13 Sept 2013
Thorley v Accident Compensation Corporation
- Citation
- [2013] NZACC 296
- Court
- District Court
The Court held that the appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that she suffered a physical injury of a kind beyond the necessary or ordinary consequences of the angioplasty/stent insertion. Expert evidence was equivocal and did not identify objective pathology or nerve injury; speculative hypotheses about vessel 'stretch' were insufficient. Because no qualifying physical injury under s26(1) was proven, the treatment injury test in s32(1) was not met and the appeal was dismissed.