New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Evaluation of expert medical evidence

  • 17 Feb 2022

    DE ANDA ESCOBAR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 201

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 201
    Court
    High Court

    The judge did not err: medical expert evidence that the injuries were highly likely inflicted together with the appellant's implausible, inconsistent explanations, his initial failure to account for the injuries, and circumstantial evidence (including opportunity and alcohol consumption) furnished a safe basis to infer that the appellant intentionally caused the injuries; the reasons given were adequate under Sena.

    • Injuring with intent
    • Appeal against conviction
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence
    • Circumstantial evidence
    • Credibility assessment

  • 18 Jun 2015

    Gordon v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2015] NZACC 151
    Court
    District Court

    The District Court correctly resolved conflicting expert medical evidence in favour of the Corporation’s neurologist (Dr Abernethy), found no medical evidence meeting the legal test for causation linking the appellant's ongoing migraines to the 1990 injury, and concluded no question of law arose; consequently leave to appeal to the High Court was properly dismissed.

    • Causation
    • Review of entitlements
    • Leave to appeal
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence

  • 16 Apr 2013

    Dehar v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2013] NZACC 99
    Court
    District Court

    The court preferred the respondent's more comprehensive and expert medical evidence (Dr Gordon and Dr Turner, supported by Dr Monigatti) and found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's ongoing problems were due to degenerative conditions not the January 2005 covered injury; therefore the suspension of entitlements under s117 was correct.

    • Suspension of entitlements
    • Causation on balance of probabilities
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence
    • Section 117 acc act

  • 4 Sept 2012

    Welsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 296
    Court
    District Court

    The appellant discharged the onus on the balance of probabilities: the treating specialist's reasoned opinion that the lateral talar dome osteochondral lesion was traumatic and would not have been asymptomatic was preferred to the respondent's CAP opinion which lacked sufficient explanation for why cystic change and chondral thinning could not have developed within the post-accident timeframe; ACC's decline was quashed and ACC must fund the surgery.

    • Entitlement to treatment funding
    • Causation of injury
    • Elective surgery approval
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence

  • 30 Jul 2012

    Griffiths v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 254
    Court
    District Court

    The Court preferred the treating surgeon's and independent expert's opinions over the respondent's Clinical Advisory Panel, accepted that the appellant's above‑shoulder lifting constituted a traumatic compression event causing subacromial bursitis/impingement, and held that this established causation on the balance of probabilities such that ACC must fund the surgery under Clause 1, Schedule 1 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

    • Causation
    • Entitlement to treatment
    • Elective surgery funding
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence
    • Standard of proof - balance of probabilities

  • 2 Mar 2012

    Olsen v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 62
    Court
    District Court

    On the balance of probabilities the medial meniscal tear was caused by the 14 July 2010 accident (traumatic radial tear of the posterior horn rather than a degenerative posterior root tear); the primary purpose of the proposed arthroscopic surgery is to treat that covered injury; ACC's decision declining funding is therefore quashed and funding is ordered.

    • Entitlement to elective surgery
    • Causation
    • Review of administrative decision
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence

  • 1 Jul 2008

    McDonald v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2008] NZACC 136
    Court
    District Court

    On the balance of probabilities the annular tear at L5/S1 was not caused by the February 2005 couch incident and, in any event, the right‑sided annular tear was unlikely to account for the appellant's predominant left‑sided pain; the appellant's ongoing symptoms are more probably due to pre‑existing degenerative L5/S1 disease which was aggravated but not caused by the 2005 event, therefore ACC correctly suspended entitlements under s117 and the appeal must be dismissed.

    • Causation
    • Entitlement suspension under s117
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence
    • Annular tear versus degenerative disc disease

  • 11 Feb 2004

    Caithness v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2004] NZACC 13
    Court
    District Court

    The MRI showed extensive medial compartment osteoarthritis with degenerative medial meniscal tearing; the respondent's expert evidence that the pathology was long‑standing degenerative disease was preferred over the applicant's expert because of inconsistent history and lack of adequate explanation linking trauma to the degenerative changes; therefore the condition was not attributable to the 21 December 2001 accident and ACC's suspension of entitlements and refusal to fund surgery were correctly upheld.

    • Causation
    • Entitlement suspension under s117
    • Consent to surgery
    • Concurrent causation
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence

  • 24 Aug 1999

    Parker v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [1999] NZACC 236
    Court
    District Court

    The court preferred the reasoned, history-based opinion of Mr Grayson over Mr Nicholson because Grayson addressed the mechanism of injury and the appellant's prior history; on the balance of probabilities the 8 March 1989 accident was a major factor causing the appellant's ongoing disability, so the respondent's decision to cease entitlements was unlawful and is revoked.

    • Causation
    • Coverage exclusion - ageing/gradual process
    • Evaluation of expert medical evidence
    • Review of entitlement decisions