Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
960 items matching your search terms
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s revoking deemed cover for lateral epicondylitis, suspending entitlements and declining surgery funding for lateral epicondylitis. Whether Corporation’s decisions were correct. Court held the Corporation had sufficient medical evidence to revoke deemed cover, decline surgery, and suspend entitlements. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against decision of Corporation declining cover to appellant and to suspend appellant’s entitlements. Cover for personal injury- s20 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant’s cervical spine injury was caused by her accident and whether the Corporation correctly suspended her entitlements. Held: injury was caused by accident rather than age-related degeneration. Outcome: Appellant’s appeal allowed.
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.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No point of law capable of bona fide serious argument in the High Court. Court not satisfied as to the wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application declined.
Appeal against decision of Corporation agreeing to pay increased rates for attendant care and home help to the appellants. Rates of social rehabilitation entitlements – s81 – 83 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC’s decisions to increase exceptional circumstances rate were correct in denying backdated increases to 2017. Held that the 2022 decisions were limited to periods explicitly stated and did not constitute decisions on backdating to 2017. Outcome: the Corporation’s appeal was granted.
Revocation of cover - s 65(2) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision revoking cover for rotator cuff tear. Not established that injury was caused by the accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal under s 149 regarding the decision of a reviewer to refuse cover for a mental injury as a treatment injury as a result of repeated injections Appellant received to treat hypopituitarism. Whether appellant’s mental injury was caused by a physical injury resulting from treatment and whether that physical injury was not an ordinary consequence of the treatment. No causal link between the physical injury and the mental injury as required under the Act. Appeal dismissed.
Cost of Treatment; Schedule Clause 1 – Accident Compensation Act 2001 and Regulation 13 Accident Compensation (Liability to pay or contribute to cost of Treatment) Regulations 2003. Whether Corporation required to fully fund cost of GP appointments for purposes of providing a medical certificate to determine incapacity as required by the Corporation and/or the purpose of providing treatment. Corporation correctly applied Clause 1 of Schedule 1 and Regulation 13 in declining Appellant’s claim for full GP cost payment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from the decision of a reviewer regarding the refusal to approve cover for a treatment injury. s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the cataract surgeries performed on Appellant caused a treatment injury which resulted in worse vision for driving and loss of reading vision. Held: Corporation correctly declined appellant’s claim for cover for a treatment injury. Medical evidence indicated surgeries performed appropriately and the issues appellant experienced were due to pre-existing conditions and not a result of the surgeries. No departure from standard of care in the treatment provided to appellant.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay due to deteriorating health and caregiving responsibilities for her disabled son. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain her application for leave to file her appeal out of time. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. Ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover for the injuries and entitlements claimed by appellant, including weekly compensation and treatment costs. Held: Corporation correctly declined cover for lumbago with sciatica, right rupture of tendon, and L5/S1 facet joint osteoarthritis- medical evidence did not establish a causal link to the accident. Reversed Corporation’s decision to decline weekly compensation for right gluteal strain. Granted appeal in relation to Corporation’s decline of cover for sprain injury of the facet joint and directed further funding for treatment costs. Appeal partly granted.
Appeal of the Corporation’s decision to decline cover for a treatment injury. s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the surgery performed on Appellant’s left hand constituted a treatment injury. Held: Corporation’s decision to decline appellant’s claim was correct. Surgery performed was appropriate for the underlying condition and did not deviate from an acceptable standard of care. Appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay in filing Notice of Appeal in complete form was nearly six months, which was not insignificant. However, responsibility for delay lay not with appellant but with his counsel. No history of non-cooperation or delay be Appellant himself. Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
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.
Appeal of the decision of a reviewer declining Appellant’s claim for cover for treatment injury. s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the delay in treating Appellant’s ulcer and circulatory problems led to the above-knee amputation. Held: Corporation correctly declined Appellant's claim for cover for treatment injury. medical evidence indicated appellant’s health issues were the primary causes of his condition and earlier intervention would not have prevented the need for amputation. No departure from the standard of care in treatment provided to appellant. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal of a decision by the Accident Compensation Corporation to determine the date which interest is payable on backdated weekly compensation. s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly determined the date from which interest is payable on backdated weekly compensation. Held: on the evidence, Corporation had correctly determined the date. Appeal is 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 circumstances partly out of the Appellant's control. Outcome: appeal granted.
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 understandable circumstances. Outcome: appeal granted.
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 not established for appeal. Length of delay was significant. Adequate reasons not provided for delay. Grounds of appeal not strongly arguable. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to High Court – s 162(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the decision to revoke deemed cover and decline cover for a treatment injury related to an untreated sacral pressure wound was correct. No question of law was raised; the appeal was based on disagreement with factual findings which is not a valid ground for appeal under section 162. Leave to appeal to High Court was dismissed.
Personal Injury, s 26; Work Related Gradual Process Injury, s 30; Suspension of Entitlements, s 117 – Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant’s back pathology was coverable either as a personal injury by accident or a work-related gradual process injury (WRGPI). Weight of medical opinion supported Appellant’s symptoms being caused by multi-level degenerative disc disease, not the accident. Section 30 criteria for WRGPI not fulfilled. Corporation’s decisions declining cover and suspending entitlements correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims for costs on appeal. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $350, $250 in costs and disbursements of $100.
Cover and Suspension - ss 20, 25, 26, 27 and 11(7)(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for SSD and PCS. Appeal against decision suspending entitlements for head injury. Evidence did not support claim for cover for SSD and PCS. Decision to suspend entitlements arising from head injury was incorrect. Evidence to support ongoing symptoms causally related to head injury. Entitlements reinstated. Outcome: appeal allowed in substantial part.
Claims process – s 135 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined to accept Appellant’s 20 review applications which had been filed out of time, explaining that it was unable to accept that the Appellant’s mental injuries affected her ability to file review applications in time. Corporation was entitled to be not satisfied there were extenuating circumstances that affected the Appellant’s ability to meet the time limits for her review applications. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims process – s 135 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly dismissed Appellant’s review, on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction in view of the defective nature of the review application. Appellant did not identify decision or decisions in respect of which her purported application for review was made. Reviewer correctly dismissed review. Outcome: appeal dismissed.