New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence assessment

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2018

U v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 28
Court

District Court

Dr Todd's mental injury assessment and the 15% apportionment were not shown to be flawed; Dr Xiong's second opinion was unreliable and insufficient to displace the assessment. However, regulatory and guide provisions (Independence Allowance Regulations, AMA4, ACC User Handbook) require combining impairments from all covered injuries into a single whole person impairment, therefore the Corporation's decision not to combine the 5% back impairment and 15% mental impairment was incorrect and the decisions are modified to provide an independence allowance based on the combined whole person impairm…
6 Jul 2017

BRUCE JAMES SPITTLE v R [2017] NZSC 105

Citation

[2017] NZSC 105
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed leave because the applicant failed to show a substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal had properly applied R v Owen and reasonably concluded the jury had a sufficient and proper basis to prefer the complainant's evidence, so the verdicts were not ones no jury could reasonably have reached.
31 Aug 2016

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 239
Court

District Court

There was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant's current L2/3 pathology and symptoms were caused by the 2002 covered injury; available imaging and expert opinion showed multi‑level degenerative disease predating 2002 and no clear causal chain to a single traumatic event, and the proposed fusion was not shown to be necessary and appropriate under Schedule 1 clause 2; accordingly ACC correctly declined funding and the appeal is dismissed.
6 May 2016

Braidwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 132
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court judge did not commit any error of law: he lawfully and reasonably assessed competing expert evidence, permissibly preferred the Corporation's expert, considered the evidence in the round on causation, and no natural justice duty to a non‑party expert produced a reviewable error; accordingly there is no arguable question of law for the High Court under s162.
3 May 2016

Saul v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 129
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the chondral defects were caused by the 26 November 2012 incident; the Clinical Advisory Panel's assessment that the defects reflect pre-existing degenerative change (with the accident rendering symptoms) is preferred over the treating surgeon's opinion, and accordingly ACC's decision to decline funding for surgery is upheld.
31 Aug 2015

Topless v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 256
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish, on the required evidential standard, that atorvastatin caused his progressive motor neuropathy; decisive weight was given to neurology opinion and EMG/nerve conduction studies excluding myopathy and finding a pattern inconsistent with statin-induced neuropathy, therefore the treatment injury claim was properly declined.
14 Apr 2014

Oakes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

The court accepted the specialist clinical evidence (Dr Ng) that the March 2008 accidents caused symptomatic Achilles tendon injury and that subsequent radiological absence of acute findings did not displace this clinical conclusion; accordingly, on the balance of probabilities the Corporation was wrong to determine by 22 December 2008 that the condition was no longer injury-related and to suspend entitlements.
7 Aug 2001

O'Meara v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 216
Court

District Court

The court found on the balance of the evidence that the appellant's chronic pain syndrome is a mental consequence of the personal injury of 28 March 1989; the necessary causal connection was established and predisposing or perpetuating factors do not negate statutory entitlement, therefore the respondent's decision to suspend entitlements was incorrect and is revoked.