New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrospective funding

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2018

P v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation - Attendant Care)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 33
Court

District Court

The District Court allowed the appeal because both ACC decisions (2 December 2013 and 13 June 2014) and the subsequent review decision were substantively flawed: ACC failed to identify and articulate clearly the claimant's pre‑injury supports and injury‑related needs, failed to reconcile conflicting clinical reports, failed to address the applicable reimbursement rate, and did not properly exercise or record its discretion under s81/84 and cl 14. The appropriate remedy is to quash the review decision, set aside the two ACC decisions and order a new comprehensive backdated assessment for 10 De…
17 Aug 2016

Hollis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 223
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to demonstrate statutory entitlement because there was no assessment or reassessment as required by s81(4)(a), no evidence the installations were required as a direct consequence of the covered injury or necessary to restore independence, and the respondent's exercise of discretion to refuse retrospective funding was reasonable and not based on any wrong principle; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
8 Aug 2013

Blecourt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 238
Court

District Court

The Court found the appellant's late and inconsistent histories and the consistent earlier specialist reports made it improbable that the 1994 rugby incident caused the L4 fracture; on balance it was more probable the injury occurred in Australia in 1987, which was not covered, so ACC's decision to decline entitlements was reasonable and the Reviewer's refusal of costs was within discretion; appeal dismissed.
7 Feb 2011

H v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 36
Court

District Court

The Accident Compensation Act 2001 requires ACC prior agreement to fund treatment (Schedule 1 cl 4); no prior agreement or engagement existed for counselling provided by Mr Mason from 2003–2008 and the earlier 1999 arrangement was superseded and then cancelled, so there is no statutory entitlement to retrospective payment.
25 Feb 2004

Guy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 23
Court

District Court

No prior agreement or contractual approval existed and the laser treatment was not shown to meet the statutory criteria for payable treatment (Schedule 1 cl 2) nor to be provided by an accepted treatment provider; therefore ACC was not liable to reimburse retrospective treatment costs.

New Zealand Case Law

P v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation - Attendant Care)

Hollis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Blecourt v Accident Compensation Corporation

H v Accident Compensation Corporation

Guy v Accident Compensation Corporation