Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2025] NZHC 3371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000513 [2025] NZHC 3371

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER OF

a special leave application pursuant to s 162 of the Act

BETWEEN

SATEND PRASAD

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 11 June 2025

Appearances:

M Edison for the Applicant F Becroft for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 November 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Edison Tam Lawyers, Auckland Medico Law Limited, Auckland

PRASAD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2025] NZHC 3371 [6 November 2025]

Introduction

[1] Satend Prasad worked as a welder/fitter and fitter/machinist for many years. He made a claim for cover for left glenohumeral osteoarthritis as a work-related gradual process injury. In a series of decisions, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) declined cover based on medical evidence that the condition was not work-related. The third and final refusal decision was upheld on independent review. The review decision was then upheld by Judge A A Sinclair.1 Judge D L Henare declined leave to appeal to this Court.2

[2]Mr Prasad now seeks special leave to appeal the decision of Judge Sinclair.

[3]ACC opposes the application.

[4]This application requires me to decide the following issues:

(a)Is it reasonably arguable that the Judge made an error of law when determining causation according to s 30(2) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act)?

(b)Is it reasonably arguable that the Judge made an error of law when applying the “significantly greater risk test” under s 30(2A) of the Act?

(c)In all the circumstances, ought special leave to appeal be granted?

Background

Procedural history

[5] On 22 May 2019, Mr Prasad reported a shoulder sprain resulting from lifting a heavy wet pin at work. ACC granted cover for this incident.

[6] Mr Prasad pursued treatment for the injury but his symptoms persisted. A CT scan of Mr Prasad’s left shoulder identified severe arthrosis in the left glenohumeral

1 Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 182.
2 Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation [2025] NZACC 34.

joint. This led to discussions of surgery with an orthopaedic surgeon, Craig Bell. Accordingly, he sought cover for this.

[7] On 30 April 2021, ACC declined cover as the osteoarthritis was merely an underlying condition made apparent by Mr Prasad’s shoulder sprain.

[8] Mr Prasad then lodged a Work-Related Gradual Process Injury (WRGPI) claim. Again, ACC declined, on the basis of medical opinion from Dr Chris Walls and Dr John Monigatti.

[9] Mr Prasad applied for a review of the decision. The Reviewer quashed the decision and directed that a worksite assessment be obtained and Mr Prasad be referred for an independent medical assessment, following which a new cover decision would be issued. The opinion of Dr David Payne, a specialist occupational and environmental physician, was produced.

[10] On 9 June 2023, ACC issued…

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 Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation 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: [2025] NZHC 3371
Decision Date: 6 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation involved Satend Prasad, a former welder/fitter and fitter/machinist, who sought cover for left glenohumeral osteoarthritis as a work-related gradual process injury. ACC declined his claim, citing medical evidence that his condition was not work-related. After multiple appeals and refusals, Prasad sought special leave to appeal the final decision to the High Court. ACC opposed the application. The central issues were whether the Judge made errors of law in determining causation and applying the "significantly greater risk test" under the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

The court found that it was reasonably arguable that the Judge erred in her causation assessment under s 30(2) of the Act. The Judge concluded that Prasad's work tasks did not cause or contribute to his injury, relying on a consensus among the experts that his work did not cause his osteoarthritis. However, the court found that Dr Walls, one of the experts, acknowledged that Prasad's work had aggravated his condition, which could be considered a contributing cause under the Act. Moreover, the Judge did not fully consider the context of Prasad's work and other evidence that suggested a causal link. The court also found that it was reasonably arguable that the Judge erred in applying the "significantly greater risk test" under s 30(2A) of the Act. The Judge concluded that ACC had discharged its onus of proving that the risk of injury was not significantly greater for persons performing Prasad's work tasks. However, the experts' opinions were that there was a lack of evidence demonstrating a significantly greater risk, rather than proving that such a risk did not exist. Thus, the court found that the Judge's conclusion on this point was not fully supported by the evidence.

Considering these potential errors of law and the significant impact on Prasad, the court granted special leave to appeal. It found that the appeal was worthy of scarce judicial resources and in the interests of justice. The court awarded Prasad costs and reasonable disbursements.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, and Prasad was awarded 2B costs and reasonable disbursements.

Orders