New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 117 acc act

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2018

Pettersson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 156
Court

District Court

The Court upheld ACC's suspension because the preponderance of specialist medical and toxicology evidence (including literature reviews and independent respiratory opinion) showed it was more likely the herbicide exposure caused only an acute/transient effect and that ongoing symptoms were attributable to pre-existing asthma; ACC therefore had a sufficient basis under s117 to be "not satisfied" that entitlements should continue and suspension was lawful.
14 Jun 2018

Raman v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the detailed reasoning of the independent reviewer (Mr Pai) and Dr Thakurdas over the treating surgeon (Mr Hadlow) and concluded ACC had a sufficient evidential basis under s117 to suspend entitlements because the claimant's symptoms were better explained as an aggravation of pre-existing degenerative cervical spondylosis with a multifactorial chronic pain picture and lacked objective neurological correlation to a traumatic isolated disc injury.
16 Mar 2017

Muir v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 24
Court

District Court

The medical evidence established the appellant's ongoing condition is acromioclavicular joint arthropathy of degenerative origin and not causally attributable to the covered rotator cuff sprain from 21 May 2014; Wellnz therefore had a sufficient evidential basis under s117 to be 'not satisfied' that entitlement should continue and lawfully suspended entitlements; the review decision upholding the suspension was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Apr 2013

Dehar v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 99
Court

District Court

The court preferred the respondent's more comprehensive and expert medical evidence (Dr Gordon and Dr Turner, supported by Dr Monigatti) and found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's ongoing problems were due to degenerative conditions not the January 2005 covered injury; therefore the suspension of entitlements under s117 was correct.

New Zealand Case Law

Pettersson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Raman v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Muir v Accident Compensation Corporation

Dehar v Accident Compensation Corporation