New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causation of incapacity

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2013

P S v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

The Court upheld ACC's April 2010 suspension because ACC had a clear, contemporaneous psychiatric opinion from Dr Collier based on three years and multiple interviews and counselling reports concluding the appellant's ongoing symptoms in March 2010 were attributable to underlying personality disorder and other non-covered health factors rather than active PTSD from the 1994 injury; ACC therefore had adequately investigated and was not obliged to accept the later single-interview opinion as overturning that conclusion.
13 Jul 2012

Sutton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 234
Court

District Court

The judge concluded on the balance of the medical evidence that the appellant's minor traumatic brain injury caused cognitive dysfunction that resolved slowly and, together with personality factors, caused a persisting covered mental injury (clinically significant anxiety/depression) which remained a substantial cause of ongoing symptoms; ACC's decisions to suspend and withdraw entitlements were therefore unsupported and were quashed; entitlements reinstated and costs awarded.
25 May 2012

Livingston v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 183
Court

District Court

Medical evidence did not establish a causal nexus between the appellant's chronic, diffuse pain syndrome and the covered 22 November 2010 injury; the orthopaedic assessment attributed disability to a primary chronic pain syndrome of unidentifiable origin, therefore entitlement to weekly compensation could not be sustained and suspension of entitlements was appropriate.
5 Jul 2007

Martin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 148
Court

District Court

The respondent lacked a sufficient evidential basis under s117 to be 'not satisfied' that the appellant's incapacity was no longer attributable to the 1989 injury; earlier specialist findings of L5/S1 disc prolapse and nerve root compromise were not adequately rebutted by the later, superficial report of Mr Hadlow, so the suspension was unlawful and was quashed with restoration of entitlements and back payment.
20 Jul 2004

Stretch v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 203
Court

District Court

The District Court refused leave because the core issue was factual—decided on medical evidence—that any incapacity was not attributable to the covered injury under s37A; no question of law arose and therefore leave to appeal to the High Court was not justified.
30 Sept 2003

Morresey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 240
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the musculoskeletal medicine specialist's contemporaneous hands-on findings (localized tenderness on palpation at left L5/S1) supported by other treating opinion that a soft tissue injury occurred; the orthopaedic experts' radiology-focused examinations were insufficient to exclude ongoing soft tissue pathology. On the balance of probabilities the appellant's current incapacity was substantially caused by the compensable soft tissue injury from the 12 April 1999 accident, so Catalyst's suspension was unlawful and entitlements must be reinstated.
28 Jun 2001

Taylor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 163
Court

District Court

Medical evidence established that the appellant's current disability resulted from degenerative/aseptic loosening of his hip replacements and not from the leg length discrepancy for which cover had been granted; therefore the respondent lawfully suspended entitlements that were payable only for the covered injury.
24 Mar 1998

Martin v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 50
Court

District Court

The court accepted uncontested expert medical opinion (Mr Allan and the Corporate Medical Advisor) that the appellant's present incapacity is due to degenerative arthritic changes in the left carpometacarpal joint not attributable to the 1988 wrist injury; those degenerative changes are excluded by s.10 and therefore the Corporation's termination of weekly compensation under s.73 was correct as the appellant failed to prove causation on the balance of probabilities.