Landmark court ruling against ACC

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, Justice 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 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.

John Miller Law lawyer Brittany Peck, who represented one of the claimants, said the appeal by ACC gave them an opportunity to test the issue in court.

‘‘It’s significant because it clarifies what previously had been a somewhat unclarified part of the treatment injury legal test.

‘‘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.

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 spokesperson said the corporation received the ruling on Friday and had not considered it in detail yet.

‘‘More people should have cover even if they haven’t got lawyers who can assist them in taking it to court.’’ Lawyer Brittany Peck