Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
794 items matching your search terms
Claim for work-related gradual-process injury – s 30, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s cover for accidental poisoning as a work-related gradual process injury. Appellant did not qualify for cover for neurotoxic injury in terms of ss 30(3) and 60 of the Act. Corporation correctly declined cover. 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.
Appeal of an earlier decision by Accident Compensation Corporation. Appeal under s 149 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. ss 26, 32, and 33 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant is entitled to cover for a treatment injury for leg length discrepancy? Held: the leg length discrepancy was not an ordinary consequences of the right hip joint replacement injury, therefore the appellant is entitled to cover for treatment injury under the Act. Appeal is allowed.
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.
Claim for cover. ss 20,25,26 Accident Compensation act 2001. Whether the appellant’s left inguinal hernia is an injury caused by an accident. Held: appellant will have cover for his left inguinal hernia as an injury caused by the accident. Appeal is allowed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant's application to review weekly compensation entitlement was dismissed. Late filing resulted from error or inadvertence by counsel. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Impaired assessment, lump sum compensation - Schedule 1, Part 3, Clause 57 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant declined lump sum compensation for coccyx sprain. Subsequent application for review of this decision declined. Held: Appellant now undergoing desired impairment assessment so there is no live issue before the Court. Corporation acted entirely properly and lawfully. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant declined cover for lumbar disc prolapse. Late filing resulted from error or inadvertence of Appellant’s counsel. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Appeal against the decision of a reviewer declining cover for a work related injury. s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether or not the reviewer’s decision should be upheld. Held: parties agree the first respondent’s claim does not meet the criteria for cover for a work related gradual process injury. Earlier review decision is set aside.
Suspension of weekly compensation - s 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to suspend weekly compensation for lumbar injury. Whether causal link between injury by accident and ongoing pars defect condition. No evidence to support the view that the injury event caused a fracture or injury to a pre-existing pars defect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant seeking leave to appeal decisions relating to backdated compensation and rate of weekly compensation for injuries from motor accident and injuries to his thumbs. Whether calculations were made correctly. Held: Appellant has not established that there was an error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for interest on backdated weekly compensation - s 114(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant challenges decisions relating to backdated weekly compensation. Court found that it does not have jurisdiction to reconsider the calculation. Previous incorrect calculation has been corrected. No provision in the Act for interest to be paid on backdated weekly compensation from the date of injury. No unreasonable delay by the Corporation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant declined cover for supraspinatus tear. Late filing resulted from error or inadvertence by counsel. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Appeal against impairment assessment. s 149 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant has established the Corporation’s earlier decision assessing his whole person impairment was incorrect? Whether the Corporation’s email relating to choice of whole person impairment assessor is a decision capable of review and appeal? Held: No evidence as to flaws or errors in the process or content of the whole person impairment assessment conducted on appellant. The email was in relation to an administrative question and does not constitute a decision under the Act. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
Impairment assessment - Part 3 Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against whole-person impairment assessment rating. Appellant did not provide any medical evidence from suitably qualified experts or otherwise to dispute the assessment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant declined cover and weekly compensation. Late filing resulted from understandable error or inadvertence. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Transport for independence - s 79, 81-84, Clauses 21 and 22 First Schedule Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against declined funding for 4-wheel drive vehicle to participate in certain recreational activities. Held: no evidence to show that a replacement vehicle is necessary to maintain independence. Existing 2WD vehicle allows him to undertake the essential injury-related transport needs. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Impairment Assessment: independence allowance – Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Lump Sum and Independence Allowance) Regulations 2002. Whether Corporation correctly assessed Appellant’s whole person impairment as 20%. Appellant failed to establish impairment assessment was flawed or incorrect. Corporation correctly assessed Appellant’s whole person impairment and resultant independence allowance. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for personal injury - s 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decline of application for weekly compensation, treatment and rehabilitation for lumbar disc prolapse. Suffered accident at work when lifting heavy item and felt pain in back. Held: cover incorrectly declined on basis that it was likely a pre-existing degenerative condition. Found sufficient lay and medical evidence to draw inference that prolapse was caused by the accident. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Impairment Assessment – clauses 58-61, Schedule 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly advised Appellant he was not eligible for a further lump sum payment because his assessed level of impairment had decreased since previous assessment. Appellant failed to establish impairment assessment was flawed or incorrect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for mental injury by sexual abuse – s 21, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover on basis Appellant did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder, and event described did not cause mental injury. Appellant failed to establish he suffered from a mental injury, or that his mental condition was caused by criminal act under Schedule 3 of the Act. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against revocation of deemed cover - s 58, 62 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Spinal cord injury. Whether weight of medical evidence supports a personal injury by accident. Held: Court able to draw a reasonable robust inference of causation based on the weight of the evidence. No competing specialist evidence of an alternative underlying cause. Effects of the injury are clear and manifest. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s cover and surgery funding for left shoulder pathology on basis that need for surgery was not primarily due to covered injury. Corporation’s decision was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for additional cover/entitlements - s 48, 52, 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Ankle injury. Whether the Review Decision was correct in determining there was no claim for or decision relating to cover or entitlements by the Corporation, or no deemed decision under section 58 of the Act. Did not make a claim for further cover or a specific entitlement as required. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. S 25(1)(ba) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Ms Gilbert’s hepatitis A was the result of a criminal act which is required under the relevant section. Held: s 25(1)(ba) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 requires the ingestion to be the result of an act which is criminal, as shown by way of a charge, conviction or clear evidence of the commission of tan offence. s 223(1)(b)(ii) of the Food Act 2014 does not create a strict or absolute liability offence. No evidence of any regulatory or criminal investigation, charges, conviction or enforcement action. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.