New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Medical misadventure cover

  • 19 Apr 2004

    H v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2004] NZACC 109
    Court
    District Court

    Uncontradicted specialist evidence and contemporaneous clinical records showed no objective or contemporaneous evidence of physical injury causally linked to the ECT or medications; treatments were within accepted standards of care; therefore the appellant failed to prove medical misadventure and the decision declining cover was correctly affirmed.

    • Medical misadventure cover
    • Causation
    • Standard of care
    • Informed consent
    • Onus of proof
    • Role of expert medical evidence

  • 28 Jun 2001

    Taylor v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2001] NZACC 163
    Court
    District Court

    Medical evidence established that the appellant's current disability resulted from degenerative/aseptic loosening of his hip replacements and not from the leg length discrepancy for which cover had been granted; therefore the respondent lawfully suspended entitlements that were payable only for the covered injury.

    • Suspension of entitlements
    • Causation of incapacity
    • Medical misadventure cover
    • Review and appeal procedure

  • 2 Mar 2001

    Johnson v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2001] NZACC 37
    Court
    District Court

    Having assessed credibility and the evidence on balance of probabilities, the court found the practitioner did fully explain the nature and risks of the radiotherapy including possible bowel damage and that the patient gave informed consent; therefore no medical error occurred and the appeal is allowed.

    • Informed consent
    • Medical misadventure cover
    • Medical error
    • Credibility and factual findings
    • Costs

  • 2 May 1996

    ABC5 v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

    Citation
    [1996] NZACC 32
    Court
    District Court

    Appeal allowed: where a claimant reasonably could not obtain the Corporation's prior approval because the Corporation had not yet decided to accept cover, regulation 11 must be read to allow payment (i.e. an implied exception), and the appellant is entitled to have her claim for the remedial treatment dealt with and reimbursed in accordance with the regulations on that basis.

    • Prior approval requirement under regulations
    • Entitlement to treatment costs
    • Regulatory discretion
    • Medical misadventure cover

  • 22 Aug 1995

    DK v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

    Citation
    [1995] NZACC 90
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal is dismissed because under the 1992 Act the appellant failed to establish a qualifying personal injury: pregnancy and its termination do not, by themselves, constitute 'personal injury' as defined in s4 absent physical injury producing the mental injury, and the appellant did not prove that the 1989 procedure produced an adverse consequence meeting the statutory rarity and severity thresholds or that any qualifying personal injury was caused by that procedure.

    • Medical misadventure cover
    • Definition of personal injury
    • Causation
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Administrative decision review