Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
894 items matching your search terms
Claim for additional cover/entitlements - s 48, 52, 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Ankle injury. Whether the Review Decision was correct in determining there was no claim for or decision relating to cover or entitlements by the Corporation, or no deemed decision under section 58 of the Act. Did not make a claim for further cover or a specific entitlement as required. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. S 25(1)(ba) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Ms Gilbert’s hepatitis A was the result of a criminal act which is required under the relevant section. Held: s 25(1)(ba) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 requires the ingestion to be the result of an act which is criminal, as shown by way of a charge, conviction or clear evidence of the commission of tan offence. s 223(1)(b)(ii) of the Food Act 2014 does not create a strict or absolute liability offence. No evidence of any regulatory or criminal investigation, charges, conviction or enforcement action. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appeal grounds raised bona fide question of law. Applicant failed to establish sufficient grounds as matter of law to sustain application for leave to appeal. Outcome: application dismissed.
Claims process – s 149(3), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal. No jurisdiction to hear appeal relating to a Code complaint. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims process and costs on appeal. Whether Corporation correctly suspended Appellant’s weekly compensation entitlement and correctly declined cover. Whether costs should be awarded. Corporation’s decisions under appeal had been overtaken by subsequent decisions granting cover and weekly compensation. Issues no longer live, therefore no jurisdiction for appeal. Appellant not successful, therefore no costs or disbursements should be awarded. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Suspension of entitlements – s 117, weekly compensation – s 103, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether decision declining cover for back contusion injury was correct. Whether decision suspending entitlements for treatment and declining weekly compensation for knee injury were correct. Cover for back contusion injury subsequently found, resulting entitlements subject to review proceedings not yet concluded, therefore no jurisdiction for Court to hear and decide on Appellant’s entitlements relating to back contusion injury. Decision suspending entitlements for treatment and weekly compensation for knee injury correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover and funding for surgery, on basis Appellant’s condition was not caused by accident but instead was related to an unrelated health condition. Appellant’s condition caused by degenerative back condition rather than his accident/s or surgery. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal - claim for personal injury s 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Declined cover for a lumbar disc prolapse. Held: correctly declined cover on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to show that injury was caused by accident. Accident caused the effects of degenerative changes to become apparent. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal - vocational independence s 107-112 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant had achieved vocational independence in nine work types, resulting in an end to his entitlement to weekly compensation. Held: evidence for vocational independence is not supported by sufficiently strong evidence. Outcome: appeal allowed and review decision quashed. Weekly compensation reinstated.
Suspension of entitlements – s 117, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly suspended Appellant’s entitlements on basis his current condition was no longer result of personal injury. Corporation had sufficient basis to suspend Appellant’s entitlements. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as matter of law, to justify grant of leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish any error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.
Cover and entitlement to surgery – section 64 and Schedule 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decisions declining cover for right shoulder sternoclavicular osteoarthritis and funding for surgery, and revoking and declining cover for closed traumatic dislocation, were correct. Whether causal link between Appellant’s accident and injuries for which cover had been granted and surgical funding sought. There was sufficient evidence to support claim for cover and surgery. Corporation’s decisions were not correct. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Appeal against a review decision. Accident Compensation Act 2001 ss 154, 155, 156. Whether two ACC employees should be present in person at the appeal hearing so the appellant could question them. Additional oral evidence from the two ACC employees are not necessary or relevant to the issues on appeal. Appellant’s application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Grounds raised by Applicant for leave to appeal did not involve questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument justifying appeal to the High Court. Outcome: application dismissed.
Claims for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision declining cover for post-concussion syndrome and chronic pain syndrome in relation to Appellant’s 2014 accident was correct. Whether Corporation’s decision declining cover for chronic pain in relation to Appellant’s 2018 accident was correct. Appellant failed to establish 2014 accident caused claimed post-concussion syndrome and chronic pain syndrome. Appellant failed to establish 2018 accident caused claimed chronic pain. Corporation’s decisions were correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Very significant delay of over eight years and seven months. Appellant seeking extraordinary indulgence from the Court, requiring very strong case. Court not satisfied delay arose from understandable error or inadvertence. History of delay and non-cooperation by Appellant in litigation with Corporation. Reasonable possibility of prejudice to Respondent. Appellant failed to establish interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant not responsible for late filing of appeal in proper form. Delay of six days resulted from error or inadvertence of Appellant’s counsel. 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. Late filing of nine days resulted from error or inadvertence of Appellant’s counsel. 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. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of 14 days arose out of error or inadvertence rather than change of mind or indecision. Outcome: application granted.
Claims process, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Reviewer’s decision dismissing application for review on basis of lack of jurisdiction. Whether Corporation’s letter was decision capable of review under the Act. Whether appeal barred by reference to principles of res judicata and issue estoppel. Reviewer correctly found that Corporation’s decision was reviewable decision. Reviewer correctly found that she did not have jurisdiction to determine Appellant’s review application, as principles of res judicata and issue estoppel applied. 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 seven days arose due to error or inadvertence. Outcome: application granted.
Appeal - claim for personal injury s 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation's appointment of an assessor was correct. Whether revoked deemed cover and declined cover for lumbar disc protrusion (non-compressive) and lumbar disc displacement was correct. Held: court had no jurisdiction to consider appointment of assessor and Corporation was correct in its decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims process, Accident Compensation Act 1982 and Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover for alleged treatment injury, on basis no new or discrete injury caused by treatment could be identified over and above injury for which Appellant was already covered. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against a review decision. s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation is able to cover cognitive impairment as its own injury. Whether there is sufficient evidence of a burn injury. Held: appellant will have cover for cognitive impairment as a separate injury and cover for the burn injury to his genitals. Appeal is allowed
Interpretation of decision – s 6(1); claims process – ss 134–161, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Reviewer’s decision dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, an application for review of email from Corporation. Email was not a reviewable decision in terms of the Act. Reviewer correctly dismissed application on basis of lack of jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal dismissed.