New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Diagnostic evidence

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2018

Heslop v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 54
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant did not prove that infection contracted at the time of the 2008 surgery caused the prosthesis loosening; objective investigations (normal ESR/CRP, negative aspiration, negative cultures, histology consistent with wear) and credible alternative causation (aseptic loosening from varus malalignment/wear) made infection insufficiently probable, so ACC correctly declined cover and the review decision was upheld.
31 Oct 2016

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 292
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove a qualifying mental injury causally linked to Schedule 3 sexual offences after 1 April 2002: the diagnosed Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder was not linked to sexual abuse, the Personality Disorder NOS formed a continuum with pre-2002 conditions and therefore predated the qualifying period, and no expert definitively diagnosed PTSD causally tied to the Schedule 3 events; accordingly no cover under s21 was established.
23 May 2014

J v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 129
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the medical evidence is conflicted and flawed, there is no single clear diagnosis established on the balance of probabilities and insufficient evidence that the 14 February 2010 incident predominantly caused a mental injury that could reasonably be expected to affect people generally under s21B; the reviewer's direction for further specialist psychiatric assessment is therefore upheld.
21 Nov 2011

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 336
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the medical evidence only establishes a mere possibility of a left varicocele and does not, on the balance of probabilities, establish (a) that a left varicocele exists or (b) that any such varicocele is a personal injury caused by the appellant's vasectomy or vasectomy reversal; accordingly ACC correctly declined cover for the left varicocele.
29 Jan 2009

Fifield v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 8
Court

District Court

Judge found neurogenic bladder to be a compensable physical injury; unanimous specialist opinion (urologists) established diagnosis and a causal link to the hysterectomy; prior retention episodes were attributable to an enlarging uterine fibroid and therefore distinct; because the neurogenic condition was more severe, persistent and not an ordinary consequence of the hysterectomy, the appellant was entitled to cover under s32.

New Zealand Case Law

Heslop v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury)

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

J v Accident Compensation Corporation

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Fifield v Accident Compensation Corporation