Ministry of Justice

Claim for a treatment injury - s 32 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision dismissing an application for a review of the Corporation’s decision to decline the appellant’s claim for a treatment injury. Whether the appellant’s melanoma constituted a treatment injury. Held: The appellant’s melanoma was not a treatment injury. The Corporation correctly declined cover for a treatment injury. Outcome: Reviewer’s decision is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of 10 days. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence rather than change of mind or indecision. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Late filing of appeal against decision declining cover for post-concussion syndrome, major depressive disorder and any other diagnoses. Delay of six weeks but no prejudice or hardship to others. Appeal is significant to Applicant. Interests of justice require the exercise of the Court's discretion to sustain application for leave to appeal of out of time. Outcome: appeal granted.

Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant's physical file was destroyed between 1993 and 2005 based on retention policies. Applicant seeking $32 million in compensation. Corporation issued a decision which determined that there were no breaches of the Code as the Corporation had acted in accordance with retention policies in place at the time. Appeal dismissed by the District Court. No error of law identified in the District Court decision or question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.

Suspension of entitlements - s 117(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation had a sufficient basis to suspend as at the date of its decision. Whether Corporation’s Decision to suspend was correct in light of the evidence now available. Held: The Corporation conducted a thorough investigation into the appellant’s ongoing incapacity and symptoms prior to suspension and subsequently. Numerous reports indicate that the appellant’s ongoing incapacity and symptoms were not caused by the appellant’s covered injuries resulting from the Accident. No error was established in the Corporation’s Decision or the Review Decision Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Personal injury - s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for acute meniscal tear and declined funding for knee surgery. The evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that condition is degenerative in nature and that the mechanism of injury is not consistent with the injury to the left knee said to have occurred as a result of the accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal challenging the review decision. Sections 75-78, Accident Compensation Act 2011. Whether the Individual Rehabilitation Plan (IRP) finalised by ACC was reasonable and appropriately addressed the appellant’s rehabilitation needs. Held: The IRP was finalised prematurely and did not include all necessary and agreed upon actions for Appellant’s rehabilitation. IRP failed to include referral to pain specialist, general surgeon review, and neuropsychological assessment for cognitive decline. The review decision dated 28 June 2023 is quashed. The appeal is allowed, appellant is entitled to costs.

Appeal challenging the correctness of the corporation’s decision. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation was correct to decline an independence allowance for the appellant because his WPI assessment was below the 10% minimum threshold. Held: No error was established in the Corporation’s decision. Outcome: Appeal is dismissed.

Appeal against a reviewer’s decision. s 114 of the Accident Compensation Act. Whether the earlier decision declining the appellant from receiving interest on weekly compensation arrears payment was correct. Held: reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction over appellant’s application for review, because issue estoppel applied in regard to the interest payments claimed. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.

Claim for treatment injury – ss 32-33 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Acute injury to right wrist while working as a caregiver. Persistent lump later found on hand. Initially diagnosed as a cyst but later discovered to be an atypical fibro histiocytoma. Applicant underwent surgery. Applicant argued that series of events comprises a treatment injury. Held: initial cyst diagnosis reasonable. Standard medical practice was followed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Interpretation of decision – s 6, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s letter confirming earlier cover decision and clarifying condition was covered as a physical injury and not a mental injury constituted a reviewable decision. Letter was not a reviewable decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for cover for occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) - ss 26, 20(2)(e) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant's ONIHL was assessed at 4-5%, below the 6% threshold required for cover to be accepted. Appellant challenged this calculation. Held: material flaws in the assessments of both assessors. Did not undertake a clinical examination and take a careful history to underly the analysis. Outcome: appeal allowed.