Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
939 items matching your search terms
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of nearly six months. Delay arose out of error. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of one month. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of over two months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.
Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for treatment injury. Appellant did not establish that his personal injury was a consequence of his treatment. Appellant had underlying health conditions. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for a treatment injury. Claim did not meet required criteria. Evidence indicated medical conditions were underlying and not caused by treatment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Revocation of cover for treatment injury - ss 32, 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision revoking cover for dental treatment injury. Medical evidence indicated the Corporation correctly revoked cover for the treatment injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover and cost of treatment - ss 20, 25, 26, Sch 1 cl 2(1)(a) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decisions declining cover and surgery for a back injury. Weight of evidence did not indicate that the accident caused the injury. Insufficient evidence to indicate whether injury cause was degenerative or traumatic. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover - s 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against review of weekly compensation and revocation of cover for foot injury. Insufficient grounds to modify or quash decisions. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover for work-related personal injury - ss 28, 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of decision upholding Corporation's decision to grant cover for shoulder pain granted to claimant. Claimant's injury was not attributed to an accident during Claimant's employment. Held: Corporation's decision was made in error. Appeal allowed. Appellant entitled to costs.
Personal injury - s 26 Accident Compensation Corporation 2001. Appellant sought cover for a whiplash injury from a digger accident, weekly compensation, and funding for treatment. Medical evidence indicated a causal link between Appellant's symptoms and the accident. Appellant entitled to cover. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Treatment Injury – s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant suffered treatment injury due to delayed administration of steroid treatment for sudden hearing loss. Medical evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that earlier treatment would have led to better outcome. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District erred in law in upholding ACC’s decision to revoke deemed cover, suspend entitlements, and decline surgery funding. No error in law capable of bona fide and serious argument in original decision. Outcome: application dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court erred in law in upholding ACC’s decision on the level of funded attendant care, and whether leave to appeal to the High Court should be granted. No error of law in the original decision. Outcome: application to appeal is dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain his application for leave to appeal. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant sought cover for a supraspinatus tear. Corporation revoked cover on basis tear not caused by covered accident and rather was part of gradual process changes in shoulder. Medical evidence did not support that tear caused by accident. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for interest on weekly compensation - s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision dismissing review of the Appellant's entitlement to interest on backdated weekly compensation. Date of entitlement to interest on backdated compensation considered to be correctly assessed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Review of claim for social rehabilitation. Sections 81 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether reviewer correctly dismissed review application for want of jurisdiction and separate application to review Corporation’s decision to decline to fund lawnmower and hydrotherapy. Reviewer correctly dismissed first application as issue estoppel applied. It was not established that the Corporation made an error of law in respect of the second application. Application dismissed.
Appeal whether an email constituted a reviewable decision under the Act. Claim for interest on late payment of weekly compensation. s 6, s 114, and s 134. Whether an ACC email constituted a new decision capable of review under the Act. Held: the ACC email was not a new decision, but a confirmation of prior decisions. Confirmation of prior decision does not constitute a new decision and cannot be reviewed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal regarding the cessation of weekly compensation and entitlement to treatment for a finger injury. Claim for weekly compensation for incapacity and claim for entitlements for treatments and pain management – s 67, s 64, and s 100(1)(a). Whether the appellant is entitled to weekly compensation due to her injury. Held: appellant capable of engaging in her pre-injury employment and similar roles, therefore not entitled to weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal regarding cover for stroke and angina as personal injuries by accident, weekly compensation, and cover for stroke as a treatment injury. Claim for cover for stroke and angina as injuries caused by fall in the shower, weekly compensation, and cover for stroke as a treatment injury due to delayed hospital care – s 26, 32, and 100. Whether stroke was causally connected with the accident? Was the stroke caused by delayed treatment at hospital? Held: the stroke was not caused by the accident. The stroke or its progression was not caused by the delay in treatment at the hospital. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Application for recall of the Court’s judgment. Claim to recall the Court’s judgment dismissing his appeal against the Corporation’s decision to decline cover for somatic symptom disorder as a mental injury caused by physical injuries. Whether there was a special reason, in the interests of justice, to recall the Court’s judgment dismissing the appeal against the Corporation’s decision to decline cover. Held: Appellant did not establish any special reason requiring recall of the judgment. Outcome: Application for recall dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of nearly 21 months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as matter of law, to sustain application for leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.
Claim for deemed cover – ss 135, 146; claim for personal injury, ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer was deemed to have made a decision in Appellant’s favour on basis that a review application was completed by Appellant’s GP and filed with Corporation but was not set down within three months. Whether injuries and inability to work were caused by Appellant’s accident. Deemed decision did not arise. Corporation correctly revoked and declined cover for Appellant’s pain in lumbar spine. Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s claim for weekly compensation. Corporation correctly declined cover for lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy in relation to accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed, decision of Reviewer upheld.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of nearly five months arose out of error or inadvertence by Appellant’s representative, for which Appellant was not responsible. No history of non-cooperation or delay by Appellant, and delay unlikely to prejudice Respondent. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.