Ministry of Justice

Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. Sections 65 and 161 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court had jurisdiction to determine appellant’s appeal from review decision. Corporation had since revoked the decision under review and decided to fund the appellant’s new spectacles. Corporation’s new decision rendered current appeal moot. In absence of live issue, Court does not have jurisdiction to decide appeal. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Physical Injury – s 26(1)(c) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation’s decision declining cover for mild neurocognitive disorder (NCD). Whether the appellant had a mental injury under s 27 of the Act, requiring a medically established diagnosis of NCD. Only if NCD was proven would causation under s 26(1)(c) require examination. Held: The diagnosed mental injury was not established; causation was therefore irrelevant. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court. Section 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation’s decision to decline funding to the appellant for a four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicle for social rehabilitation and independence was correct. Held: Court upheld the Corporation’s decision. Corporation had reasonably exercised its discretion, and appellant had not established an injury-related need for a 4WD vehicle. Appeal is dismissed. 

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain her application for leave to file her appeal out of time. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence by the Appellant's advocate. Outcome: appeal granted.

Suspension of weekly compensation – s 117(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly suspended Appellant’s weekly compensation. Corporation did not have sufficient basis to be not satisfied that Appellant was entitled to continue receiving weekly compensation. Corporation was not entitled to suspend Appellant’s entitlement. Outcome: appeal allowed. Corporation directed to reinstate Appellant’s entitlement to weekly compensation from the time it was suspended.

Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover and surgery funding. Appellant’s accident did not cause the degenerative changes in his CMC joint, but rather rendered them symptomatic. Appellant not entitled to cover or surgery funding. Corporation correctly declined cover and surgery funding. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Rehabilitation – Aid for Appliance: Part 1, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly exercised its discretionary powers when declining Appellant’s application for an electric bed to be funded. Corporation clearly correct in concluding need for the bed was not a direct consequence of the covered injuries. Weight of evidence supported Corporation’s conclusion. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Impairment Assessment: Part 3 Schedule 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision declining to award lump sum payment on basis Appellant’s level of impairment did not meet statutory minimum of 10% was flawed or incorrect. No basis for setting aside Corporation’s decision, which was clearly correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Work Related Gradual Process Injury – s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis was caused by work-related gradual process. On evidence, Appellant’s work tasks did not cause or contribute to cause of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Necessary elements for work-related gradual process injury not established. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for costs on appeal. Appellant as successful litigant entitled to recover disbursements but not costs. Outcome: Corporation directed to pay Appellant disbursements in sum of $650 upon production of receipt for accommodation.

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.

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.

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.