ACCforum: High Court ruling means ACC will accept more treatment injury claims - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

High Court ruling means ACC will accept more treatment injury claims

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:59 PM

Quote

High Court ruling means ACC will accept more treatment injury claims
Cate Broughton 18:46, Nov 03 2018


Treatment injury claims should get accepted more often after a High Court ruling, lawyers say.

A landmark High Court ruling means ACC will be more likely to accept claims for injuries resulting from treatment by a health professional, lawyers say.

On Friday Judge Peter Churchman found against ACC in an appeal over two District Court rulings on treatment injury cases.
One case involved a woman who had a stroke as a result of surgery on a brain aneurism and another was a woman was left with incontinence and a numb leg after spinal surgery.
In both cases ACC argued the injuries were an "ordinary consequence" of the treatment and therefore they did not qualify for cover.

But Churchman found ACC had not adequately shown this to be the case and in his ruling clarified the way these claims should be assessed in future.

ACC had relied on medical opinion that there was a significant or increased risk of the complication in deciding to decline cover.

Lawyers representing the claimants argued that ACC should have to prove a complication was "ordinary and expected" and that clarification was needed.
Churchman agreed and said ACC needed to show the problem was more likely than not to occur, or would likely happen in at least 50 per cent of cases.

John Miller Law lawyer Brittany Peek, who represented one of the claimants said the appeal by ACC gave them an opportunity to test this issue in court.
"It's significant because it clarifies what previously had been a somewhat unclarified part of the treatment injury legal test."
In practice it the ruling would make it harder for ACC to turn down treatment injury claims.
"Hopefully now with the High Court clarifying that .... the ACC claims unit will now have to apply that threshold and more people should have cover even if they haven't got lawyers who can assist them in taking it to court."

In 2005 the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 was amended to give wider access to cover for personal injuries from treatment provided by a health professional - known previously as medical misadventure.
Previously cover was only granted for medical errors where the complication was shown to happen in one per cent of cases.

The amended legislation replaced medical misadventure for treatment injury defined as a personal injury suffered during treatment by a registered health professional and "not a necessary part, or ordinary consequence, of the treatment".
An ACC claimant said the Corporation received the ruling on Friday and had not considered it in detail yet.

https://www.stuff.co...-claims-lawyers



ps I cannot place this into the correct subforum as they are all still blocked.

Is there any member of this forum who can open a thread or post anything new into a subforum thread?
2

#2 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1770
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 04 November 2018 - 09:55 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 03 November 2018 - 10:59 PM, said:

ps I cannot place this into the correct subforum as they are all still blocked.

Is there any member of this forum who can open a thread or post anything new into a subforum thread?


no to your question
whatever the reason?
only one that has any sort of meaning would be that the threads are locked for some definite purpose
thomas has stated he has taken legal advice ,and threatens legal action against members on publications he deems to be against him and allegedly defaming so the threads,which mostly he has entered /and or started and created a bun fight within by introducing /intermingling his own personal issues as the theme,seemingly as no obvious other reasons show, to create a debate about himself where he dams others and then moans on the responses he gets-an intent move there in my opinion and the threads are then moved and or locked for the purpose of thomas use on legal action against members postings


anyone else got any idea of why the threads are locked down?
3

#3 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 07 November 2018 - 10:05 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 03 November 2018 - 10:59 PM, said:

ps I cannot place this into the correct subforum as they are all still blocked.

Is there any member of this forum who can open a thread or post anything new into a subforum thread?


Mousey I don't think I can but haven't tried for years.

Your post of the High Court stuff paper work only gives page one of the report, It doesn't give the rest to make the report complete. The other four pages have nothing to do with the Stuff report of Treatment Injury.

off to Chiro will have a more indepth look when I get back.

Can ask stuff to send it too us individually I think.

Would try that.

Mini
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 11 November 2018 - 02:05 PM

View PostMINI, on 07 November 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

Mousey I don't think I can but haven't tried for years.

Your post of the High Court stuff paper work only gives page one of the report, It doesn't give the rest to make the report complete. The other four pages have nothing to do with the Stuff report of Treatment Injury.

off to Chiro will have a more indepth look when I get back.

Can ask stuff to send it too us individually I think.

Would try that.

Mini



Hi ALL

Have asked the author via e-mail to send me a copy of the article.

Nothing so far but am still hoping. I have been awaiting the 'threesome' as in three case in one, to be heard since I found two were held up by one more becoming relevant in October. all by the same judge. Very handy to have for explaination of "ordinary circumstances" or some such thing. This threesome is a very important case for those of us with Treatment Injury.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users