Ministry of Justice

Claim for Treatment Injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined Appellant's claim for treatment injury on basis that claim did not meet legislative criteria because absence of identified physical injury. No medical evidence to establish delirium and other symptoms were a physical injury caused by treatment for prostate concerns. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Rehabilitation - Sch 1 21 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining funding for an adjustable bed. Appellant claimed she had an injury related need for an adjustable bed. Objective needs assessment did not recommend an adjustable bed. Appellant did not establish a need for the bed given the safety and comfort issues were addressed in other ways. Corporation's decision was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for costs on appeal - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether costs should be awarded against the appellant, and if so, in what amount, given his circumstances and the nature of the appeal. Full claimed amount would be disproportionate and unrealistic. Costs awarded $600 against appellant (significantly reduced from $4,127.50) to reflect fairness and discretion. 

Appeal regarding tax deductions, physiotherapy entitlements and accountant costs around weekly compensation payments. Whether ACC should fund the appellant’s personal accountant to review weekly compensation calculations. Whether the tax component was correctly calculated for backdated weekly compensation payments. Held: ACC not required to fund personal accountant costs, these are not covered entitlements under the Act. ACC correctly calculated the tax component of backdated weekly compensation payments according to NZ tax laws. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Appeal against a reviewer’s decision. Appeal regarding declining cover for lymphoedema and reimbursement for related treatment costs – sections 20, 25, 26 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant’s lymphoedema was causally linked to her burn accident and whether appellant entitled to cover and reimbursement for treatment costs under the Act. Held: Sufficient medical evidence to infer appellant’s burn injury contributed to her lymphoedema. Injury is causally linked to the accident, appellant therefore entitled to cover for lymphoedema and reimbursement for treatment costs. Outcome: Appeal allowed.

Cover - ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for tendon rupture as a personal injury. Evidence did not support that the accident caused the tendon rupture. Corporation's decision declining cover was corrected. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed over two years late. Reasons for delay were reasonable including new evidence from GP and relocation to a different city. No prejudice to respondent in granting leave. The appeal is significant to appellant. Interests of justice favoured granting leave. Outcome: application granted.

Leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Corporation applied for leave to appeal against a decision granting cover for treatment injury suffered by continuation of a pregnancy. Corporation raised questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Corporation established sufficient grounds to sustain its application for leave to appeal. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Reviewer's dismissal of application for review of Corporation's decision declining to help with cost of attending physiotherapy. Appeal was lodged two months late. Applicant established interests of justice require exercise of Court's discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time. Outcome: leave granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed over one year late. Reasons for delay were understandable (serious health issues). Interests of justice require granting leave despite lengthy delay. Outcome: application granted.

Interpretation of decision - s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against review application decision declining cover for lack of jurisdiction in determining suspension of entitlements. Review application was incorrectly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal allowed.    

Appeal against reviewer’s decision. Section 32 of Accident Compensation Act 2001 – treatment injury. Whether appellant suffered a physical or mental personal injury caused by treatment that was not a necessary part of the treatment and thus qualifies as a treatment injury under the act. Held: medical evidence showed no physical injury caused by surgery nor any evidence of mental injury attributable to surgery. Chronic pain alone, without identifiable physical or mental injury caused by treatment does not meet the statutory requirements for a treatment injury. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed nearly 8 weeks late. The delay was due to a reasonable misunderstanding, not indecision or neglect. The appeal is significant to the Applicant. Outcome: application granted.