14 Jul 2017
The Court upheld the ACC decision because the comprehensive expert review and the absence of any contemporaneous medical record or treatment linking a lumbar/back injury to the 1988 accident meant the appellant failed to establish causation; later medical comments were insufficient to displace the contemporaneous evidence and expert findings.
16 Aug 2016
On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the treating surgeon's evidence that an anterolateral chondrolabral delamination and associated labral/ligamentum teres injury were caused by the 17 February 2011 fall; therefore the injury is a covered condition and ACC's decision declining funding was overturned.
30 Oct 2015
The Corporation lacked a sufficient basis to suspend entitlements because it failed to analyse the nature and scope of the extant 1995 cover (lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy) against the claimant's ongoing symptoms; absent that analysis ACC could not properly be 'not satisfied' under s117(1), therefore the suspension was unlawful and must be quashed and entitlements reinstated and backdated.
1 Aug 2012
On the medical evidence as of May 2010 (notably Dr du Plessis) the appellant's ongoing incapacity was substantially attributable to a pre-existing pain disorder and opiate dependency excluded from cover; the earlier 2003 judgment did not bar relitigation given the possibility that the effect of the 1996 injury would cease, therefore suspension of weekly compensation under s117 was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Apr 2006
Because there was a clear factual error in the medical assessment record concerning which vertebral artery was affected and that error was material — it could have closed off necessary enquiries and affected the impairment outcome — the independence allowance assessment was flawed and must be set aside and redone.
22 Jun 2005
The Court found that the appellant's chronic pain syndrome/fibromyalgia diagnosed in 1991 is the same condition present in 2003 and that it was, in material part, causally linked to the 1979 workplace injury; the respondent's 10 September 2003 decision was quashed because it was based on a mistaken premise that no injury occurred and therefore failed to treat the condition as part of the covered injury.