Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
999 items matching your search terms
Claim for work-related gradual process injury - s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a work-related gradual process injury. Evidence indicated Appellant's employment task did not cause or contribute to his injury. Appellant's cover was correctly declined. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - Section 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether leave should be granted to file an appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Delay of over five months. Delay was due to understandable circumstances, not indecision. No real prejudice to Corporation. The interests of justice supported granting leave. Outcome: application granted.
Interpretation of decision - ss 6 and 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding emails in response to the Appellant's request for cover for post-traumatic stress disorder. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the emails constituted reviewable decisions. Neither email constituted a reviewable decision. Outcome: appeals dismissed.
Impairment assessment - Pt 3 Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a lump sum payment for an impairment. Doctor's assessment of Appellant's impairment was not flawed. Corporation's decision was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover and entitlement to surgery - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant appealed against declined deemed review decision and decision declining claim for cover and entitlement to surgery for a knee injury. Appellant not entitled to a deemed review decision as it did not meet requirements. Evidence indicated injury caused by an accident. Appellant entitled to cover and surgery for knee injury caused by the accident. Outcome: appeal allowed in part.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court erred in law by upholding ACC’s decision to decline cover for degenerative changes, allegedly resulting from accidents in 1987 and 1989. No arguable question of law and no wider legal importance to justify an appeal. Outcome: application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Impairment assessment - Pt 3 Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding impairment assessment. Apportionment between different impairments permitted. Apportionment assessment for impairment was appropriate. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover - ss 20, 25, 26, 56, 58, 67 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover and weekly compensation for spinal injury. Corporation's decision was correct. Evidence did not support that spinal injury was caused by accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Costs on appeal - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Claim for costs and disbursements assessed. Appropriate award was category 2B costs of $15,041.25 and disbursements of $17,583.34. Outcome: costs awarded.
Cover - ss 20, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant claimed cover for complex regional pain syndrome following an accident. Evidence indicated that injury was not caused by an accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Applicant had raised arguable questions of law sufficient to justify leave to appeal the District Court’s decisions. No arguable question of law was established that met the threshold for appeal. Outcome: application for leave dismissed.
Weekly compensation - social rehabilitation - s 81 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decisions declining weekly compensation and treatment for a back injury. Evidence supported Appellant suffered a back injury in his accident. Corporation's decisions were not made on reasonable grounds or after a proper investigation. Outcome: appeals allowed.
Personal injury - ss 25, 26, 27 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining Appellant's cover and suspending weekly compensation. Corporation incorrectly declined Appellant's cover. Evidence of a pre-existing degenerative condition did not reach the degree required to bar cover. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Appeal from the Reviewer’s decision. Claim for treatment injury – s32 Accident Compensation act 2001. Whether appellant suffered a personal injury caused by treatment. Held: No evidence of a physical injury caused by the surgery beyond what was necessary or an ordinary consequence of the procedure. Symptoms more likely attributable to appellant’s underlying health condition. Requirements for section 32 not met. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Reinstatement of appeal - claims for cover and entitlements - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant sought to reinstate an appeal declining cover. Appellant was not an earner at the relevant date. Decision declining cover was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Recoverability of costs and expenses - s148(2) of the Accident Compensation Corporation Act 2001. Whether the Digital System fee, Technical Specialist fee, and KonnectNet fee are recoverable as expenses. Digital System fee not recoverable as it is a business overhead. Technical Specialist fee not recoverable as they are representation costs. KonnectNet fee may be recoverable, depending on the circumstances. If the fee has been reasonably or necessarily incurred it can be claimed as an expense. Outcome: appeal dismissed, leave to appeal granted.
Definition of decision – s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly dismissed Appellant's application for review of the Corporation's notification letter on the basis that it was not a reviewable decision. Corporation's notification letter does not constitute a decision. Administrative actions are not subject to review. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.
Issue estoppel, reviewable decision - s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding whether emails were reviewable decision. Another appeal regarding whether issue estoppel applied for cover or entitlements for osteoarthritis. Emails not reviewable decisions. Decision to decline weekly compensation was reviewable but was not. Osteoarthritis had already been determined so issue estoppel applied. Outcome: appeals dismissed.
Cover – ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for spinal injury. Corporation’s decision was correct. Weight of medical evidence did not support that annular tear injury was caused by car accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for treatment injury. Appellant did not establish failure to treat or to treat in timely manner on medical evidence. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Leave granted: whether claimant who was deemed to have cover under s 58 entitled to entitlements after cover has been revoked and declined under s 65. Outcome: application allowed.
Entitlements - Backdated attendant care compensation - s 80 Accident Compensation Act 1982. Appeal regarding entitlement to backdated attendant care for injury suffered at birth. Grounds not established. Corporation did not make an error or law declining to backdate attendant care compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Interpretation of decision – ss 6 and 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether either or both letters constitute reviewable decisions. Information request letter does not constitute a decision because it does not satisfy ss 6 and 134. Administrative actions are not subject to review. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.
Disposal of appeal – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer's decision on unreasonable delay is correct. Corporation complied with review direction and no substance left in review decision to be appealed from or considered by Court. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Application for leave to appeal against decision dismissing the Applicant's claim that they qualified for cover. Whether Applicant qualified for mental injury cover for offending committed by her ex-partner on her daughter. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.