New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Eligibility for acc cover

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2015

Thomson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 249
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the judge preferred the expert reasoning that the post-accident swelling represented trauma-induced haematoma and that desmoid tumours can be precipitated by such trauma within the timeframe observed; given the acceptance by experts that the tumour was at the site of significant soft tissue trauma, the clinical history, imaging, FNA, subsequent diagnoses and credible specialist opinion (particularly Dr Childs) established a probable causal nexus between the October 2009 accident and the desmoid tumour, thereby entitling the appellant to ACC cover.
26 Sept 2011

Coster v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 274
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 8 August 2000 motor vehicle accident caused his ongoing brain injury; medical evidence was equivocal, contemporaneous records did not indicate brain injury, and there were plausible alternative causes (prior brain damage, substance abuse, later assault), so s360(2)(a) is not satisfied.
8 Oct 2004

Catley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 323
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to identify a specific personal injury and to prove the three statutory elements of s30 on the balance of probabilities; the occupational medicine report found no physical injury or occupational causal link and the rheumatologist’s opinion did not specify the s30 property/characteristic or demonstrate a significantly greater risk, therefore cover under s30 is not established.
24 Oct 1997

Dessau v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 207
Court

District Court

Medical evidence accepted by the Court established that the appellant had pre-existing mild osteoarthritis and that the marked deterioration and need for total hip replacement was caused wholly or substantially by the ageing process rather than the 1994 minor fall; therefore the statutory exclusion for ageing applied and the appellant was not entitled to cover or payment under the Act.

New Zealand Case Law

Thomson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Coster v Accident Compensation Corporation

Catley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Dessau v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation