Ministry of Justice

Appeal regarding entitlement to weekly compensation following surgery for a historical back injury. section 100(1)(a) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant was an “earner” at the time of his incapacity. Held: appellant was not an “earner” at the time of his incapacity. The causal link between the original injury and incapacity at the time of surgery was not established. 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Reviewer's dismissal of application for review of Corporation's decision declining to help with cost of attending physiotherapy. Appeal was lodged two months late. Applicant established interests of justice require exercise of Court's discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time. Outcome: leave 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.

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.

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.

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.