Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
876 items matching your search terms
Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether serious and arguable question of law raised to sustain application for leave to appeal. Application did not address decision under appeal or identify where judgment was alleged to be wrong in law. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation – s 15 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation’s decision to decline weekly compensation correct. No evidence of earnings immediately prior to incapacity, therefore decision declining compensation correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to High Court – s162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision where court determined compensation had correctly been calculated to applicant based on their income tax return. Outcome: Corporation determines the amount that represents a reasonable renumeration for services a person provides as director of company in tax year. Leave to appeal refused.
Cover and entitlements - s 20 and 67 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant's symptoms causally related to injuries suffered in March 1996 or in the accident in February 2008. The evidence discounts any causal link between the appellant’s ongoing symptoms and the covered injuries suffered. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for cost of treatment – Schedule 1, cl 1-2 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined funding for a further pain management programme and other rehabilitation programmes (including neuro-physiotherapy). The Corporation was incorrect to decline funding for the programmes. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Personal injury - s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001; Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation’s Decision declining cover for an injury said to have occurred as a result of a manipulation during osteopathic treatment, and Review Decision maintaining the Corporation’s Decision are correct. Insufficient basis to draw a robust inference that the injury was caused by osteopathic manipulation. The Corporation’s decisions are correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against suspension of entitlements - s 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant collapsed at home and suffered cervical spinal stenosis. Granted cover for this injury. Applicant applies to reverse the suspension of entitlements. Court found that the medical evidence shows that the applicant's ongoing condition is not causally related to the injury for which she had received cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against a review decision. Claim for personal (physical) injury – s26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant suffered poliomyelitis as an infant and a subsequent ankle injury later on in life. Appellant seeks to be covered for chronic pain and CRPS. ACC decline cover for chronic pain and CRPS due to appellant’s ankle injury. The reviewer quashed ACC’s decision and directed ACC to issue a formal decision granting appellant cover for CRPS but not chronic pain. Found that appellant’s claim for cover for chronic pain is not supported by legal authority and the reviewer’s decision was correct on the evidence available. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for weekly compensation – ss 103(2), sch 1, cl 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant suffered shoulder joint and lumbar sprain. Whether Appellant entitled to weekly compensation beyond 22 December 2013. Substantial medical evidence that by 23 December 2013, Appellant's injuries had resolved and so there was no further injury-related incapacity. Appellant not entitled to weekly compensation beyond 22 December 2013. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Interest – s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation erred in determining date from which interest became payable on backdated weekly compensation. Date correctly determined as one month after Corporation received all necessary information, medical and financial. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeals from two decisions of a reviewer. Claim for social rehabilitation (transport) - s70, s79, and cl 22 of Schedule 1; claim for treatment injury- s32(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC’s decision is correct as to the quantum of ACC’s contribution to the appellant’s transport for independence cost. Appellant has not established ACC made an error of law or principle. Second appeal: whether ACC correctly declined cover for a treatment injury on the basis that ACC had failed/delayed providing specialist psychiatric assessment for PTSD. Appellant’s claim does not qualify for treatment injury in terms of the Act. Outcome: both appeals are dismissed.
Claims process, ss 149(3) and 317, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against dismissal of review on the basis of lack of jurisdiction in relation to Corporation’s email. Court has no jurisdiction to consider claim in absence of claim of cover for mental injury that has been subject to review. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether court should exercise discretion to allow late filing. By narrow margin, Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of discretion. Delay of only 10 days, connected to appellant’s mental and physical injuries. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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 her application for leave to file her appeal out of time. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence, rather than indecision. Outcome: appeal granted.
Suspension of entitlements, Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 117; Personal injury, Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 26. Whether accident caused injury. Whether Corporation had sufficient basis to suspend entitlements. Cover given for accidental lumbar sprain, Appellant not entitled to further cover for pre-existing degenerative spinal injury. Sufficient basis to suspend entitlements. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether court should exercise discretion to allow late filing. By narrow margin, Appellant established interests of justice required exercise of discretion. Delay of only 10 days, connected to appellant’s mental and physical injuries. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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 her application for leave to file her appeal out of time. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. Outcome: appeal granted.
Late filing of appeal to District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant submits appeal filed late because of her injuries. Court prepared to accept delay is connected with applicant's physical and mental health. Outcome: appeal granted. Court finds by narrow margin that interests of justice require exercise of discretion.
Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant claimed accident compensation on the basis that she suffered a treatment injury when undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Corporation had declined to grant cover on basis there was no evidence to establish physical injury caused by treatment. Applicant appeals against Review Decision on ground it was incorrect. Applicant has not established on balance of probabilities that she suffered a treatment injury for which there is accident compensation cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal - s 20(2)(g) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether injury was a consequential injury. Accident did develop or significantly worsen the appellant's syndrome. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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 caused by appellant's advocate and was not significant. 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 postal delays, which were out of the appellant's control. Outcome: appeal granted.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant seeks leave to appeal on a question of law. Previous judge determined applicant had not established claim for payment of backdated weekly compensation. Applicant had suffered sinusitis. Court finds leave application does not contain any seriously arguable questions of law. Insufficient evidence to support 18 year period of weekly compensation claimed. That decision was open to the court on the facts, therefore no question of law arises. Outcome: application for leave dismissed.
Impairment assessment - Accident Compensation Act 2011, Schedule 1, Part 3. Whether whole person impairment (WPI) rating of zero per cent was correct. WPI carried out correctly and in accordance with the Act. No cogent or contemporaneous evidence that the WPI was flawed or incorrect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
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. No points of law raised capable of bona fide and serious argument. Appellant’s repeated attempts to relitigate same issue cause for costs award against him. Outcome: appeal dismissed.