Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
1026 items matching your search terms
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.
Appeal whether an email constituted a reviewable decision under the Act. Claim for interest on late payment of weekly compensation. s 6, s 114, and s 134. Whether an ACC email constituted a new decision capable of review under the Act. Held: the ACC email was not a new decision, but a confirmation of prior decisions. Confirmation of prior decision does not constitute a new decision and cannot be reviewed. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal regarding the cessation of weekly compensation and entitlement to treatment for a finger injury. Claim for weekly compensation for incapacity and claim for entitlements for treatments and pain management – s 67, s 64, and s 100(1)(a). Whether the appellant is entitled to weekly compensation due to her injury. Held: appellant capable of engaging in her pre-injury employment and similar roles, therefore not entitled to weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal regarding cover for stroke and angina as personal injuries by accident, weekly compensation, and cover for stroke as a treatment injury. Claim for cover for stroke and angina as injuries caused by fall in the shower, weekly compensation, and cover for stroke as a treatment injury due to delayed hospital care – s 26, 32, and 100. Whether stroke was causally connected with the accident? Was the stroke caused by delayed treatment at hospital? Held: the stroke was not caused by the accident. The stroke or its progression was not caused by the delay in treatment at the hospital. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Application for recall of the Court’s judgment. Claim to recall the Court’s judgment dismissing his appeal against the Corporation’s decision to decline cover for somatic symptom disorder as a mental injury caused by physical injuries. Whether there was a special reason, in the interests of justice, to recall the Court’s judgment dismissing the appeal against the Corporation’s decision to decline cover. Held: Appellant did not establish any special reason requiring recall of the judgment. Outcome: Application for recall dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of nearly 21 months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No prejudice to Corporation and 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 matter of law, to sustain application for leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.
Claim for deemed cover – ss 135, 146; claim for personal injury, ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer was deemed to have made a decision in Appellant’s favour on basis that a review application was completed by Appellant’s GP and filed with Corporation but was not set down within three months. Whether injuries and inability to work were caused by Appellant’s accident. Deemed decision did not arise. Corporation correctly revoked and declined cover for Appellant’s pain in lumbar spine. Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s claim for weekly compensation. Corporation correctly declined cover for lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy in relation to accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed, decision of Reviewer upheld.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of nearly five months arose out of error or inadvertence by Appellant’s representative, for which Appellant was not responsible. No history of non-cooperation or delay by Appellant, and delay unlikely to prejudice Respondent. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Treatment Injury – s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether causal link between Appellant’s dental implant (treatment) and gingival overgrowth and teeth movement (personal injury). On weight of medical evidence, there was no causal link between the treatment and the injury, therefore treatment injury not established. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. None of the issues raised by Applicant gave rise to a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.
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 error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay due to Appellant seek legal advice. 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 error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Appeal on a review decision concerning revocation of cover, weekly compensation, and treatment entitlements following a personal injury claim. Claim for revocation of cover, declining cover, declining weekly compensation and declining funding for a pain management programme. Whether the Corporation’s decision was correct. Held: The Corporation was correct to revoke cover for lumbar pain and to decline cover for thoracic sprain. Pain alone is not a physical injury under the Act, and robust medical evidence is required to establish causation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Costs on Review – s 148 Accident Compensation Act 2001; Dismissal for want of Prosecution. Appellant’s failure to file any submissions or attend hearing amounted to want of prosecution by Appellant of his appeal. No reason for appeal to remain alive unless Appellant intended to pursue it. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Application by Appellant for continuance of all appeals. Application declined given absence of medical support for request, delays in appeals to date, and procedural history of non-compliance. Outcome: application declined.
Rehabilitation – ss 81 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined to fund a request to assist with transport for independence. Corporation’s decision was not proper and fair by failing to take account of relevant considerations. Medical evidence allowed robust inference that request was required as direct consequence of covered personal injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Application for Leave to Appeal – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Sufficient grounds to sustain application for leave to appeal not established. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. No wider importance of contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Leave to appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No point of law capable of bona fide and serious argument in the High Court. No wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application declined.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument established. No wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Application for recall of judgment. Appellant failed to establish that for some special reason justice required recall of Court’s judgment dismissing Appellant's appeal. Outcome: application for recall dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the date from which interest is payable on backdated weekly compensation. Claim for interest on late payment of weekly compensation – s 114 of the Accident Compensation Act 2011. Whether the corporation determined the correct date for the purpose of calculating interest on late payment of weekly compensation to the appellant. Held: Under s 114, interest is only payable one month from after the Corporation has received all necessary information to calculate and make the payment. The Corporation determined the correct “all information date”. Outcome: appeal dismissed.