The Courts‎ > ‎

District Court Judgements

In Simmonds v ACC the Corporation has pulled one of its favourite stunts which is to blame the claimants incapacitation on "other issues". This judgement is a very good example of how the Court looks at situations where there are (as always) accompanying issues such as substance abuse or mental illness. The Corporation likes to pretend that anyone who has any parallel  issue is somehow not entitled. This judgement clearly demonstrates that this is not case. 

In TE v ACC We can see a huge amount of medical opinion from a wide range of Psychiatrists in conflict with each other. The Claimant wins the Appeal but note the rumblings about advocacy in paragraph [61]. This is why your treating specialists cannot support you against ACC outside of their mandated Clinical Process. The outcome here is that the Claimant wins but faces more assessment because the evidence supporting her was not quite conclusive enough. 

Osborne v ACC provides huge insight into how the Courts look at and respond to breaches in the ACC administration process. It is important to note that there is a reference to Ramsay v ACC at the High Court which has now been overturned by Martin v ACC also in the High Court. Although the Ramsay principles no longer apply to the appeal process, they still apply to the Corporation. The lawyer for the claimant really takes the Corporation on in a wide variety ways which are dealt with in depth by the Judge. Yet the Claimant still loses and it is important to learn why and understand that the only legislation that matters is the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and the appeal processes contained within it. 

NP v ACC provides huge insight into the Courts view on how cover for mental injury is decided. The Judge offers very specific reasoning that a Claimant would do well to learn. 
Ċ
Alex Lupine,
Jul 17, 2012, 5:49 PM
Ċ
Alex Lupine,
Jul 17, 2012, 6:13 PM
Ċ
Alex Lupine,
Jul 17, 2012, 5:28 AM
Ċ
Alex Lupine,
Jul 17, 2012, 5:56 AM