New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Entitlement/cover

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2018

Standing v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 40
Court

District Court

Dr Thompson's opinion was conclusory and relied principally on temporality without adequate medical reasoning to link the L5/S1 pathology to the 23 August 2015 accident; the Clinical Advisory Panel's explanation that the imaging demonstrates multi-level degenerative disease not attributable to a one-off event was more compelling; therefore on the balance of probabilities the L5/S1 condition was not caused by the accident and is excluded from cover, so funding for the injection was correctly declined.
24 Mar 2016

Young v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 74
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffered a low voltage electric shock while using the hairdryer; credible eyewitness accounts, an unchallenged electrician's report demonstrating exposed live components and a viable moisture conduction path, contemporaneous medical records, and specialist medical opinion establish both occurrence of a shock and causation of neck injury by sustained tetanic muscle contraction. Accordingly the Corporation's decision to suspend cover was quashed and the review decision set aside.
22 May 2015

Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

There was insufficient objective medical evidence to establish that the 17 September 2008 accident caused a fracture or other injury which was wholly or substantially causative of the fifth toe amputation; the appellant's diabetic history, prior amputations, radiological findings and expert opinions indicated a disease process was the more probable cause, so the reviewer was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Oct 2014

Carson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 291
Court

District Court

No substantive evidence linked the enamel infractions to the 6 August 2009 accident: dentist's reports were equivocal, there was no contemporaneous record of infraction at treatment seven weeks after the accident, the three year delay undermined causation, and expert evidence showed likely non-accident causes; therefore ACC correctly declined cover and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Sept 2014

Notley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 212
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that his PTSD was suffered 'because of' the physical injuries from the 1997 accident (no proximate relationship, absence of head injury, relatively minor/infective laceration with ordinary healing, and significant intervening/previous medical history), therefore no personal injury under s26(1)(c) and ACC's and the Review Officer's decisions are confirmed.
10 Jul 2014

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 164
Court

District Court

The District Court preferred the opinions of treating specialists (Ms Baker and Mr Laubscher) and found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's C6/7 disc protrusion and ongoing cervical/radicular symptoms were causally linked to the 25 January 2009 surfing accident; the review decision was quashed and cover granted for the injuries claimed.
24 Jan 2014

Davis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 19
Court

District Court

Applying a robust view to the whole of the lay and medical evidence, the Court found on the balance of probabilities that the anterior stitch pulled out as a personal injury by accident in the lifting and twisting event on 5 May 2011 and that the injury was not shown to be wholly or substantially caused by a gradual process, so ACC cover must be granted.
11 Oct 2012

McManus v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 341
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the persuasive medical evidence indicates the Achilles condition was probably of gradual onset with equivocal causation; the appellant failed to establish that the courier employment had the particular characteristic not found to any material extent in non‑employment activities (kickboxing or idiopathic causes were at least as likely), therefore the requirements of s 30 were not satisfied and cover is not available.
7 Apr 2004

Turner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 95
Court

District Court

While the appellant's work contained tasks capable of causing rotator cuff syndrome and non-employment activities were not shown to be material contributors, the appellant failed s33(2)(c) because he did not prove the risk was significantly greater for persons performing the carpentry tasks; appeal dismissed and cover denied.
29 Nov 1996

Flay v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 144
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged exposures caused a personal injury or occupational disease within the Act; medical expert opinion did not establish causation for the ongoing symptoms and therefore cover was properly declined.