New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-existing degenerative conditions

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2016

Pickering v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 224
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the District Court found the meniscal tears were reflective of a pre-existing degenerative process and the 24 August 2014 incident at most aggravated or rendered symptomatic that condition; there was insufficient evidence of a new traumatic meniscal injury causally attributable to the accident, so the Corporation's decision to decline funding was correct and was upheld.
23 May 2016

Wakefield v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 143
Court

District Court

On the totality of the evidence, including contemporaneous lay observations of immediate knee swelling and inability to weightbear (Hayden) and the treating surgeon's opinion that presentation and MRI were consistent with an acute traumatic meniscal tear, the Court concluded the injury was not caused wholly or substantially by a pre-existing degenerative process under s26 and ACC's refusal to fund surgery was incorrect; appeal allowed.
16 Nov 2015

Duncan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 347
Court

District Court

The medical and documentary evidence established significant pre-existing osteoarthritis prior to the September 2011 event and the accident at best aggravated or accelerated that degeneration; it did not substantially cause the total osteoarthritic condition for which replacement was required, therefore the NZFS/ACC decision to decline funding was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Apr 2014

Thickpenny v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 96
Court

District Court

Judge accepted the neurologist's (Dr Simcock) specialist opinion that the 14 March 2008 accident precipitated irritation of the left C7 nerve root constituting a discrete injury which continued to contribute significantly to incapacity, and that the subsequent cervical surgery treated that accident-related injury; accordingly the reviewer’s decision upholding Care Advantage determinations was quashed and entitlements and surgery funding must be restored.
31 Jul 2012

Taaffe v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 253
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the tendon tears requiring surgery were caused by the covered accident rather than by progression or steroid-related change of a pre-existing degenerative tendonosis; therefore ACC correctly declined funding.
13 Mar 2012

Hinkes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 82
Court

District Court

There was insufficient medical evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's current need for right knee surgery was caused by the covered 1 January 2007 accident; medical records demonstrate a pre-existing degenerative condition predating that accident; accordingly ACC correctly declined to fund the surgery under the 2007 claim.
10 Feb 2012

Birchler v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 44
Court

District Court

Because the available evidence was equivocal on whether an MRI would assist in determining whether the appellant suffered a personal injury by accident rather than an exacerbation of degenerative disease, the Court adjourned the appeal and directed ACC to obtain competent medical advice on whether a lumbar MRI would be a reasonable investigative step; further disposition is conditional on that advice and subsequent filings.
18 Jan 2012

Watling v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 12
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the objective radiological and specialist opinions of Mr Otto and Dr Walls that the appellant's covered injuries had resolved by 23 June 2006 and that ongoing symptoms were attributable to pre-existing degenerative cervical disease (ageing), and held ACC had a sufficient basis to be satisfied that entitlements could be suspended on that date; appeal dismissed.
12 Jan 2012

Witehira v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 1
Court

District Court

The District Court held ACC had a sufficient evidential basis (chiefly unambiguous medical opinion of Dr Milne, consistent with Mr Sommerville) to be "not satisfied" that the appellant's symptoms as at 25 March 2010 were still caused by the 16 April 2008 accident; therefore ACC's decision to suspend entitlements was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Oct 2011

Baker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 291
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the opinions of Dr Bohm and Dr Turner that the claimant's current incapacity is attributable to pre‑existing multilevel cervical spondylosis and not to a compensable injury from the February 2008 (or 2006) events; therefore ACC had a sufficient basis to suspend weekly compensation on 7 October 2008 and the appeal is dismissed.