Ministry of Justice

Interlocutory application - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Court should grant various procedural orders sought by the appellant regarding the record on appeal, including requiring ACC to file additional documents, allowing the appellant to file documents under seal and directing that ACC’s earlier refusal to provide full s 154 disclosure (due to privacy concerns) was improper. The Court stated ACC must provide the full review file and additional documents and obtain the audio recordings. Other relief was declined, including filing under seal and a direction criticising ACC’s earlier handling of s 154 disclosure. Outcome: application partially granted.

Lump sum compensation - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC correctly determined that the appellant’s whole-person impairment (WPI) rating was 15% for the purposes of calculating a lump sum payment. Appellant's sensitive claim for mental injury due to sexual abuse was accepted in 2022. ACC awarded a lump sum based on 15% WPI. Appellant alleged improper consideration of reports and denied psychosis diagnosis and preferred evidence of a psychologist who assessed WPI at 72%. The Court held that ACC correctly determined the appellant’s WPI at 15%. No credible expert evidence showed that the doctor improperly applied AMA4 or misinterpreted impairment criteria. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for treatment injury - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Applicant suffered a treatment injury caused by the dental treatment provided in 2010. In 2010, Applicant received two mini‑implants. Implants functioned for approximately 13 years before failing around 2023, after which they were removed. In 2024, Applicant lodged a treatment‑injury claim alleging the mini‑implants were the wrong treatment choice, malposition made cleaning impossible, and poor hygiene capability led to peri‑implantitis, bone loss, and implant failure. The Court found no persuasive evidence that a physical injury was caused by treatment, or the dental treatment departed from accepted clinical standards, or an alternative treatment would have prevented the outcome. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Impairment assessment - Sch 1 cls 54, 56 and 60 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Corporation's whole person impairment assessment. Appellant challenged the method of how the impairment assessment was made. Act did not give the Corporation discretion in determining permanent impairment compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Applicant identified a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. No specific question of law identified by the applicant. The arguments challenged factual findings, not legal errors. A disagreement with facts cannot be reframed as a question of law. Outcome: application dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court’s earlier judgment contained an error of law specifically relating to whether the Judge gave adequate reasons and properly engaged with the central evidence and submissions and whether the Court correctly determined that ACC lawfully declined cover for a treatment injury. The District Court Judge identified the correct legal test and correctly set out what the Applicant needed to prove. Although the reasoning was brief, it was sufficient, given that the case turned on factual medical evidence, not complex legal interpretation. Outcome: application dismissed.

Deemed cover, weekly compensation - s 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's decision to decline weekly compensation on the basis the hip pathology caused his incapacity to work. Deemed cover for hip injuries would not have been before the Corporation when it made its decision. Corporation's decision was correctly decided. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the applicant raised an arguable question of law that the District Court misapplied the legal tests regarding the information ACC considered when suspending entitlements and whether the District Court’s conclusions were inconsistent with or unsupported by the evidence such that they amounted to an error of law. The applicant’s arguments were essentially a challenge to factual findings, not questions of law. No issue of wider legal importance justified granting leave. Outcome: application dismissed.

Vocational independence - s 109(2) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation declining the appellant's vocational independence deterioration. Evidence supported Corporation's vocational independence assessment. Corporation correctly declined appellant's vocational independence deterioration. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Entitlement to social rehabilitation - ss 67, 79, 81, Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant covered for a serious spinal injury suffered in a car accident. Appeal against decision declining funding a utility terrain vehicle. Assessments indicated that the vehicle was necessary to meet the Appellant's injury-related needs. 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 grant leave to file the appeal out of time—the appeal being filed more than five months late. Appellant said the delay was due to alleged failures by the employer to implement the review decision and subsequent entitlement decisions. Outcome: appeal granted.

Claim for treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining appellant cover for a treatment injury. Corporation correctly declined appellant's treatment injury. Insufficient evidence to show causation between injury and treatment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for weekly compensation - s 103(2), Sch 1 cl 34 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's calculation of the appellant's entitlement to weekly compensation. Corporation adopted an incorrect date of incapacity which led to a miscalculation of the appellant weekly compensation entitlement. Outcome: appeal allowed.