New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evaluation of medical evidence

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2019

MORGAN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZHC 2494

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2494
Court

High Court

The application for special leave is dismissed because the alleged error was a factual disagreement over diagnosis (multiple chemical sensitivity versus chronic fatigue syndrome) not an error of law; the Judge's factual conclusion that there was no evidence of a physical injury causally linked to paraquat was supported by the medical evidence and therefore there is no qualifying error of law to justify special leave.
26 May 2015

O'Connor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 118
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the index cause of the appellant's rotator cuff tear was the June 2012 carousel incident; the treating surgeon's integrated reasoning and intra-operative findings established a traumatic tear causally linked to the covered injury, therefore the ACC's decision to decline surgery funding was set aside.
31 Mar 2015

Irving v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 78
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the treating surgeon's evidence and intraoperative findings over the Corporation's experts and CAP report, found no persuasive evidence of pre-existing degenerative pathology sufficient to explain the need for surgery, and concluded the appellant's need for surgery was caused by the 7 May 2011 accident; accordingly the Corporation's decision to decline funding was quashed and the appellant entitled to funded surgery and costs.
28 Feb 2014

Sharma v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 42
Court

District Court

The judge accepted the specialist neurological evidence of Dr Wallis that the appellant suffered chronic neuropathic pain and sensory impairment (causalgia) that materially impaired his ability to perform the repetitive, dextrous, undistracted tasks required by his pre-injury employment; Dr Dryson's opinion failed to adequately account for pain-related functional limitations and misread the workplace assessment; accordingly the Corporation's cessation of weekly compensation under s103 was unjustified and the review decision was quashed.
30 Jan 2014

Perry v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 22
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the available evidence—including imaging showing degenerative change, the appellant's rheumatoid arthritis, independent medical adviser opinions, and the intraoperative findings that rebutted the ultrasound tear diagnosis—demonstrated the shoulder pathology was the result of a gradual degenerative process (and related conditions) rather than the 15 December 2006 accident; therefore the respondent was correct to decline funding and the appeal is dismissed under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 statutory framework.
1 Nov 2013

King v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 373
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant sustained a full thickness supraspinatus tendon tear in the 5 August 2012 incident, producing immediate significant pain, and therefore the injury is a specific covered event requiring surgery; the respondent's refusal was incorrect and must be quashed.
15 Aug 2013

Woods v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 255
Court

District Court

On the evidence as a whole the Court found insufficient objective or expert evidence to overturn the vocational independence determination, insufficient reasonable grounds under s109(2) to conclude post-determination deterioration, and no clear and compelling expert evidence to displace the WPI assessment; accordingly all three appeals were dismissed.
25 Nov 2011

Kumar v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 342
Court

District Court

At the relevant date (25 August 2008) the contemporaneous medical evidence (notably Mr Welsh and Mr Kusel, supported by Dr Jansen's review) established the left humeral fracture had healed and that symptomatic cervical spondylosis produced referred pain to the shoulder; opposing opinions were either inconsistent with imaging, lacked contemporaneous basis, or gave no adequate causal explanation. Therefore the respondent had an evidential basis to be not satisfied of continuing entitlement and lawfully suspended entitlements; appeal dismissed.
11 Oct 2011

Baker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 291
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the opinions of Dr Bohm and Dr Turner that the claimant's current incapacity is attributable to pre‑existing multilevel cervical spondylosis and not to a compensable injury from the February 2008 (or 2006) events; therefore ACC had a sufficient basis to suspend weekly compensation on 7 October 2008 and the appeal is dismissed.
18 May 2011

Hollowood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 154
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's lumbar disc degeneration and incapacity were caused by a work-related gradual process and cumulative workplace events such that ACC's declinature and review decisions were quashed and entitlements reinstated, with the express clarification that Carter Holt Harvey Pulp & Paper Ltd did not cause or contribute to the appellant's work-related gradual process injury.