New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical expert evaluation

Legal area

Court

21 Jun 2013

Clapham v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 179
Court

District Court

The Corporation's April 2011 decision was upheld because the contemporaneous specialist IMA (Dr Ruttenberg), supported by earlier medical evidence, convincingly established that the appellant could engage in her pre‑injury or substantially similar office work within biomechanical restrictions; inconsistent later opinions post‑dated the decision or relied on subjective presentation, claimant had not adequately engaged in rehabilitation, and abnormalities of presentation and indications of secondary gain undermined claims of incapacity under s103.
14 Aug 2012

MacPherson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 271
Court

District Court

On the balance of evidence the contemporaneous orthopaedic opinion of Mr Jones (5 June 1997) that the appellant had no present incapacity is preferred; there was insufficient cogent evidence that the appellant's chronic spinal symptoms were caused by covered injuries and ACC had sufficient basis in June 1997 to be not satisfied of continuing entitlement to weekly compensation, so the termination decision stands.
3 Apr 2012

Lee v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

Judge preferred the psychiatric opinions (Dr Collier and consistent Dr Darby), found appellant carried out stunt work when available from December 1999 to October 2003, concluded substance abuse was not established as injury‑related for material times and therefore appellant was not 'incapacitated' as defined by the Act for the claimed backdated period; incapacity arose from the October 2003 knee injury (and a non‑injury related sickness period April–Dec 2002).
12 Apr 1999

Major v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

On the facts the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that her present condition is causally connected to the personal gradual process injury for which the respondent had granted cover; the respondent's decision to cancel entitlements was therefore wrong and is revoked.

New Zealand Case Law

Clapham v Accident Compensation Corporation

MacPherson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Lee v Accident Compensation Corporation

Major v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation