Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
872 items matching your search terms
Appeal from a decision by a reviewer regarding the respondent declining to cover the appellant cover for asthma as a work-related gradual process injury. Appellant has not proved on balance of probabilities that he suffers from a Schedule 2 disease therefore not entitled to cover for occupational asthma as a work-related gradual process injury.
Weekly compensation - cl 36, Schedule 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of appellant's pre-incapacity earnings to determine whether his weekly compensation was correct. The Corporation was correct in calculating the appellant’s compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal under s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001 for declining of cover for personal injury. Whether sufficient medical evidence to support a fracture or disruption of pelvis having been sustained. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Reserved Judgement, Personal injury - s 26(2) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant's injury was caused by a pre-existing condition or as a result of an accident in 2019. The appellant’s injury was contributed to by an accident in 2019, rather than a pre-existing or degenerative-related condition. Outcome: appeal granted.
Application for leave to appeal a decision regarding respondent declining to fund equipment and home and community support services. Held: respondents prematurely terminated its support services for the appellant. Appeal is allowed.
Claim for personal injury caused by a series of events – s 25(1)(a)(i), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal decision of whether applicant’s personal injury was caused by a series of events or a gradual process. Insufficient evidence the appellant’s condition was a personal injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Alleged delay and requested funding for social rehabilitation ss 134(1), 79 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to change social rehabilitation funding. Respondent correctly exercised their discretion and the change in funding reflected the change in circumstances. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the interests of justice require the exercise of the Court’s discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Delay did not arise out of error or inadvertence. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001.Whether the interests of justice require the exercise of the Court’s discretion to sustain his application for leave to file her appeal out of time. Appellant’s delay arose out of the error or inadvertence of her advocate. Outcome: appeal granted.
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 his application for leave to file his appeals out of time. Delay arose out of understandable error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Leave to appeal a reviewer’s decision. Application for leave to appeal a decision declining the applicant’s claim for weekly compensation based on loss of potential earnings (LOPE). Insufficient evidence that the applicant was actively studying or training for an occupation, career, or profession, which he intended to take up on completing his study or training subject to the one-year limitation, after his accident, to lodge his claim for compensation.
Independance allowance - Schedule 1 Part 4 Accident Insurance Act 1998; ss 48,51,52 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant claims independence allowance for mental injury consequent on physical injury should be backdated to date of physical injuries. Court finds appeal seeking backdated payments cannot be sustained. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for treatment injury - Sections 32 and 33 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant is entitled to a cover for a treatment injury for a stroke following right shoulder arthroscopy surgery. Based on the evidence, appellant's stroke was not caused by the treatment, but by the underlying carotid artery disease. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Costs. Costs claim for review applications. Claim application delayed. Outcome: Length of delay was unacceptable. Appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - section 162 Accident Compensation Act 2011. Whether the appellant was vocationally independent and should her weekly compensation continue. No questions of law arise in this case. Previous decision applied correct legal tests based on the evidence and correct to find appellant was vocationally independent and her weekly compensation should cease. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal. Whether the corporation’s calculation of the applicant’s weekly compensation was correct. Applicant has not established there was an error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: leave to appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court. Application for leave to appeal a decision of the Court that did not examine the tests for personal injury by accident. The appellant has not identified any alleged error of law in the judgment. Outcome: leave to appeal 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 his application for leave to file his appeals out of time. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Leave to appeal a reviewer’s decision. Application for leave to appeal a decision that the applicant’s workplace injury did not have a causal link to his current shoulder symptoms. The appellant has not identified any alleged error of law in the judgment. Outcome: leave to appeal is dismissed.
Claim for cover for work-related mental injury – ss 21B and 28(1); late lodgement of review application – s 135 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant satisfies the requirements for a work-related mental injury; whether the Corporation was correct in declining to accept the late lodgement of review application. The appellant meets the statutory criteria for cover for a work-related mental injury. The corporation was correct in finding there was insufficient evidence to show that extenuating circumstances prevented the appellant from lodging review applications within the required time. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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 leave out of time. Delay arose out of signification mental injuries and caused understandable error or advertence. Outcome: claim allowed.
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 his application for leave to appeal out of time. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence on the part of his advocate. Interests in justice in allowing leave to appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Loss of weekly compensation where vocational independence determined – s 112 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of decision dismissing review of Corporation’s decision advising appellant had vocational independence, quashing the Corporation’s decision accepting the appellant’s vocational independence had deteriorated, and costs. Outcome: appeal allowed. The appellant is entitled to costs.
Calculation of earnings for weekly compensation – s 9 and sch 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the respondent’s decision to dismiss an application for review is correct. The Corporation correctly calculated the appellants’ weekly compensation based on the information at hand. The decision of the Reviewer is therefore upheld. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation - ss 103, 104, 105, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the decision to dismiss appellants’ weekly eligibility for weekly compensation was correct. The decision to cease entitlement to weekly compensation was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.