Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
973 items matching your search terms
Interpretation of decision – ss 6 and 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether either or both letters constitute reviewable decisions. Information request letter does not constitute a decision because it does not satisfy ss 6 and 134. Administrative actions are not subject to review. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.
Disposal of appeal – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer's decision on unreasonable delay is correct. Corporation complied with review direction and no substance left in review decision to be appealed from or considered by Court. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.
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 six months. Delay arose out of error. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. 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 one month. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. 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 over two months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.
Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for treatment injury. Appellant did not establish that his personal injury was a consequence of his treatment. Appellant had underlying health conditions. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim process; deemed cover - ss 48, 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether claims made in medical certificates for two further injuries are covered as the Corporation failed to make any decisions on cover within the statutory time frame. Court found no valid claim was made for the two additional injuries. The statements were interpreted as reasons for incapacity, not as claims for cover. No deemed cover could arise under section 58. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for a treatment injury. Claim did not meet required criteria. Evidence indicated medical conditions were underlying and not caused by treatment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation - s 15, Sch 1 cls 30-32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining weekly compensation. Corporation correctly declined Appellant's application for weekly compensation. Appellant was not in receipt of any shareholder employee earnings on the date of his accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Review of decision made in error – s 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Code of ACC Claimants' Rights jurisdiction – s 149(3) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court has jurisdiction to determine appeals from a complaint under the Code. Whether Corporation allowed to revise decision. No jurisdiction to hear appeal. Error not established where there is simply credible difference of expert opinion. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.
Cover - ss 20, 25, 26, 67, 100-103 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether lumbar disc prolapse caused by a fall Appellant experienced. Weight of medical evidence supports disc injury caused by the accident Appellant experienced so Appellant entitled to cover. Appeal allowed.
Revocation of cover for treatment injury - ss 32, 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision revoking cover for dental treatment injury. Medical evidence indicated the Corporation correctly revoked cover for the treatment injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover and cost of treatment - ss 20, 25, 26, Sch 1 cl 2(1)(a) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decisions declining cover and surgery for a back injury. Weight of evidence did not indicate that the accident caused the injury. Insufficient evidence to indicate whether injury cause was degenerative or traumatic. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover - s 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against review of weekly compensation and revocation of cover for foot injury. Insufficient grounds to modify or quash decisions. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover for work-related personal injury - ss 28, 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of decision upholding Corporation's decision to grant cover for shoulder pain granted to claimant. Claimant's injury was not attributed to an accident during Claimant's employment. Held: Corporation's decision was made in error. Appeal allowed. Appellant entitled to costs.
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.
Leave to appeal application – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether entitled to deemed cover. Whether Corporation correctly suspended entitlements. Whether Reviewer correctly awarded only certain of requested costs. Sufficient grounds not established to sustain application. Outcome: application dismissed. No issue as to costs.
Costs of appeal – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant liable for costs. Outcome: Appeal dismissed. Appellant ordered to pay Respondent $2,196.50 in costs.
Personal injury - s 26 Accident Compensation Corporation 2001. Appellant sought cover for a whiplash injury from a digger accident, weekly compensation, and funding for treatment. Medical evidence indicated a causal link between Appellant's symptoms and the accident. Appellant entitled to cover. 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.
Treatment Injury – s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant suffered treatment injury due to delayed administration of steroid treatment for sudden hearing loss. Medical evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that earlier treatment would have led to better outcome. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District erred in law in upholding ACC’s decision to revoke deemed cover, suspend entitlements, and decline surgery funding. No error in law capable of bona fide and serious argument in original decision. Outcome: application 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.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 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.
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.