New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mental injury

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2023

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v TN [2023] NZCA 664

Citation

[2023] NZCA 664
Court

Court of Appeal

For the purposes of the definition of "potential earner" a claimant who suffered mental injury as a result of childhood sexual abuse is to be regarded as having "suffered" that injury on the actual date of the abusive conduct (the date of the injury) for LOPE eligibility; the deemed date in s 36(1) (date of first treatment) operates as an evidentiary/limitation mechanism for claims but does not displace substantive eligibility for potential earner LOPE where the actual injury occurred before age 18.
7 Jun 2023

ROSS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 1405

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1405
Court

High Court

Because there was no reasonably current psychiatric/psychological evidence (post-2011) on which Dr Antoniadis could have properly concluded that the appellant's depressive disorder no longer precluded 30 hours/week work, and because his job-by-job reasoning did not address the covered mental injuries, the District Court's upholding of ACC's 2014 vocational independence decision was unsupported by evidence and therefore legally erroneous under Edwards v Bairstow; appeal allowed.
1 Jun 2022

TN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 1280

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1280
Court

High Court

s36's deeming of the date of mental injury to first treatment does not govern the meaning of "suffered" in the s6 definition of "potential earner"; for purposes of s105 potential earner entitlement the ordinary (actual) date of injury applies, so the appellant may qualify and the appeal is allowed and remitted to ACC for assessment.
5 Jun 2019

PQ v Accident Compensation Corporation (Mental Injury)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

Applying the materially-contributing causation test from W, the Judge found the 1988 sexual assault materially contributed to the appellant's schizophrenia in a genuine and meaningful way and allowed the appeal, concluding ACC's decision declining cover for schizophrenia was incorrect.
16 Apr 2019

D v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Mental Injury)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 31
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish on the evidence that his covered tinnitus/hearing loss caused a recognisable mental injury under s27; the unchallenged psychiatric opinion of Dr Collier that no causal link existed was determinative, so the appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2018

W v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2018] NZHC 937

Citation

[2018] 3 NZLR 859
Court

High Court

Section 26(1)(c) requires both factual causation (ordinarily established by the 'but for' test) and legal causation; the claimant's physical injuries must materially contribute to the mental injury. A requirement of a distinct direct/proximate causal link in the sense adopted below by the District Court was an error of law; appeal allowed and matter remitted for factual rehearing applying the correct tests.
20 Jul 2017

F v Accident Compensation Corporation (Mental Injury)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 84
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the evidence is insufficient to establish that a Schedule 3 offence occurred and the appellant's depressive disorder pre-existed the alleged events, so the causal link required by s21 is not established.
29 Nov 2016

H v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 309
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because there is a bona fide question of law as to whether the District Court applied the correct legal test for causation of mental injury under s26(1)(c) and whether it failed to give proper analytical consideration to multi‑causation as indicated by Hornby; those legal issues are sufficiently arguable to merit High Court determination.
17 Nov 2016

Ives v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 300
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal is refused because no arguable question of law arises: Judge Powell's factual finding that the applicant's consequential mental injury, including chronic pain syndrome, became clinically significant between August 1990 and February 1991 is reasonably open on the evidence and supports application of the 1982 Act; splitting the umbrella 'mental injury' into discrete components with separate dates is a factual inquiry not a legal error, and the post‑appeal expert material does not raise a question of law sufficient to grant leave.
25 Oct 2016

W v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 287
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed: the Court has no jurisdiction to determine cover under the 1972 Act absent a contemporaneous decision and record; under the 2001 Act s26(1)(c) a direct causal nexus is required between the physical injury and the mental injury and the medical evidence establishes no such nexus here because the 1979 injuries had healed and the appellant has no recollection of them, her distress arising from knowledge of the abuse rather than ongoing effects of the physical injuries.