeal

The continuation of the appellant's pregnancy after the 20‑week misdiagnosis is capable of being a "personal injury" and, subject to proof of causation on the balance of probabilities (including that the appellant would have been able to obtain a lawful termination), constitutes a treatment injury under the Act; further evidence on eligibility for termination is required and the case is referred to the District Court.
16 Dec 2011

Walker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 366
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because there is no evidence of a physical injury causing the appellant's jaw pain and the alleged causal link to the anaesthetic/LMA is only speculative; causation was not established on the balance of probabilities, and temporal association alone is insufficient for ACC cover.
20 May 2011

Lamb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 156
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the available expert evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that a diagnosable and treatable acute subdural haematoma existed and that failure to arrange neurosurgical assessment, CT scanning or transfer caused the appellant's worse outcome; therefore no treatment injury under s32 was proven.
16 Jun 2004

Salmon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 163
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the alleged incident on 22 April 2003 was the substantial cause of her current symptoms; equivocal contemporaneous GP notes, delayed reporting, inconsistent histories and the reviewer’s adverse credibility findings, taken with medical evidence that admitted pre‑existing degenerative change but could not conclusively link causation to the incident, require dismissal of the appeal.
27 Mar 2003

Bloxham v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 45
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish that the paraplegia was caused by the surgery and the available evidence indicates the incidence of paraplegia in Type A aortic dissection and its repair exceeds the 1% guideline for a 'rare adverse consequence', therefore no cover for medical misadventure is warranted.

New Zealand Case Law

Halvorson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Cover)

C V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA314/2011 [2013] NZCA 590 [2 December 2013]

Walker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Lamb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Salmon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Bloxham v Accident Compensation Corporation