12 Apr 2017
The independent psychiatric report established that the appellant does not suffer a mental injury causally linked to the covered ankle injury (mental condition is alcohol dependence predating the injury), therefore the Corporation's decision declining mental injury cover was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Oct 2016
The District Court's factual finding that the applicant's minor physical injury did not cause or materially contribute to the mental injury means no legal error is demonstrated; consequently there is no arguable question of law warranting leave to appeal under s162, so leave is refused.
22 Jul 2015
Objective contemporaneous medical records and respondent experts showed the head injury was minor and lacked objective evidence of concussion; multiple pre-existing stressors and psychological vulnerabilities provided a superior explanation for the appellant's clinically significant mental dysfunction, so the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the physical injury was a substantial or material cause of his mental injury.
6 Nov 2014
Appeal dismissed because there was no accepted finding of a physical injury attributable to the dental treatment and no sufficient causal link between any identified injury and the alleged mental disorder; the court preferred the dental expert evidence that no physical injury occurred and that symptoms reflected unrealistic expectations and other causes.
2 Jun 2011
The appellant prevented the respondent from fairly assessing causation by withholding disclosure of a potentially causative sensitive claim; because the undisclosed material was a candidate cause the court could not allow reliance on an expert opinion that excluded it, so the reviewer's decision was quashed and ACC was directed to reconsider if the appellant authorises disclosure and obtains a full psychiatric opinion for ACC to consider.
16 May 2011
The judge found the legal question sufficiently arguable to merit High Court scrutiny: whether a mental injury that arises from a physical injury caused during proper medical treatment can constitute a compensable treatment injury under s.32 even if the physical injury (eg needle insertion) was a necessary or ordinary consequence of that treatment; leave to appeal was therefore granted to resolve that statutory interpretation issue.
5 Nov 1997
Because the appellant's ongoing entitlements were governed by the ARCI Act 1992 (s135(1) deeming accepted claims into the 1992 Act) and s152 only preserves appeals where a decision was made under the 1982 Act pursuant to s135(3), the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal rather than the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority.