Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:

NZLII decisions for ACADCR

Search results

1024 items matching your search terms

  1. Wood v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revision of decision made in error) [2025] NZACC 119 [PDF, 159 KB]

    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.

  2. LG v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for personal injury) [2025] NZACC 114 [PDF, 214 KB]

    Appeal against the Reviewer’s decision. Appeal against the Corporations decisions declining cover for mental injury – s 26, treatment injury – s 32 and claim for unreasonable delay – s 134(1)(b) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover for the various conditions and costs. Whether there was unreasonable delay. Whether there was a treatment injury caused by delay in diagnosis of autism/neurogenic bowel. Held: weight of medical evidence supported Corporation’s decision to decline cover for various conditions, these were not caused by the sexual abuse but were pre-existing or developmental. Outcome: Appeals dismissed.

  3. Sheleg v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover for Mental Injury) [2025] NZACC 106 (3 July 2025) [PDF, 208 KB]

    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.