Accident Compensation Corporation v Studman - [2013] NZHC 2598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-002706 [2013] NZHC 2598

BETWEEN
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Appellant

AND

BRIAN FREDERICK STUDMAN Respondent

Hearing: 10 September 2013

Appearances:

D Tuiqereqere for Plaintiff
Respondent in person

Judgment:

4 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Ellis on 4 October 2013 at 4.55 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v STUDMAN [2013] NZHC 2598 [4 October 2013]

[1] On 22 March 2010 Mr Studman underwent surgery to treat Dupuytren’s

disease following diagnosis of that disease in his left ring finger in 2009.1

[2] In December 2010 Mr Studman lodged a claim for cover with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for “stiffness” in his left hand arising from his earlier surgery. ACC declined his claim. That decision was upheld following an internal review.

[3] Mr Studman then appealed to the District Court. In a judgment dated 26

October 2012 Judge Joyce QC overturned the ACC’s decision and granted cover to Mr Studman for “injury manifesting in the form of untoward and excessive left hand stiffness”.2

[4] ACC sought leave to appeal from this decision and leave was granted by

Judge Beattie, who noted:3

… I find that there is a significant question of law in issue, namely whether the requirement of a treatment injury being a personal injury, that is a physical injury, as required by s 26 of the Act, has been established as a matter of fact and law in this case based on the evidence as presented to the court.

[5] Before turning to consider the question of law so identified, it is necessary to set out a little more of the factual background.

Background

[6] Prior to his 2009 diagnosis, Mr Studman had been surgically treated for
Dupuytren’s Disease in his right hand in 1997. He also has a strong family history of the disease; his brother and father had the same condition.

1 Dupuytren’s Contracture is defined in Black’s Medical Dictionary (42nd edition) as:
Progressive thickening and contracture of the fascia in the palm of the hand with adherence of the overlying skin. A clawing deformity of the fingers, particularly the little and ring finger, develops. Some patients also have liver disease, diabetes, epilepsy and gout. Treatment may be unnecessary but surgery can help prevent fixed deformity. Research suggests that injection with collagenase may help in mild disease. Recurrence is not uncommon even after operation.
2 Studman v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZACC 352.
3 Accident Compensation Corporation v Studman [2013] NZACC 128 at [8].

[7] In 2009 Mr Studman’s symptoms included pain, tenderness, inflammation and increased contracture. By June of that year he had a “20° PIP joint contracture”. By October, the PIP joint contracture was measured at 30°. It was determined that surgical treatment was required.

[8] The surgery was undertaken by a hand surgeon, Dr Taylor, on 22 March

2010.4 The initial indication was that the surgery was…

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 Studman 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 2598
Decision Date: 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Accident Compensation Corporation v Studman involved a claim by Mr Studman for cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 following surgery to treat Dupuytren's disease in his left hand. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) declined his claim for cover of "stiffness" in his left hand arising from the surgery. The District Court had previously overturned the ACC’s decision and granted cover to Mr Studman. The ACC then sought leave to appeal to the High Court, which was granted. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the requirement of a treatment injury being a personal injury, specifically a physical injury, had been established as a matter of fact and law. The court found that Mr Studman had not suffered a physical injury that was not a necessary part or ordinary consequence of the treatment, and therefore the stiffness he experienced was not covered by the Act. The court held that neither pain nor stiffness by itself constitutes a physical injury and that there must be a precise identification of the underlying physical injury to determine if it is a necessary part or ordinary consequence of the treatment.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory requirements under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, particularly sections 26 and 32, which define "personal injury" and "treatment injury" respectively. The court held that the District Court Judge had erred by not requiring a precise identification of the physical injury caused by the treatment. The court concluded that the stiffness experienced by Mr Studman was an ordinary consequence of the surgery and not a treatment injury as defined by the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the District Court was overturned.

Orders