Ministry of Justice

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether serious and arguable question of law raised to sustain application for leave to appeal. Application did not address decision under appeal or identify where judgment was alleged to be wrong in law. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Leave to appeal to High Court – s162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision where court determined compensation had correctly been calculated to applicant based on their income tax return. Outcome: Corporation determines the amount that represents a reasonable renumeration for services a person provides as director of company in tax year. Leave to appeal refused.

Claim for cost of treatment – Schedule 1, cl 1-2 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined funding for a further pain management programme and other rehabilitation programmes (including neuro-physiotherapy). The Corporation was incorrect to decline funding for the programmes. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Appeal against suspension of entitlements - s 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant collapsed at home and suffered cervical spinal stenosis. Granted cover for this injury. Applicant applies to reverse the suspension of entitlements. Court found that the medical evidence shows that the applicant's ongoing condition is not causally related to the injury for which she had received cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for weekly compensation – ss 103(2), sch 1, cl 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant suffered shoulder joint and lumbar sprain. Whether Appellant entitled to weekly compensation beyond 22 December 2013. Substantial medical evidence that by 23 December 2013, Appellant's injuries had resolved and so there was no further injury-related incapacity. Appellant not entitled to weekly compensation beyond 22 December 2013. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeals from two decisions of a reviewer. Claim for social rehabilitation (transport) - s70, s79, and cl 22 of Schedule 1; claim for treatment injury- s32(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC’s decision is correct as to the quantum of ACC’s contribution to the appellant’s transport for independence cost. Appellant has not established ACC made an error of law or principle. Second appeal: whether ACC correctly declined cover for a treatment injury on the basis that ACC had failed/delayed providing specialist psychiatric assessment for PTSD. Appellant’s claim does not qualify for treatment injury in terms of the Act. Outcome: both appeals are dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether court should exercise discretion to allow late filing. By narrow margin, Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of discretion.  Delay of only 10 days, connected to appellant’s mental and physical injuries. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Suspension of entitlements, Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 117; Personal injury, Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 26. Whether accident caused injury. Whether Corporation had sufficient basis to suspend entitlements. Cover given for accidental lumbar sprain, Appellant not entitled to further cover for pre-existing degenerative spinal injury. Sufficient basis to suspend entitlements. 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 appeal out of time. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. Outcome: appeal granted.

Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant claimed accident compensation on the basis that she suffered a treatment injury when undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Corporation had declined to grant cover on basis there was no evidence to establish physical injury caused by treatment. Applicant appeals against Review Decision on ground it was incorrect. Applicant has not established on balance of probabilities that she suffered a treatment injury for which there is accident compensation cover. 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. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay caused by appellant's advocate and was not significant. Outcome: appeal granted.

Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant seeks leave to appeal on a question of law. Previous judge determined applicant had not established claim for payment of backdated weekly compensation. Applicant had suffered sinusitis. Court finds leave application does not contain any seriously arguable questions of law. Insufficient evidence to support 18 year period of weekly compensation claimed. That decision was open to the court on the facts, therefore no question of law arises. Outcome: application for leave dismissed.