Ministry of Justice

Claims process: applications for recall of judgment and reinstatement of appeal. Whether Court’s Minute dismissing the Appellant’s appeal due to Appellant’s failures to prosecute the appeal should be recalled and the appeal reinstated. Justice did not require recall of the Minute. Grounds provided by Appellant to support reinstatement of her appeal were far outweighed by the lost opportunities to hear the Appellant’s appeal, the overall procedural history of the appeal, the requirements of the ACC Practice Guidelines, the lack if any identified merits in the appeal, and the interests of the Corporation and the public. Outcome: applications for recall of the Minute and for reinstatement of the appeal dismissed. 

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Grounds for leave to appeal raised by Applicant did not raise questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument which would justify a further appeal to the High Court. Outcome: application dismissed.

Suspension of entitlements - s 117 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Wether the Corporation's decision to suspend appellant's entitlement was correct, based on the determination that his condition was no longer the result of his covered injuries. Held: Corporation had sufficient basis to suspend appellant's entitlements, as medical evidence supported that his incapacity was due to degenerative changes. Covered injuries from the 2021 accident had resolved and appellant's ongoing symptoms were not related to those injuries. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Interest - s 114 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant appeals against decision regarding entitlement to interest on backdated weekly compensation payments. No live issue remained in respect of interest entitlement. No evidence provided to substantiate costs for phone, printing, internet, or travel costs. No basis on which they can be awarded. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

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 error or inadvertence rather than indecision. Outcome: appeal granted.

Claim for personal injury - ss 20, 25, and 26(1)(b) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a lower lip injury caused by playing an unfamiliar trumpet mouthpiece. Found that the Appellant suffered a personal injury by accident. Appellant entitled to cover for his personal injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision dismissing the review of the Corporation's determination. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover and funding for surgery to remove loose bodies in the appellant’s right knee; and whether it was justified in revoking and denying cover for a right meniscal tear. Held: The medical evidence did not support the appellant was entitled either to cover and funding for surgery or the right meniscal tear. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal challenging the Reviewer’s decision. Section 32 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the delay in diagnosing septic arthritis in the appellant’s shoulder constitutes a treatment injury under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Held: Corporation’s claim to decline the claim was correct/ Medical evidence did not support a causal link between the shoulder sprain and septic arthritis. Treatment provided to appellant was reasonable and appropriate, no departure from the standard of care. Appeal dismissed. 

Appeal challenging the Reviewer’s decision. Sections 32 and 149 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the delay in performing an MRI scan, which led to a delayed diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colon cancer, constitutes a treatment injury under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Held: Corporation’s decision to decline the claim was too simplistic given the complexity of the case and multiple factors contributing to the delay in diagnosis. Subsequently, the Corporation issued a new decision, granting cover for the treatment injury. The current appeal is dismissed as the Corporation’s new decision granted cover for the treatment injury, making this appeal moot. 

Claims process – s 134(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer correctly dismissed application for review for alleged unreasonable delay in the Corporation issuing a decision, on the basis that the Corporation had made a determination on the entitlement sought. Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. Sections 65 and 161 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court had jurisdiction to determine appellant’s appeal from review decision. Corporation had since revoked the decision under review and decided to fund the appellant’s new spectacles. Corporation’s new decision rendered current appeal moot. In absence of live issue, Court does not have jurisdiction to decide appeal. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26 of Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the appellant’s cervical disc pathology at the c3/4, c5/6, and c6/7 levels is causally linked to the motor vehicle accident on 5 March 2015? Held: Medical evidence supports that her multilevel cervical disc pathology was not related to a single-event trauma in her accident but was likely a gradual process condition. Proposed surgery was not necessary and appropriate for the appellant’s condition. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Claim for costs, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Outcome: Corporation directed to pay Appellant $3,929.50, being costs of $3,169.50 and disbursements of $760.