Ministry of Justice

Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001.Whether the District Court made an error of law in finding that the Appellants issue is not causally linked to the covered injuries from the 2021 accident and is not itself a physical injury. Medical opinion was divided as to whether the Appellant's pain was related to the initial injury. District Court accepted the Appellant had CRPS Type I but found no causal link to covered injuries. The Judge's findings were open on the evidence and not “so insupportable or clearly untenable” as required to constitute an error of law. Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Claims Process - Jurisdiction - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Corporation's decision that their earlier decision was not reviewable. Corporation's earlier decision found not to be reviewable. Challenges by the appellant were outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Weekly Compensation - cl 31(b) of Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against how weekly compensation was calculated. Insufficient evidence to support the appellant's contended income amount. Corporation correctly based weekly compensation at the adult minimum wage. Outcome: appeal dismissed.    

Work-related gradual process injury - s 30 Accident Compensation Corporation Act 2001. Appeal against Corporation's decision declining cover for a work-related gradual process injury. Medical evidence did not establish that the Appellant's lung condition was an occupation disease. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Personal injury - ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Corporation Act 2001. Appeal against Corporation's decision declining cover for the Appellant's traumatic arthropathy joint injury. Weight of medical evidence did not establish that the Appellant's accident caused the traumatic arthropathy injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Mental Injury, Suspension of entitlements - ss 26 and 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly dismissed review of declined cover for anxiety states on basis that injuries resolved and ongoing symptoms developed subsequent to injury. Substantial evidence that Appellant's current condition was no longer result of injury so Corporation had sufficient basis to decide to suspend entitlements. Reviewer correctly dismissed applications for review. Outcome: Claim dismissed.

Personal injury - ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against a decision of a Reviewer. Medical evidence suggested knee injury was likely due to underlying condition not accident. Decision of the Reviewer correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for entitlements – ss 68, 67 Accident Compensation Corporation. Whether Corporation correctly declined to pay reimbursement of surcharges, travel costs to the Appellant, and whether Reviewer was entitled to quash Corporation’s decision to decline cover for treatment injury and order further investigation of injury. Legislation did not provide for the Corporation to refund surcharges. Appellant could not establish she was entitled to travel costs claimed. Reviewer entitled to quash Corporation’s treatment injury decision after finding injury not sufficiently investigated. Outcome: appeals dismissed.

Claim for Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant's claim for treatment injury on basis that claim did not meet legislative criteria because absence of identified physical injury. No medical evidence to establish delirium and other symptoms were a physical injury caused by treatment for prostate concerns. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Rehabilitation - Sch 1 21 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining funding for an adjustable bed. Appellant claimed she had an injury related need for an adjustable bed. Objective needs assessment did not recommend an adjustable bed. Appellant did not establish a need for the bed given the safety and comfort issues were addressed in other ways. Corporation's decision was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for costs on appeal - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether costs should be awarded against the appellant, and if so, in what amount, given his circumstances and the nature of the appeal. Full claimed amount would be disproportionate and unrealistic. Costs awarded $600 against appellant (significantly reduced from $4,127.50) to reflect fairness and discretion. 

Appeal regarding tax deductions, physiotherapy entitlements and accountant costs around weekly compensation payments. Whether ACC should fund the appellant’s personal accountant to review weekly compensation calculations. Whether the tax component was correctly calculated for backdated weekly compensation payments. Held: ACC not required to fund personal accountant costs, these are not covered entitlements under the Act. ACC correctly calculated the tax component of backdated weekly compensation payments according to NZ tax laws. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Appeal against a reviewer’s decision. Appeal regarding declining cover for lymphoedema and reimbursement for related treatment costs – sections 20, 25, 26 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant’s lymphoedema was causally linked to her burn accident and whether appellant entitled to cover and reimbursement for treatment costs under the Act. Held: Sufficient medical evidence to infer appellant’s burn injury contributed to her lymphoedema. Injury is causally linked to the accident, appellant therefore entitled to cover for lymphoedema and reimbursement for treatment costs. Outcome: Appeal allowed.