New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence weight

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2018

Tod v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 142
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the Clinical Advisory Panel's analysis over the treating surgeon: the mechanism described was insufficient to cause a traumatic medial talar dome lesion, there was no evidence of expected lateral ligament rupture, and imaging showed pre-existing changes (early osteophytes and cystic change) consistent with a longer standing process; accordingly ACC correctly declined funding under s26(2) and the reviewer's decision was upheld.
26 Oct 2017

Subritzky v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover for Mental Injury)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 130
Court

District Court

The Court preferred Dr Malone's comprehensive, contemporaneous-record‑based psychiatric assessment which identified significant symptom validity concerns, found no current PTSD or post-concussional disorder and concluded the appellant's schizoaffective/bipolar disorder was not materially caused by the 1997 assault; on the rehearing the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a clinically significant PTSD or PCS causally linked to the covered physical injury, therefore the Corporation's decision of 4 September 2013 and the reviewer’s decision were correctly upheld and the app…
26 Jun 2015

Hopkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 174
Court

District Court

The reviewer’s decision was quashed because the respondent failed to appreciate and properly assess the totality of covered injuries (including mental consequences under the 1982 Act), did not ensure adequate rehabilitation prior to assessing vocational independence, and relied on medical/occupational assessments that inadequately addressed sustained employability given long workforce absence; therefore the vocational independence finding was unsafe and must be set aside and prior entitlements reinstated.
8 Jul 2013

White v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 189
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the District Court found the 2006 midline laparotomy caused the claimant's incisional hernia and, having preferred the treating surgeons' direct clinical opinions over the ACC medical advisor, concluded the hernia was not a necessary part or ordinary consequence of the treatment in the claimant's particular circumstances; accordingly ACC's decline was quashed and cover ordered.
10 Jan 2011

Duff v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 1
Court

District Court

The assessor's impairment rating of 32% was upheld because it was made in accordance with the prescribed AMA Guides and ACC User Handbook, which provide that pain is not generally separately rateable except where specifically noted; the appellant failed to produce cogent evidence showing an error in application of the Guides and the Court gave greater weight to the assessor trained and experienced in applying the Guides.
2 Nov 2010

Seymour v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 194
Court

District Court

The Corporation's decision was quashed because the decisive VIMA of 4 August 2009 relied on an out-of-date clinical examination (April) despite intervening surgery and treatment; the assessment failed to address or reconcile the treating orthopaedic surgeon's contrary, contemporary opinions and thus provided insufficient evidential basis to find vocational independence.
10 Sept 2007

Hornby v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 214
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her clinically significant mental condition was directly caused by the covered physical injuries; substantial pre-existing major depressive disorder and multiple non-injury factors materially contributed to her condition, and the medical evidence did not establish the required direct causal nexus, so cover for mental injury was correctly declined.
22 Apr 1999

Olive v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 100
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she suffered personal injury resulting from medical error or mishap caused by the epidural injections; absent expert evidence connecting the injections to her symptoms, the MMAC's and Review Officer's findings that the symptoms were due to progression of pre‑existing disease are upheld, so the claim for cover is properly declined.