Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
1010 items matching your search terms
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay due to Appellant seek legal advice. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Appeal on a review decision concerning revocation of cover, weekly compensation, and treatment entitlements following a personal injury claim. Claim for revocation of cover, declining cover, declining weekly compensation and declining funding for a pain management programme. Whether the Corporation’s decision was correct. Held: The Corporation was correct to revoke cover for lumbar pain and to decline cover for thoracic sprain. Pain alone is not a physical injury under the Act, and robust medical evidence is required to establish causation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Costs on Review – s 148 Accident Compensation Act 2001; Dismissal for want of Prosecution. Appellant’s failure to file any submissions or attend hearing amounted to want of prosecution by Appellant of his appeal. No reason for appeal to remain alive unless Appellant intended to pursue it. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Application by Appellant for continuance of all appeals. Application declined given absence of medical support for request, delays in appeals to date, and procedural history of non-compliance. Outcome: application declined.
Rehabilitation – ss 81 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined to fund a request to assist with transport for independence. Corporation’s decision was not proper and fair by failing to take account of relevant considerations. Medical evidence allowed robust inference that request was required as direct consequence of covered personal injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Application for Leave to Appeal – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Sufficient grounds to sustain application for leave to appeal not established. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. No wider importance of contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Leave to appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No point of law capable of bona fide and serious argument in the High Court. No wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application declined.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument established. No wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Application for recall of judgment. Appellant failed to establish that for some special reason justice required recall of Court’s judgment dismissing Appellant's appeal. Outcome: application for recall dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the date from which interest is payable on backdated weekly compensation. Claim for interest on late payment of weekly compensation – s 114 of the Accident Compensation Act 2011. Whether the corporation determined the correct date for the purpose of calculating interest on late payment of weekly compensation to the appellant. Held: Under s 114, interest is only payable one month from after the Corporation has received all necessary information to calculate and make the payment. The Corporation determined the correct “all information date”. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for cover for mental injury - s 27 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined the Appellant's cover. Weight of medical evidence did not establish that the Appellant's physical injury materially contributed to his mental inury. Corporation correctly declined the Appellant's cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Grounds for leave to appeal raised by Applicant did not raise questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument which would justify further appeal to the High Court. Outcome: application dismissed.
Claim for cover for mental injury - s 21 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined Appellant's cover in relation to offending committed by her ex-partner on her daughter. Corporation correctly declined Appellant's cover as a secondary victim. Not appropriate to apply tikanga principles against express statutory words in the section of the Act. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal of Reviewable decision – ss 134, 145 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether reviewer correctly dismissed five applications for review for lack of jurisdiction. Review applications were invalid as they were not filed against reviewable decisions. No live issues to be determined. Applications dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay due to illness. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Delay arose out of an understandable error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Claim for cover for mental injury – s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant suffered mental injury as result of a physical injury during treatment. Insufficient evidence of causal link between mental injury and a physical injury. Corporation applied correct approach to causation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims for costs on appeal. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $2,064.00, being costs of $1,550.00 and disbursements of $514.00. Appeal allowed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision that the appellant was not entitled to a lump sum payment based on his whole person impairment rating of seven percent. Held: the Corporation correctly declined lump sum compensation for the appellant on the basis of expert medical assessment. Appellant has not established that the impairment assessment conducted on him was flawed or incorrect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding declined jurisdiction to consider a review for deemed cover. Whether a reviewer or the District Court has jurisdiction to recognise deemed cover that has arisen by operation of law without a formal decision by the Corporation. Held: reviewers and the District Court have jurisdiction to recognise deemed cover even without a formal Corporation decision. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision suspending appellant’s entitlements and determination of non-entitlement to deemed cover. Whether appellant was entitled to deemed cover for trochanteric bursitis/gluteal tendinopathy. Held: the Corporation lacked sufficient basis to suspend entitlements, as ongoing medical evidence supported continued incapacity linked to the original injury. Outcome: allowed in part.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision declining appellant cover and surgery funding for a rotator cuff tear. Whether appellant’s shoulder injury and need for surgery were caused by the accident or were the result of a pre-existing degenerative condition. Held: appellant’s fall in 2023 significantly contributed to his shoulder condition. Injury was not wholly or substantially caused by degeneration. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Claim for independence allowance – Schedule 1, Accident Insurance Act 1998. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s application for permanent injury compensation. Corporation correctly declined application on basis that Appellant’s doctor stated his impairment had not changed since his last assessment. Decision of reviewer upheld. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision revoking deemed cover to the appellant. Whether the meniscus tear and MCL partial tear suffered by Appellant were caused by an accident and therefore qualifies for cover under the Act. Held: Medical evidence did not support a causal link between the accident and the meniscal tear. Injury was not caused by the accident on the balance of probabilities. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision declining appellant’s cover for somatic symptom disorder as a mental injury caused by physical injuries. Whether appellant’s somatic symptom disorder was caused by the physical injuries he sustained during an assault and thus qualifies for cover under the Act. Held: appellant did not legally establish mental injury was caused by physical injuries. The mental injury stemmed from pre-existing vulnerabilities. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision to decline weekly compensation. Whether the Corporation’s decision was correct. Held: Corporation was correct in requiring new vocational independence assessment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.