Ministry of Justice

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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 six months. Delay arose out of error. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.

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 over two months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.

Claim process; deemed cover - ss 48, 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether claims made in medical certificates for two further injuries are covered as the Corporation failed to make any decisions on cover within the statutory time frame. Court found no valid claim was made for the two additional injuries. The statements were interpreted as reasons for incapacity, not as claims for cover. No deemed cover could arise under section 58. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for a treatment injury. Claim did not meet required criteria. Evidence indicated medical conditions were underlying and not caused by treatment. Outcome: appeal dismissed. 

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.

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.  

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 - 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.