Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
1039 items matching your search terms
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – Section 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as matter of law, to sustain application for leave to appeal. Appellant failed to establish error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation – clause 52, Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant, having reached the age of 65, and having been earlier entitled to weekly compensation for more than two years, is entitled to further weekly compensation. Whether the appellant, who had been granted cover for mental injury as a consequence of sexual abuse suffered, was entitled to the grant of cover for PTSD (as later diagnosed) as a new injury. The Corporation’s decisions declining weekly compensation and cover for further mental injuries were correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant requests cover for left inguinal hernia. Whether Appellant allowed to file appeal out of time. Appeal filed late due to lack of tangible form of proof within allotted time frame. Appellant established that the interests of justice require the exercise of the Court's discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Claim for interest on backdated weekly compensation – s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly dismissed review of Corporation’s decision determining interest on backdated weekly compensation. Interest had been correctly determined, except for one period in issue. Outcome: appeal dismissed, except for modification of Reviewer’s decision for period incorrectly calculated.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant should be granted leave to appeal to the High Court to determine whether Appellant is a person who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand. Appellant sustained injury resulting from a fall after spinal surgery in Australia. Appellant has not established sufficient grounds as a matter of law to sustain application for leave to appeal. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant should be granted leave to appeal to the High Court on the issue of a claimed treatment injury. Appellant has not established District Court judge made an error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims process - s 54 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined the appellant's claim for cover for PTSD on the basis that it had not received all the relevant information that would enable it to make a decision. The Corporation failed to make a decision on reasonable grounds having regard to the requirement of the Act, the nature of the decision, and all the circumstances. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Claim for costs on appeal - pt 14, District Court Rule 2014. Appellant suffered covered injury of an open wound of the left lower leg. Appellant entitled to weekly compensation. Whether appellant entitled to proceeding costs. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Causation and Entitlement to Surgery – s 67 and Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation wrong to decline cover and surgery costs on basis Appellant’s injury was degenerative, not caused by accident. Appellant’s condition caused or contributed to by 1974 accident, Corporation’s decision declining cover wrong. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Appeal against a review decision. Rehabilitation - Social, Accident Compensation Act 2001, Schedule 1, Part 1 Clauses 21, 22(2)(e), 22(2)(f)(ii). Appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. ACC funded a modified vehicle for him. The vehicle was impounded and appellant arranged a different vehicle. A later vehicle provided by ACC was also impounded and lost to the appellant. ACC declined to fund another vehicle on the basis it had already met the appellant's injury-related transport needs and the vehicle had been disposed of without reasonable excuse. Found that ACC would fund a replacement vehicle at the point when appellant's last vehicle would have reached the end of its usable life. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Work Related Personal Injury – s 30 Accident Compensation Corporation 2001. Whether injury was caused or contributed to by work-related accident, or was age-related degeneration. Appellant proved accident caused or contributed to bursitis. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Appeal. Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellent's carpal tunnel release surgery caused a physical injury which was a treatment injury. Appellant gave informed consent for surgery. Initial reduction in grip strength after surgery improved. Treatment injury not proved. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Personal injury; ordinarily resident in New Zealand – ss 17 and 22 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether cover correctly declined on basis Appellant not ordinarily resident in New Zealand at time of accident. Appellant residing in United Kingdom at time of accident, not ordinarily resident in New Zealand. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Revision of decision under former Act - s 390 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant requested additional lump sum payment in 2021 regarding 1982 injury. Appellant contends that previous lump sum payment of $500 was inadequate. Found that Corporation correctly declined additional lump sum payment. No significant factual material to show that decision 39 years ago was wrong. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether serious and arguable question of law raised to sustain application for leave to appeal. Application did not address decision under appeal or identify where judgment was alleged to be wrong in law. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation – s 15 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision to decline weekly compensation correct. No evidence of earnings immediately prior to incapacity, therefore decision declining compensation correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to High Court – s162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision where court determined compensation had correctly been calculated to applicant based on their income tax return. Outcome: Corporation determines the amount that represents a reasonable renumeration for services a person provides as director of company in tax year. Leave to appeal refused.
Cover and entitlements - s 20 and 67 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant's symptoms causally related to injuries suffered in March 1996 or in the accident in February 2008. The evidence discounts any causal link between the appellant’s ongoing symptoms and the covered injuries suffered. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for cost of treatment – Schedule 1, cl 1-2 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined funding for a further pain management programme and other rehabilitation programmes (including neuro-physiotherapy). The Corporation was incorrect to decline funding for the programmes. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Personal injury - s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001; Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation’s Decision declining cover for an injury said to have occurred as a result of a manipulation during osteopathic treatment, and Review Decision maintaining the Corporation’s Decision are correct. Insufficient basis to draw a robust inference that the injury was caused by osteopathic manipulation. The Corporation’s decisions are correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against suspension of entitlements - s 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant collapsed at home and suffered cervical spinal stenosis. Granted cover for this injury. Applicant applies to reverse the suspension of entitlements. Court found that the medical evidence shows that the applicant's ongoing condition is not causally related to the injury for which she had received cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against a review decision. Claim for personal (physical) injury – s26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant suffered poliomyelitis as an infant and a subsequent ankle injury later on in life. Appellant seeks to be covered for chronic pain and CRPS. ACC decline cover for chronic pain and CRPS due to appellant’s ankle injury. The reviewer quashed ACC’s decision and directed ACC to issue a formal decision granting appellant cover for CRPS but not chronic pain. Found that appellant’s claim for cover for chronic pain is not supported by legal authority and the reviewer’s decision was correct on the evidence available. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation – ss 103(2), sch 1, cl 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant suffered shoulder joint and lumbar sprain. Whether Appellant entitled to weekly compensation beyond 22 December 2013. Substantial medical evidence that by 23 December 2013, Appellant's injuries had resolved and so there was no further injury-related incapacity. Appellant not entitled to weekly compensation beyond 22 December 2013. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Interest – s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation erred in determining date from which interest became payable on backdated weekly compensation. Date correctly determined as one month after Corporation received all necessary information, medical and financial. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeals from two decisions of a reviewer. Claim for social rehabilitation (transport) - s70, s79, and cl 22 of Schedule 1; claim for treatment injury- s32(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC’s decision is correct as to the quantum of ACC’s contribution to the appellant’s transport for independence cost. Appellant has not established ACC made an error of law or principle. Second appeal: whether ACC correctly declined cover for a treatment injury on the basis that ACC had failed/delayed providing specialist psychiatric assessment for PTSD. Appellant’s claim does not qualify for treatment injury in terms of the Act. Outcome: both appeals are dismissed.