Ministry of Justice

Appeal against the Reviewer’s decision. Appeal against the Corporations decisions declining cover for mental injury – s 26, treatment injury – s 32 and claim for unreasonable delay – s 134(1)(b) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover for the various conditions and costs. Whether there was unreasonable delay. Whether there was a treatment injury caused by delay in diagnosis of autism/neurogenic bowel. Held: weight of medical evidence supported Corporation’s decision to decline cover for various conditions, these were not caused by the sexual abuse but were pre-existing or developmental. Outcome: Appeals dismissed.

Claim for Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly found there was insufficient evidence to prove Appellant suffered bladder trauma as result of JJ stent removal as treatment injury. Medical evidence was no discrete injury was identified and Appellant stable with no complications following procedure. Reviewer correctly found insufficient evidence to prove bladder trauma was a treatment injury following stent removal. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of nearly two years is a significant amount of time, but delay arose out of circumstances beyond control. Outcome: application granted.

Claim for Mental Injury - s 21B Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover for post-traumatic stress disorder on basis cover not available for mental injuries caused by stress or other gradual processes at work. Appellant's injury caused by cumulative effect of series of stressful events and Appellant had not directly seen, heard or experienced single event which could reasonably be expected to mental injury to people generally. Appeal dismissed.

Entitlement to loss of potential earnings – the prescribed base rate – cls 42(3), 47, sch 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation's calculation of LOPE entitlement accurate. Corporation prescribed base rate has been correctly applied. Appellant being paid at adult minimum wage. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Treatment injury - ss 32 and 33 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for continuation of pregnancy in the presence of an undisclosed serious fetal abnormality. Purpose of treatment was to avoid the outcome the appellants suffered. Treatment was material cause of the appellants personal injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Costs on appeal – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Costs awarded reduced to reflect success on partial basis only. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $885 in costs.

Applications to Recall and Rescind Orders of the Court. Whether there are grounds to recall, rescission and reinstatement. Court has inherent powers to make unless orders and strike out proceedings for non-compliance. Order dismissing 17 appeals are not rescinded or recalled. Outcome: applications dismissed.

Leave to Appeal to High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court erred in law in upholding ACC’s decision on the level of funded attendant care, and whether leave to appeal to the High Court should be granted. No error of law in the original decision. Outcome: application to appeal is dismissed. 

Personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant sought cover for a supraspinatus tear. Corporation revoked cover on basis tear not caused by covered accident and rather was part of gradual process changes in shoulder. Medical evidence did not support that tear caused by accident. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal of revocation of deemed cover, decision to decline cover of neurocognitive impairment, and suspension of entitlements relating to head injury - s 26(1)(c). Whether neurocognitive disorder caused by head injury. Relevant injury was too mild to cause Appellant’s ongoing symptoms and sufficient evidence for Corporation to be “not satisfied” that Appellant suffered neurocognitive impairment because of traumatic brain injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal whether an email constituted a reviewable decision under the Act. Claim for interest on late payment of weekly compensation. s 6, s 114, and s 134. Whether an ACC email constituted a new decision capable of review under the Act. Held: the ACC email was not a new decision, but a confirmation of prior decisions. Confirmation of prior decision does not constitute a new decision and cannot be reviewed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal regarding cover for stroke and angina as personal injuries by accident, weekly compensation, and cover for stroke as a treatment injury. Claim for cover for stroke and angina as injuries caused by fall in the shower, weekly compensation, and cover for stroke as a treatment injury due to delayed hospital care – s 26, 32, and 100. Whether stroke was causally connected with the accident? Was the stroke caused by delayed treatment at hospital? Held: the stroke was not caused by the accident. The stroke or its progression was not caused by the delay in treatment at the hospital. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.