Ministry of Justice

Deemed cover, weekly compensation - s 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's decision to decline weekly compensation on the basis the hip pathology caused his incapacity to work. Deemed cover for hip injuries would not have been before the Corporation when it made its decision. Corporation's decision was correctly decided. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Vocational independence - s 109(2) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation declining the appellant's vocational independence deterioration. Evidence supported Corporation's vocational independence assessment. Corporation correctly declined appellant's vocational independence deterioration. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001.Whether the District Court made an error of law in finding that the Appellants issue is not causally linked to the covered injuries from the 2021 accident and is not itself a physical injury. Medical opinion was divided as to whether the Appellant's pain was related to the initial injury. District Court accepted the Appellant had CRPS Type I but found no causal link to covered injuries. The Judge's findings were open on the evidence and not “so insupportable or clearly untenable” as required to constitute an error of law. Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Claim for weekly compensation - s 103(2), Sch 1 cl 34 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's calculation of the appellant's entitlement to weekly compensation. Corporation adopted an incorrect date of incapacity which led to a miscalculation of the appellant weekly compensation entitlement. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Deemed cover, need for surgery - ss 20, 25, 56, 57, 58 and Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for osteoarthritis and funding for surgery. Evidence indicated appellant had a degenerative and pre-existing condition. Corporation correctly declined cover and funding for surgery. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Weekly Compensation - cl 31(b) of Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against how weekly compensation was calculated. Insufficient evidence to support the appellant's contended income amount. Corporation correctly based weekly compensation at the adult minimum wage. Outcome: appeal dismissed.    

Claim process - s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's decision declining a subscription. No evidence offered to substantiate claim. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal to the District Court - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether previous decision setting out backdated weekly compensation and deductions was correctly calculated and lawful. Appellant claims ACC repaid MSD too much and she was effectively taxed twice. Calculations and deductions were found to be lawful. Appeal dismissed.

Weekly compensation - ss 42(7), 54 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's decision determining the Appellant's weekly compensation. Decision determining Appellant's entitlement to weekly compensation was not made on reasonable grounds. Corporation did not consider Appellant's prospective employment. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Mental Injury, Suspension of entitlements - ss 26 and 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly dismissed review of declined cover for anxiety states on basis that injuries resolved and ongoing symptoms developed subsequent to injury. Substantial evidence that Appellant's current condition was no longer result of injury so Corporation had sufficient basis to decide to suspend entitlements. Reviewer correctly dismissed applications for review. Outcome: Claim dismissed.

Personal injury - ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against a decision of a Reviewer. Medical evidence suggested knee injury was likely due to underlying condition not accident. Decision of the Reviewer correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for entitlements – ss 68, 67 Accident Compensation Corporation. Whether Corporation correctly declined to pay reimbursement of surcharges, travel costs to the Appellant, and whether Reviewer was entitled to quash Corporation’s decision to decline cover for treatment injury and order further investigation of injury. Legislation did not provide for the Corporation to refund surcharges. Appellant could not establish she was entitled to travel costs claimed. Reviewer entitled to quash Corporation’s treatment injury decision after finding injury not sufficiently investigated. Outcome: appeals dismissed.

Claim for Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant's claim for treatment injury on basis that claim did not meet legislative criteria because absence of identified physical injury. No medical evidence to establish delirium and other symptoms were a physical injury caused by treatment for prostate concerns. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.