New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Statutory interpretation of s32

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2017

L v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 147
Court

District Court

On the facts and preferred expert evidence (Mr Johnson) the ischaemic spinal cord injury suffered in the March 2010 surgery was not an "ordinary consequence" of the treatment as required by s32(1)(c); therefore the appellant met the definition of treatment injury and is entitled to cover. The Court preferred the comprehensive analysis and risk assessment in Mr Johnson's report over contrary expert opinions.
31 Aug 2016

W v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 240
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the mere failure of the 2003 sterilisation to achieve the desired result is insufficient under s32(3) to establish a treatment injury; credible expert evidence found the 2003 procedure was performed correctly and the 2010 pregnancy was caused by spontaneous tubal re‑anastamosis, and there was no failure to obtain informed consent.
23 Mar 2012

Mundell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 94
Court

District Court

Medical consensus was that any delay in diagnosis up to three days probably did not cause the critical care neuropathy; the injury was more likely the consequence of the severity and progression of the infection and the appellant's underlying health condition, therefore the statutory requirements for a treatment injury under s32 were not met and the appeal is dismissed.