Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
1017 items matching your search terms
Claim for costs on appeal - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether costs should be awarded against the appellant after his unsuccessful appeal. Costs awarded against appellant in the sum of $400, significantly reduced from Respondents claim of $2,794, to avoid undue hardship while reflecting the principle that the unsuccessful party pays.
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.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining entitlements. Application to file the appeal was late. Not established that interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. 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.
Work-related gradual process injury s s20, 26, 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a work-related gradual process injury. Injury was not more likely to occur in the Appellant's occupation. Appellant was more susceptible to the condition to his underlying predisposition. Corporation's decision declining cover was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover - ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for tendon rupture as a personal injury. Evidence did not support that the accident caused the tendon rupture. Corporation's decision declining cover was corrected. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain his application for leave to appeal. No question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed over two years late. Reasons for delay were reasonable including new evidence from GP and relocation to a different city. No prejudice to respondent in granting leave. The appeal is significant to appellant. Interests of justice favoured granting leave. Outcome: application granted.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Corporation applied for leave to appeal against a decision granting cover for treatment injury suffered by continuation of a pregnancy. Corporation raised questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Corporation established sufficient grounds to sustain its application for leave to appeal. Outcome: application granted.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court. Appeal under s 162(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether District Court erred in law by finding that appellant’s mental injury was caused by a gradual process and not a single event as required by s 21B. Whether any bona fide question of law arose justifying leave to appeal to the High Court. Held: District Court correctly applied section 21B. No bona fide or seriously arguable question of law arose. Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Claims process jurisdiction - s 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Respondents letter declining to make a payment outside statutory entitlements is a reviewable decision, giving the Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Court held decision was not reviewable. Review rights under s134 apply only to decisions on cover or entitlements. Payments outside statutory entitlements (ex gratia) do not fall within the definition of a “decision” under the Act. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed over one year late. Reasons for delay were understandable (serious health issues). Interests of justice require granting leave despite lengthy delay. Outcome: application granted.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed 13 months late. Delay was significant, but reasons were personal and not due to indecision or change of mind. Interests of justice require granting leave despite lengthy delay. Outcome: application granted.
Interpretation of decision - s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against review application decision declining cover for lack of jurisdiction in determining suspension of entitlements. Review application was incorrectly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed seven weeks late. Although reasons for full delay were not compelling, interests of justice and lack of opposition justified granting leave. Outcome: application granted.
Personal injury - Revocation of deemed cover - Unreasonable delay - ss 25, 26, 27, 65, 134(1), Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeals against decision declining cover for a hand injury and spinal injury and other injuries. Evidence indicated hand injury and spinal injury and other injuries were not caused by the accidents. Corporation correctly dismissed all appeals and review for unreasonable delay. Outcome: appeals dismissed.
Appeal against reviewer’s decision. Section 32 of Accident Compensation Act 2001 – treatment injury. Whether appellant suffered a physical or mental personal injury caused by treatment that was not a necessary part of the treatment and thus qualifies as a treatment injury under the act. Held: medical evidence showed no physical injury caused by surgery nor any evidence of mental injury attributable to surgery. Chronic pain alone, without identifiable physical or mental injury caused by treatment does not meet the statutory requirements for a treatment injury. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Late review application - s 135(3) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining late review application. Delay of 15 years was significant. No extenuating circumstances justified the late review. Corporation's decision to decline application was corrected. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against the reviewer’s decision. sections 135 – review applications, s136 and 137 – review process, s149(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 – bar on appeals to District Court. Whether District Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide appeal by appellant. Held: s149(3) explicitly bars appeals to District Court from review decisions on Code complaints, therefore the District Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed nearly 8 weeks late. The delay was due to a reasonable misunderstanding, not indecision or neglect. The appeal is significant to the Applicant. Outcome: application granted.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the applicant had identified any bona fide and seriously arguable question of law arising from the District Court’s decision, sufficient to grant leave to appeal to the High Court. Held: grounds advanced were either factual disagreements, generalised assertions or referenced statutes not applicable, thus applicant had not identified any seriously arguable question of law arising from District Court’s decision. Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Personal injury - s 26(1A) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against assessment of hearing loss cover. Corporation decision was correctly assessed. Evidence indicated head injuries and chemical exposure should not have been allowed for hearing loss assessment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court judgment involved an error of law that justified leave to appeal to the High Court. Applicant did not demonstrate that the District Court findings were legally erroneous. The threshold for leave to appeal was not met. Outcome: application dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court judgment involved an error of law that justified leave to appeal to the High Court. Applicant’s grounds (bias, failure to address arguments, misconstrued causation) lacked merit. No error of law capable of serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.