New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal injury

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2023

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v AZ [2023] NZCA 617

Citation

[2023] NZCA 617
Court

Court of Appeal

The misread 20‑week ultrasound was 'treatment' (diagnosis) and the misdiagnosis materially caused the claimant's being born with spina bifida by depriving the mother of the lawful opportunity to elect termination; spina bifida is a physical 'personal injury' under s 26(1)(b) and qualifies as a 'treatment injury' under s 20(2)(b) (and alternatively s 20(2)(f)), so ACC cover applies and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Jun 2017

Sellwood & Othrs v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether implantation of a defective prosthesis constitutes a 'physical injury' under the Accident Compensation Act raises an arguable question of law; causation issues remain primarily factual and do not by themselves justify leave.
22 Oct 2013

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v STANLEY [2013] NZHC 2765

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2765
Court

High Court

Delay in referral and failure to provide timely treatment caused an exacerbated physical injury which constituted a treatment injury under the Act; the Corporation failed to produce evidence to show the exacerbation was wholly or substantially caused by the underlying condition and appeal dismissing challenge to District Court treatment injury finding was upheld.
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.
16 Feb 2012

A v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 51
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a personal injury as defined by the Act; there is no convincing evidence of a failure to provide treatment or of treatment causing a personal injury; expert and clinical records demonstrate appropriate treatment and pre-existing psychiatric conditions that negate causation, therefore ACC's decision to decline cover is upheld.
24 Apr 2009

Rongonui v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 69
Court

District Court

The Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction over a s21 mental injury claim because the Corporation had never made a primary decision on such a claim; the correct remedy was for ACC to issue primary decisions on whether pepper spray caused additional physical injury and whether a s21 mental injury claim arises, and the Court directs ACC to do so; appeal otherwise dismissed.
22 Sept 2008

Accident Compensation Corporation v McCarron

Citation

[2008] NZACC 236
Court

District Court

The gastric band is not a 'prosthesis' within the meaning of s26(1)(e) of the Act and its malfunction did not cause physical injury to the body; therefore there was no 'personal injury' and no 'treatment injury' under s32, so the Review decision was wrong and the primary decision declining cover is reinstated.
26 Mar 2008

Roberts v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 65
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the claim as pleaded and prosecuted was for a gradual process injury under s30 and that claim fails on the medical evidence; however, the respondent will reassess entitlement on the basis that the May 2003 incident may constitute a covered accident-related personal injury.
23 Sept 2004

Telfar v Accident Compensation Corporation and Richmond Limited

Citation

[2004] NZACC 307
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant established that she suffered a physical injury—right lateral epicondylitis—based on the totality of medical evidence and contemporaneous clinical notes; however the statutory prerequisites for a work-related gradual process injury under s30(2) were not determined and the matter must be remitted to a fresh review hearing before a different review officer; appellant awarded costs.
18 Jul 2003

Accident Compensation Corporation v Arnold

Citation

[2003] NZACC 157
Court

District Court

The Court found no objective evidence of a compensable physical injury causally linked to the knee replacement; pain alone is insufficient as a physical injury under the Act; the opinions of neurologist and orthopaedic experts were persuasive and the Reviewer's acceptance of speculative opinion was untenable, so the Review decision was quashed and the original decline of cover reinstated.