Accident Compensation Corporation v Stanley - [2013] NZHC 2765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV 2013-488-206
[2013] NZHC 2765

BETWEEN
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Appellant

AND

SHAUN STANLEY

Respondent

Hearing:

13 August 2013

Counsel:

J Coates for Appellant

S Stanley, in person, Respondent

Judgment:

22 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 October 2013 at 4.00pm pursuant to Rule
11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Claro, PO Box 11-455, Wellington Copy to:
Appellant in person

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v STANLEY [2013] NZHC 2765 [22 October 2013]

Contents

The appeal  [1]
The factual matrix  [3]
The subsequent medical reports  [17]
The District Court judgment  [26]
The Corporation’s argument  [30]
Mr Stanley’s position  [31]
Analysis
(a)An appeal on a question of law  [33]
(b)The relevant legislation  [36]
(c)Did Judge Joyce make an error of law?
(i)Personal injury  [43]
(ii)Treatment injury  [47]

Result [60]

The appeal

[1] The Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) appeals, with leave,1 against a judgment given by Judge Joyce QC, in the District Court at Whangarei on 10 September 2012.2 On appeal from a review decision, Judge Joyce held that the Corporation was liable to provide “treatment injury” cover for Mr Stanley, under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act).

[2] In granting leave to appeal, Judge Beattie identified two questions of law:3

(a)Whether the Judge misapplied the law in relation to the right to cover; in particular, the requirement that a claimant must have a physical injury, in accordance with s 26 of the Act; and

(b)Whether the Judge misinterpreted s 32 of the Act, by failing to take account of the definition of “treatment injury”. That does not include a personal injury that is wholly or substantially caused by a person’s underlying health condition.

1       Accident Compensation Corporation v Stanley [2013] NZACC 58.
2       Stanley v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZACC 302.
3       Accident Compensation Corporation v Stanley [2013] NZACC 58 at paras [3] and [4].

The factual matrix

[3] In May 2007, Mr Stanley reported having difficulty in remaining steady, while walking. His condition worsened over the following two to three weeks. On
21 May 2007, Mr Stanley’s general medical practitioner referred him to the Whangarei Base Hospital for an urgent assessment. From that time, until he saw an orthopaedic surgeon in July 2009, Mr Stanley was referred to about ten other health professionals.

[4] Following Mr Stanley’s initial examination at the hospital, he was thought to have suffered a stroke. As a result, CT and MRI scans were taken, but only of his head. Subsequently, he was discharged with an outpatient appointment made for two months later.

[5] At the outpatient appointment, Mr Stanley pointed out to the attending medical practitioner that he believed the problem was emanating from his neck, rather than his head. That assertion became a constant theme of the interactions between Mr Stanley and the various health professionals by whom he was seen over the next two years.

[6] On 20 July 2007, Dr McGrath,…

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 Stanley 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: [2013] NZHC 2765
Decision Date: 22 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) against a decision of the District Court that the Corporation was liable to provide “treatment injury” cover for Mr Stanley, under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The appeal hinged on two questions of law identified by the judge who granted leave to appeal. The first was whether the District Court had misapplied the law in relation to the right to cover, particularly the requirement that a claimant must have a physical injury, in accordance with s 26 of the Act. The second was whether the District Court misinterpreted s 32 of the Act by failing to take account of the definition of “treatment injury”, which does not include a personal injury that is wholly or substantially caused by a person’s underlying health condition.

The court held that the District Court did not make an error of law in finding that Mr Stanley had suffered a personal injury, as defined in s 26 of the Act, which was caused by a delay in treatment. However, the court found that the District Court did not expressly consider whether the exacerbated personal injury was caused wholly or substantially by Mr Stanley’s underlying health condition. The court held that it was within the power of the Corporation to put evidence before the Court to assist in assessing the true cause of the exacerbated personal injury, but it did not do so. Therefore, the court found that Judge Joyce was entitled to find that a treatment injury had been proved.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judge Joyce’s decision as to the availability of treatment injury cover was confirmed. The court emphasised that nothing recorded or concluded in the judgment should be taken as any kind of adverse reflection on any of the health professionals by whom Mr Stanley was seen.

Orders