New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Diagnosis

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2016

Brewster v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 290
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed: a correctly performed antenatal abdominal palpation that fails to detect a breech presentation does not, by itself, constitute treatment causing injury under s32 absent a departure from accepted professional standards or observable indications for different treatment; s32(3) bars treating mere failure to achieve a desired diagnostic result as causation; similarly, any failure to refer for morbid obesity did not establish the necessary causal nexus because specialist referral would not have certainly detected the breech prior to labour.
12 Jul 2016

Moore v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 188
Court

District Court

On the evidence, including contemporaneous GP and hospital records and the independent GP expert opinion that the GP acted reasonably in 1985 under then-accepted practice, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner; therefore the treatment injury threshold in ss32–33 was not met.
15 Dec 2015

Zamal v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 385
Court

District Court

On the facts the multidisciplinary clinical decisions to treat as presumed infective acute severe colitis based on preliminary laboratory information and clinical deterioration were reasonable; causation of the colectomy by any failure to diagnose or treat ulcerative colitis was not established and a lost opportunity/loss of chance does not meet the ACC causation threshold; appeal dismissed.
16 Feb 2011

Driver v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 42
Court

District Court

The court found on the evidence that the appellant was properly informed of his diagnosis, the alternatives (including three‑monthly injections), and that the bone scan result did not affect the medical necessity for orchidectomy; the appellant signed a consent form while of sound mind; therefore the consent was informed and the surgery was not a treatment injury, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 Dec 2010

Chilton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 235
Court

District Court

MRI confirmed adhesive capsulitis, an idiopathic condition not shown to be caused or materially contributed to by the appellant's employment tasks; therefore the statutory causation requirements of s.30 were not met and cover as a gradual process injury was rightly declined.
22 Jul 2009

Heatherbell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to produce supporting medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of Lyme disease and causation; speculative assertions, internet material and an unconfirmed clinical notation are insufficient to meet the required evidentiary standard.
24 Mar 2005

Wilde v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

The court found no compensable new personal injury and no breach of the statutory standard of care: the treating surgeon's decision to operate was supported by clinical findings and corroborated by multiple specialists and independent expert opinion, and an unsuccessful outcome by itself does not constitute medical error under s33(4); accordingly the appellant's claim for cover for medical misadventure fails and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Mar 2004

Sigley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 48
Court

District Court

The assessor's diagnosis and assessment were not shown to be incorrect; he applied the correct clinical test, gave adequate reasons, and did not misread the functional capacity evaluation, therefore the respondent's decision that the appellant had capacity for work and to cease weekly compensation was upheld.