Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
681 items matching your search terms
Cover Issues - s 20 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Decline of cover for right supraspinatus tear and right subacromial and subdeltoid bursitis. Appellant has not proved that the tear and bursitis was caused by February 8 accident. Evidence before Court is that shoulder condition is age related not injury related. Outcome: claim dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain his application for leave to appeal. Application is out of time. Court has no jurisdiction in this matter. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal under s 25 and 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC's decision declining to provide cover and to fund surgery for a right hip labral tear was correct. Hip surgery required by the appellant arose from pre-existing degenerative changes and not from the accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against decision to decline cover for workplace injury - s 20 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Evidence is that particular shoulder condition was not injury related, but rather age related. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. 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 by the Appellant's advocate. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Claims process - s161(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal relating to weekly compensation entitlements. Appellant had accident and was granted cover for open wound of wrist with tendon involvement and other injuries. Appellant considers Reviewer's decision to confirm Corporation's decision about entitlement was based on incorrect evidence. Court finds Appellant has not established Corporation incorrectly calculated weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Jurisdiction – s 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant appealed a review of a decision. Reviewer concluded appellant’s review application was not in respect to a reviewable decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Jurisdiction - s 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant suffered physical injury and post-traumatic stress disorder from sexual assault. Appellant suffered concussion injury and traumatic amputation of finger in accident. Corporation declined cover for physical injury. Court found no power to reinvestigate what happened. Jurisdiction confined to hearing appeal against review decision as set out in s 149(1)(a). Appellant may be able to lodge claim for counselling. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Application to recall judgments - s 235 District Court Act 2016. No specific reasons given why the judgments should be recalled. Assertions without reasons not sufficient grounds for recall of a judgment. Outcome: application dismissed.
Employer Levy Classification - ss168, 170 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant classifies for ACC levy purposes under classification unit CU96100 (Religious Organisations and Activities). Decision of reviewer had found the appropriate classification unit was different. Analysis of what appellant trust does shows decision of reviewer was correct. For purposes of s170 the most accurate classification unit is 96290. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Deemed cover - s 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against revoked deemed cover. Whether Appellant's injuries were caused by his two accidents. Appellant's injuries were caused by or materially contributed to by the accidents. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Claims for costs on appeal Part 14 District Court Rules 2014. Outcome: Appellant awarded $859.50 in costs on appeal. Appeal allowed.
Appeal against two decisions declining cover for spinal injury - s 100 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether evidence demonstrates that any of the covered sprain injuries are the cause of incapacity. On the balance of probabilities, the accidents suffered by appellant have materially contributed to the present state of his spine. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain his application for leave to appeal. No question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain her application for leave to file her appeals out of time. Delay due to error and inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Section 6 “Earner”; Weekly Compensation, Clause 32 – First Schedule Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant meets the criteria of the Act for having “earnings” at the time of her covered injury. The decision that the appellant did not qualify for weekly compensation is correct. The appellant had no taxable earnings falling within New Zealand’s income tax laws. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Weekly Compensation - s 100(1)(a), s 103(2) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Respondent's determination it was unable to continue with the Appellant's weekly compensation was correct. Evidence insufficient to allow the conclusion that Appellant was incapacitated from the relevant time. Decision not to continue with compensation correct. Outcome: claim dismissed.
Mental injury, s21, Schedule 3 – Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining appellant cover for mental injury under grounds that circumstances from the act did not fall within the description of an offence. Act fell between the description of an offence. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Leave to appeal to High Court - s 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Application for leave to appeal against previous decision to decline cover for mental injury caused by treatment. None of the questions of law posed are capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: claim dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence rather than indecision. Outcome: appeal granted.
Appeal from decision to decline weekly compensation - s 100 Clause 3 Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Weekly compensation had been declined on basis appellant not earner at date of injury. Even if appellant was earner at date of injury or eligible under first requirement under clause 43 court finds appellant had no earnings at relevant time. Not eligible to receive weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain his application for leave to appeal. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal relating to cover for treatment injury. Whether the Corporation’s decision dated 4 April 2016 accepting cover for treatment injury was correct. Treatment injury was caused when Appellant received treatment from registered health professional and which was not a necessary part or ordinary consequence of the treatment. Corporation's decision to accept cover for treatment injury was correct. Previous decision upheld. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for personal injury - s 26 deemed decision – s 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of review decision declining cover for back sprain, lumbar sprain and postural scoliosis. Appellant failed to establish the Reviewer incorrectly dismissed review application. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation - s 15 (3) and clause 31 of Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Found that Corporation correctly calculated Appellant's entitlements by adopting income tax return for year ending March 2021 in respect of his injuries as a shareholder-employee, rather than calculating an amount which represented "reasonable remuneration" for the relevant period. Previous decision of reviewer upheld: Outcome: appeal dismissed.