Ministry of Justice

Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover and surgery funding. Appellant’s accident did not cause the degenerative changes in his CMC joint, but rather rendered them symptomatic. Appellant not entitled to cover or surgery funding. Corporation correctly declined cover and surgery funding. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Rehabilitation – Aid for Appliance: Part 1, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly exercised its discretionary powers when declining Appellant’s application for an electric bed to be funded. Corporation clearly correct in concluding need for the bed was not a direct consequence of the covered injuries. Weight of evidence supported Corporation’s conclusion. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Impairment Assessment: Part 3 Schedule 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision declining to award lump sum payment on basis Appellant’s level of impairment did not meet statutory minimum of 10% was flawed or incorrect. No basis for setting aside Corporation’s decision, which was clearly correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Work Related Gradual Process Injury – s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis was caused by work-related gradual process. On evidence, Appellant’s work tasks did not cause or contribute to cause of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Necessary elements for work-related gradual process injury not established. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for costs on appeal. Appellant as successful litigant entitled to recover disbursements but not costs. Outcome: Corporation directed to pay Appellant disbursements in sum of $650 upon production of receipt for accommodation.

Revocation of cover – s 390 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether grant of cover in 1998 was made in error. Corporation unable to establish 1998 decision was made in error. Corporation directed to investigate periods of time in which Appellant may be entitled to weekly compensation and to issue a fresh decision. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of 10 days. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence rather than change of mind. No history of non-cooperation or delay. Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of one day. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation, but present appeal was filed late, and formal application for leave to appeal with reasons was filed 18 days late without explanation. Corporation did not object. Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Cover issues/revocation of deemed cover – s 20 and s 65 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision revoking cover for hip and thigh sprain was correct. Whether Corporation’s decisions declining cover for disc prolapse and nerve damage and declining entitlement to weekly compensation was correct. No basis to infer accident caused injury to Appellant’s right hip leading to osteoarthritis. Corporation correct to cancel deemed cover. Corporation correct to decline entitlement to weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Costs on application for leave to appeal: s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Corporation claims costs on a Category 2B scale for meritless application. Applicant put on notice that a costs order would be sought if an application for leave to appeal was pursued. Costs award on a Category 2A scale is appropriate. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant did not provide satisfactory reasons for three-month delay in filing appeal. Corporation confirmed it was unlikely to be prejudiced by delay and did not oppose leave being granted. On balance, Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Claims process jurisdiction – s 134(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. No jurisdiction to review income tax which was correctly calculated and paid by Corporation to IRD. No jurisdiction to consider Corporation’s refusal to make payment outside of the scope of statutory entitlements. Outcome: appeal dismissed.