25 Jun 2019
On the totality of the evidence there remained material uncertainty about causation and entitlement such that the Corporation was not sufficiently satisfied there was no right to ongoing entitlements; accordingly the February 2017 suspension was unlawful and must be set aside, and the interest decision was set aside with interest to be paid from 9 September 2008.
31 May 2019
WellNZ had sufficient medical evidence (MRI review and specialist opinions concluding degenerative pathology and synovitis related to early osteoarthritis rather than the covered workplace sprain) to be not satisfied under s117 that the appellant remained entitled to ongoing entitlements; there was no deemed cover for a meniscal tear and the suspension of entitlements was lawful and properly supported by the evidence.
23 May 2018
On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the Clinical Advisory Panel and clinical advisor evidence that the rotator cuff pathology was degenerative/attritional related to subacromial impingement and not caused by the 20 June 2014 assault; the alleged mechanism was unlikely to produce the tear and the lengthy delay and lack of contemporaneous shoulder complaints negated a robust inference of causation, so ACC's decline and the reviewer's decision were upheld.
2 Feb 2018
The judge preferred the analyses of the orthopaedic reviewer, physiotherapy clinical advisor and CAP over the treating surgeon because the contemporaneous records recorded a different, less traumatic mechanism, the imaging demonstrated features consistent with longstanding degenerative/repetitive impingement (including paralabral cyst and osteochondral change) and the treating surgeon's causal opinion relied on an account of the mechanism that conflicted with earlier records; on the balance of probabilities causation by the 20 January 2014 accident was not established and the requested surger…
31 May 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law arose: Judge MacLean's factual finding that there was no evidential basis, beyond the applicant's self‑belief, to link the erectile dysfunction to either the sexual abuse or Risperidone was properly open on the evidence, so there is no basis for appellate review as a question of law.
27 Jan 2017
On the evidence the Court accepted, by a narrow margin, the operating surgeon's causation opinion that the February 2008 cricket accident caused the pathology addressed by the C7/T1 surgery; the ACC decision declining funding was therefore incorrect and was quashed and set aside, entitling the appellant to funding for the surgery.
30 Sept 2016
At the time of the decision ACC possessed sufficient evidence (notably Kelman's specialist reports) to be not satisfied that the appellant's ongoing symptoms were caused by the 10 April 2009 injury; subsequent medical evidence confirmed the predominant cause was pre-existing spondylolisthesis/degenerative change and not the 2009 accident, thus the suspension was correctly made and is upheld.
21 Sept 2016
On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to prove the need for surgery was caused by the February 2013 accident; imaging and clinical findings indicated pre-existing degenerative C5/6 disease and the treating surgeon's opinion on causation was equivocal, the temporal connection was weak and there were no clear trauma-related radiological features, so the need for surgery was attributable to a gradual degenerative process and not covered.
27 Jul 2016
The Corporation did not have a sufficient evidential basis on 17 December 2013 to be 'not satisfied' that the claimant was no longer entitled to weekly compensation; subsequent orthopaedic opinion (Mr Hodgson), supported by treating GP evidence and other clinical material, provided sufficient grounds to infer a causal link between the covered injuries and the L4/5 pathology and ongoing incapacity, therefore the suspension was unlawful and the appeal is allowed.
17 Mar 2016
The District Court upheld ACC's suspension because ACC carried out a reasonable and timely investigation including expert orthopaedic review and imaging, the delegation and decision‑making process was valid, and the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his ongoing symptoms were caused by the covered injury; therefore ACC was properly 'not satisfied' of continued entitlement under s117.