New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Degenerative disease vs injury

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2012

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 232
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the Clinical Advisory Panel's view that the 1998 MRI showed disc desiccation and a mild disc bulge likely of genetic/degenerative origin and found insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that the 1997 lifting incident caused a traumatic disc injury giving rise to the need for further physiotherapy; accordingly ACC's refusal to fund treatment was correct and must be upheld.
16 May 2012

Harvey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 167
Court

District Court

Weighing the competing expert opinions and evidence, it is more probable on the balance of probabilities that the appellant sustained injuries in 1998 and 2007 that contributed significantly to his chronic pain and disability, so ACC's attribution of the condition wholly or substantially to pre-existing degeneration was incorrect and the suspension of entitlements was unlawful.
6 Sept 2011

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 256
Court

District Court

On the evidence the dominant and continuing cause of the appellant's incapacity is multi-level degenerative spinal disease and associated psychosocial factors, not the 1998 injury; ACC therefore had a sufficient basis under s.117 to be 'not satisfied' that injury-based entitlements should continue and correctly suspended them from 2 August 2009.
5 Mar 2008

Shann v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 50
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant primarily sought a re‑hearing of factual issues (including causation and weight of medical evidence), no arguable point of law was isolated from Judge Ongley’s decision, and the factual findings that degenerative spinal disease was the effective cause of recurring pain were supported by evidence and law.
14 Jan 2005

Best v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 12
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove a causal nexus between the 1990 whiplash and his current incapacity; medical evidence establishes chronic pain syndrome and degenerative cervical disease (and possibly stroke) as the exclusive causes of incapacity and a mere temporal or triggering connection is insufficient to maintain cover; therefore suspension of entitlements was lawful and the review decision must be upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Harvey v Accident Compensation Corporation

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

Shann v Accident Compensation Corporation

Best v Accident Compensation Corporation