Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
960 items matching your search terms
Revocation of cover – s 390 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether grant of cover in 1998 was made in error. Corporation unable to establish 1998 decision was made in error. Corporation directed to investigate periods of time in which Appellant may be entitled to weekly compensation and to issue a fresh decision. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No questions of law raised capable of bona fide and serious argument to justify further appeal to the High Court. Outcome: application 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. No history of non-cooperation or delay. Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Appellant established 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 High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No points of law raised capable of bona fide and serious argument to justify further appeal to High Court. Outcome: application dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of one day. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation, but present appeal was filed late, and formal application for leave to appeal with reasons was filed 18 days late without explanation. Corporation did not object. Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover on basis changes to Appellant's C7 were degenerative and not consequence of acute injury. Weight of evidence was that changes were degenerative. Corporation correctly declined cover. Corporation’s decisions declining entitlements flowing from such cover also correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover issues/revocation of deemed cover – s 20 and s 65 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision revoking cover for hip and thigh sprain was correct. Whether Corporation’s decisions declining cover for disc prolapse and nerve damage and declining entitlement to weekly compensation was correct. No basis to infer accident caused injury to Appellant’s right hip leading to osteoarthritis. Corporation correct to cancel deemed cover. Corporation correct to decline entitlement to weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for work related gradual process injury – s 30, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover for work-related gradual process injury. Not established Appellant performed employment task with particular property or characteristic that caused or contributed to the cause of his personal injury. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Costs on application for leave to appeal: s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Corporation claims costs on a Category 2B scale for meritless application. Applicant put on notice that a costs order would be sought if an application for leave to appeal was pursued. Costs award on a Category 2A scale is appropriate. Outcome: application granted.
Claims for costs on appeal. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $7,366.715, $7,016.75 in costs, $300 in disbursements and $50 for witness fee.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant did not provide satisfactory reasons for three-month delay in filing appeal. Corporation confirmed it was unlikely to be prejudiced by delay and did not oppose leave being granted. On balance, Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Claim for work-related gradual process injury – s 30, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined work-related gradual process injury cover for Appellant’s right wrist tenosynovitis. Appellant satisfied requirements for cover for work-related gradual process injury. Corporation directed to grant Appellant cover as soon as possible and proceed to assess his entitlements accordingly. Outcome: appeal allowed, review decision quashed.
Claims process jurisdiction – s 134(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. No jurisdiction to review income tax which was correctly calculated and paid by Corporation to IRD. No jurisdiction to consider Corporation’s refusal to make payment outside of the scope of statutory entitlements. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for treatment injury – s 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover for treatment injury. Not established Appellant suffered physical injury caused by prescription of naproxen for around seven years. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of over three months. Delay arose out of circumstances beyond Appellant’s control. No history of non-cooperation. Delay did not prejudice Corporation. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Rehabilitation – s 81, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s request for funding towards an all-terrain vehicle. Corporation failed to take account of relevant considerations. Court not satisfied Corporation’s decision was proper and fair. Outcome: appeal granted.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of 11 days. Delay largely not of Appellant’s making. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Treatment Wound - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Claim by estate arising out of the management of a sacral pressure wound in the period immediately prior to deceased's death. No medical evidence that sacral pressure wound was infected. No evidence that the treatment plan adopted was not appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore no basis on which to find that the causes of death were other than those set out on the death certificate. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Social rehabilitation: claim for funding for a vehicle – ss 81, 84, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined to fund purchase of a vehicle for the Appellant, who has covered personal injuries. Corporation did not conduct proper assessment of whether Appellant’s request for funding for vehicle was required as direct consequence of covered personal injuries. Corporation incorrectly declined to fund vehicle purchase. Outcome: appeal granted.
Claim for work-related gradual process injury – s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) injury to wrist. Appeals against decision to decline cover for a work-related-gradual process injury and decline weekly compensation. Court satisfied on the basis of medical evidence that Appellant performed an employment task that had a particular property or characteristic that caused, or contributed to the cause of, his personal injury. Outcome: both appeals allowed.
Appeal challenging the Reviewer’s decision. sections 25 and 32(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant suffered a physical injury caused by treatment during her surgery. Held: appellant did not establish she suffered a physical injury caused by treatment. Appellant’s ongoing pain was due to nerve hypersensitivity and not a physical injury. Court upheld reviewer’s decision to decline to provide cover to appellant. Appeal is dismissed.
Lack of Jurisdiction – s 54, 64 and 134(1)(b) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against review decisions dismissing Appellant’s applications regarding unreasonable delay and lack of decision by the Corporation. Reviewer correct to conclude no jurisdiction to proceed with reviews as decisions had been issued before hearings. Corporation’s communications lacked clarity and caused uncertainty, therefore Appellant acted reasonably in applying for review. Outcome: first Decision as to costs quashed and costs awarded in Appellant’s favour. Appeal from Second Decision dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation – ss 52-53, Accident Compensation Act 1982. Whether historical benefit of motor vehicle provided to Appellant for employment purposes was correctly incorporated into Corporation’s calculation of earnings for weekly compensation entitlement purposes. Corporation received advice on full value of vehicle. Corporation used apportioned rather than full value in calculating weekly compensation. In absence of any other independent valuation, full valuation fairly and reasonably represented value of vehicle. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Backdating of attendant care payments - ss 81, 83, 374 and 376 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal from a review decision upholding the Corporation’s decision declining to backdate attendant care payments for the first appellant. Whether the Corporation has the statutory ability to make a retrospective payment of compensation for attendant care for the first appellant for the period prior to 1 April 2002. Held: Where cover has been provided under the 2001 Act, there is no retrospective entitlement to compensation for attendant care provided prior to 1 April 2002. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
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.