23 Jun 2008
The insurer's power under s116(1) to suspend entitlements requires a sufficient evidential basis to be 'not satisfied'; the medical evidence before the insurer when it made the 29 September 2005 decision was equivocal and did not meet that threshold, therefore the suspension was unlawful and must be quashed and entitlements reinstated.
5 Oct 2006
Leave to appeal was declined because the contested points were either factual (compliance with s116(2)) or were not raised and determined at the original appeal (requirement of a s85 incapacity determination), and the appellant failed to show a tenable legal error in the District Court's decision.
29 Jul 2004
On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence overall established there was no causal nexus as at 27 February 2001 between the 1988 back strain and the appellant’s ongoing symptoms; specialists’ investigations found no objective pathology linking the current condition to the 1988 injury, so suspension of entitlements under s116 was lawful and the appeal must be dismissed.
19 Mar 2004
The District Court accepted uncontested specialist medical evidence that the appellant's groin pain is referred pain from pre‑existing multi‑level degenerative lumbar spine disease and that the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her ongoing incapacitating condition is attributable to the 1995 groin strain; therefore the respondent's suspension of entitlements under s116 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Mar 2004
The acute extrinsic allergic alveolitis for which cover was granted has resolved upon removal from the mushroom farm environment; the appellant is not prevented by the covered personal injury from resuming his employment generally but is restricted only by a genetic predisposition to certain antigens found in that environment; under s85(2) incapacity is not established and suspension of entitlements under s116 was correctly upheld.
8 Mar 2004
The District Court refused leave because the appellant raised disputed questions of fact rather than an arguable question of law; overwhelming medical evidence showed no incapacity and the reviewer properly limited suspension to weekly compensation, so no legal error capable of serious argument was established.
7 Nov 2003
On the balance of probabilities the appellant's fibromyalgia/regional pain syndrome was a consequence of the covered bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; ACC's suspension of entitlements under s116 was therefore incorrect and must be quashed with entitlements reinstated from the date of suspension.
26 Aug 2003
On the balance of probabilities the majority medical evidence established that the appellant’s spondylolisthesis and ongoing pain related to a pre-existing congenital deformity and subsequent chronic pain processes rather than being caused by the June 1994 accident; therefore ACC’s suspension under s116 was lawful and the appeal must be dismissed.
8 Oct 2001
Appellant failed to discharge the onus to prove on the balance of probabilities that his ongoing incapacity is caused by the 1995 personal injury; the consistent medical opinion was that the strain settled and the continuing symptoms are attributable to pre-existing degenerative spinal disease, therefore ACC was correct to suspend entitlements under s116 and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jul 2001
The appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that her regional/chronic pain syndrome was causally connected to the 15 December 1995 shoulder strain; the medical evidence (notably Dr Turner) established the syndrome is not a downstream consequence of that injury, therefore suspension of entitlements under s116 was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.