New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 32(1)(c)

Legal area

Court

26 Apr 2023

CHALMERS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 925

Citation

[2023] NZHC 925
Court

High Court

The High Court granted special leave because there is a bona fide and serious question of law as to whether the District Court erred in applying s 32(1)(c) by treating prior knowledge or predictability of risk and the claimant's underlying progressive condition as precluding an outcome from "occasioning a measure of surprise"; leave was granted to determine whether the District Court correctly construed and applied the statutory test for "not an ordinary consequence".
26 Feb 2016

Gordon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 42
Court

District Court

On the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's poorly controlled diabetes, pre-existing maculopathy, history of repeated laser treatments, contemporaneous expert opinion that macular oedema is a well recognised complication and that there was a real likelihood immediately prior to surgery, the retinal oedema was an ordinary consequence of the pan retinal photocoagulation and the respondent's decision declining cover was upheld.
15 Apr 2010

WARREN MCENTEER V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA408/2009

Citation

openlaw-4d46040c_c346_4c67_a31b_6fb7f911b704.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

For purposes of s 32(1)(c) the relevant 'treatment' is the treatment that was needed once the nature of the claimant's condition became apparent during the course of treatment; the inquiry is fact‑based and retrospective, assessing whether the injury was a necessary part or ordinary consequence of that actual treatment.

New Zealand Case Law

CHALMERS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 925

Gordon v Accident Compensation Corporation

WARREN MCENTEER V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA408/2009