19 May 2017
Leave to adduce the ACC psychological assessment was granted, but the assessment did not establish a sufficient causal nexus between the appellant's PTSD/childhood vulnerabilities and her sustained, deliberate commercial drug offending; deterrence and aggravating factors (reoffending while on parole and prior convictions) justified upholding the sentence, so the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
26 May 2011
The Court held that "outcome" requires the mental injury to result from the physical injury; whether a perpetuating cause qualifies depends on the nature of the injuries and the mental condition and is a question of fact; on the evidence the PTSD resulted from the psychological trauma of confrontation with the burglar and not from the subsequent knee injuries, so ACC cover was properly declined and the appeal was dismissed.
16 Oct 2008
The single psychiatric report relied on by the respondent (Dr Walsh, March 2006) was not a sufficient basis to refuse weekly compensation in light of subsequent credible specialist opinions, the timing issue (necessity to assess incapacity as at July 2005 not November 2005), and the complexity and ambiguity of diagnoses; therefore the respondent's decision was quashed and remitted for a further independent psychiatric opinion addressing specific causation and timing questions.
11 Oct 2006
The District Court found on the available evidence that the appellant's covered mental injury (PTSD from sexual abuse) is a substantial cause of her inability to use public transport and thus a substantial part of her need for transport for independence; consequently a causal link exists and the appellant is not barred from entitlement by not having previously held a licence.
27 Aug 2003
On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that any post traumatic stress disorder he suffers is an outcome of the physical injuries sustained in the 20 September 1995 assault because the causal link is undermined by significant pre-existing and subsequent stressors, inconsistent and late disclosure of key facts (the gun/holster incident), and conflicting medical opinions; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
30 Apr 1999
Leave to appeal was granted because there is arguable error of law in the primary Judge's interpretation of medical evidence and application of s7(4), the legal issue overlaps with a related matter already granted High Court leave (Smith), and the points raise questions of law of sufficient importance to warrant determination by the High Court.