New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Treatment costs

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2014

O'Brien v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 271
Court

District Court

The Corporation's declinature of cover for the 12 March 2012 accident was correct because there was insufficient evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities a causal link between that accident and the appellant's right shoulder condition: absence of contemporaneous medical records, delay in presentation, medical opinions favoring a gradual condition and attribution of symptoms to the 27 March 2012 accident. However, imaging costs arranged by the GP are payable as treatment for the covered 27 March 2012 injury.
10 Sept 2008

Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 212
Court

District Court

Because the regulatory basis relied upon in Gill (Regulation 10 of the 1999 Regulations) has been repealed and no equivalent is in the 2003 Regulations, an important question of law arises as to whether ACC is now liable to cover 'phone in prescription' costs; the court directs respondent to file submissions on liability under Clause 3(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Act.
25 Jul 2008

Lungulescu v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

ACC lawfully applied the applicable transport regulations and is not required to pay further amounts because the appellant failed to prove actual taxi costs, the 1992/1999 regulations limit reimbursement to public transport or per-kilometre rates, and the 2002 regulations require prior approval and necessity for actual taxi fares which were not established.
29 Nov 2006

Basten v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 296
Court

District Court

Because the respondent revoked its prior refusal and granted cover for Tooth 14 before the hearing, there was no live issue on cover and the appeal was dismissed; the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide treatment costs without a primary decision, and the respondent was directed to receive and consider the appellant's claim for treatment costs for Tooth 14 and Tooth 15 and make a fresh primary decision.
10 Oct 2003

Gill v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 249
Court

District Court

On a literal reading of the Act and relevant regulations, charges for telephone/fax signing of prescriptions by a GP are not recoverable absent a prior agreement between the Corporation and the treatment provider and are therefore not payable under the existing statutory or regulatory scheme; appeal dismissed.
29 Jul 2003

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 165
Court

District Court

Section 129 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 expressly prohibits payment for treatment costs incurred outside New Zealand, no statutory exception applied (s130 inapplicable), the insurer had no power or discretion to fund IVF in Australia, therefore the respondent's decision refusing payment was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
29 Aug 2000

Egerton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 225
Court

District Court

Section 4 confines "personal injury" to injury to the living body; the 1992 Act and its regulations contain no express provision authorising payment for repair or replacement of damaged artificial aids including dentures, and the specific regulatory regime that formerly permitted such payments was repealed; therefore replacement costs for dentures are not payable under the 1992 Act and appeal must be dismissed.
17 Mar 1999

Reilly v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 66
Court

District Court

The 1986–1988 GP consultations and Temgesic prescriptions were treatment for the appellant's pre‑1989 elbow condition (and causative of the later drug dependency) and were incurred before ACC cover commenced for the accepted medical misadventure; therefore they are not treatment of the accepted personal injury and are not payable by the Corporation under the Act.