Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
1022 items matching your search terms
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.
Personal injury - s 26(1)(c) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for mental injury. Whether mental health issue was caused by physical injury. Physical injury provided circumstances for mental health issue but was not a material cause of it. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
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.
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.
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.
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 two years is a significant amount of time, but delay arose out of circumstances beyond control. Outcome: application granted.
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.
Entitlement to loss of potential earnings – the prescribed base rate – cls 42(3), 47, sch 1, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation's calculation of LOPE entitlement accurate. Corporation prescribed base rate has been correctly applied. Appellant being paid at adult minimum wage. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
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.
Treatment injury - ss 32 and 33 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for continuation of pregnancy in the presence of an undisclosed serious fetal abnormality. Purpose of treatment was to avoid the outcome the appellants suffered. Treatment was material cause of the appellants personal injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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.
Applications to Recall and Rescind Orders of the Court. Whether there are grounds to recall, rescission and reinstatement. Court has inherent powers to make unless orders and strike out proceedings for non-compliance. Order dismissing 17 appeals are not rescinded or recalled. Outcome: applications 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.
Claim for interest on weekly compensation - s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision dismissing review of the Appellant's entitlement to interest on backdated weekly compensation. Date of entitlement to interest on backdated compensation considered to be correctly assessed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal of revocation of deemed cover, decision to decline cover of neurocognitive impairment, and suspension of entitlements relating to head injury - s 26(1)(c). Whether neurocognitive disorder caused by head injury. Relevant injury was too mild to cause Appellant’s ongoing symptoms and sufficient evidence for Corporation to be “not satisfied” that Appellant suffered neurocognitive impairment because of traumatic brain injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Review of claim for social rehabilitation. Sections 81 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether reviewer correctly dismissed review application for want of jurisdiction and separate application to review Corporation’s decision to decline to fund lawnmower and hydrotherapy. Reviewer correctly dismissed first application as issue estoppel applied. It was not established that the Corporation made an error of law in respect of the second application. Application dismissed.