Accident Compensation Corporation v Monk - [2012] NZCA 615

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA148/2012
[2012] NZCA 615

BETWEEN ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Appellant

AND STACY ANN MONK
Respondent

Hearing: 14 November 2012

Court: Arnold, French and Miller JJ

Counsel: C J Hlavac and M M Ahern for Appellant
J M Miller and E M Wilson for Respondent

Judgment: 20 December 2012 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A We answer the question stated as follows:

Where a person suffers mental injury because of physical injury, and the physical injury is a necessary part or ordinary consequence of treatment received by that person, the mental injury is a personal injury for which there is cover under s 20 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
BThe appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements, with provision for one counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Introduction

Ms Monk underwent a lumbar puncture, a procedure in which a hypodermic needle is inserted into the spine to draw off cerebrospinal fluid for testing. There was nothing untoward about the physical procedure, which was carried out at Christchurch Hospital on 27 February 2008, but she experienced severe pain during it and partial paralysis in her legs and the right side of her body immediately afterward. That trauma may have caused conversion disorder, a mental injury that leads her to experience ongoing neurological symptoms in her legs. She still suffers weakness in her right leg and poor sensation and control in her left.
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) denied Ms Monk’s claim for cover, saying that she did not suffer a qualifying personal injury.
Under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, a mental injury may be covered where the person concerned suffered it because of her physical injuries. The question for us is whether the physical injury that led to the mental injury must itself be covered under the Act. The parties agree that Ms Monk’s lumbar puncture, which might be considered a physical injury, is excluded from cover, for it was a necessary part of her treatment and was carried out appropriately.
The High Court has stated the following question of law:[1]
If a person suffers mental injury because of physical injury, where the physical injury is a necessary part of or ordinary consequence of the treatment received by that person, is the mental injury a personal injury for which there is cover under s 20 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

The legislation

[1]Monk v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Wellington CIV-2011-485-997, 24 February 2012.

The question is one of statutory interpretation, so we turn at once to the legislation. Section 20(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides cover for personal injuries:
20Cover for personal injury suffered in New Zealand (except mental injury caused by certain criminal acts or work-related mental injury)
(1) A person has cover for a personal injury if—
...
(b)the personal injury is any of the kinds of injuries described…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Accident Compensation Corporation v Monk and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZCA 615
Decision Date: 20 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Accident Compensation Corporation v Monk involved a dispute between the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and Stacy Ann Monk regarding the coverage of a mental injury under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Stacy Monk suffered a mental injury, conversion disorder, following a lumbar puncture performed at Christchurch Hospital. The ACC denied her claim for cover, arguing that the mental injury did not qualify as a personal injury under the Act because the physical injury from which it arose was a necessary part of her treatment. The central legal issue was whether a mental injury resulting from a physical injury, which is a necessary part or ordinary consequence of the treatment, qualifies as a personal injury for which there is cover under the Act.

The Court of Appeal examined the statutory language of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, particularly sections 20, 26, and 32, to determine the scope of cover for mental injuries. The Court found that the plain language of the Act indicates that any physical injury that results in a mental injury qualifies as a personal injury, even if the physical injury itself is a necessary part of the treatment. The Court reasoned that the mental injury must meet specific criteria to qualify for cover, such as being a treatment injury or the result of an accident, but the physical injury that causes the mental injury need not be separately covered under the Act. The Court relied on the legislative history, which suggested that Parliament intended to limit claims for mental injuries arising from physical injuries, but not to entirely exclude mental injuries resulting from necessary or ordinary consequences of treatment.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal held that where a person suffers a mental injury because of a physical injury, and the physical injury is a necessary part or ordinary consequence of treatment, the mental injury is a personal injury for which there is cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The ACC was ordered to pay Stacy Monk’s costs as for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements, with provision for one counsel.

Orders