Laws207 Acc - Accident Compensation Act - The first claim is there an injury under section PDF

Preview

Summary

Accident Compensation Act - The first claim is there an injury under section 20(2)(a)? The second claim is treatment injury by misdiagnosis. The last claim is mental injury....

Description

ACC-tutorial 8 As this injury has occurred after 2002 this is covered under the Accident Compensation Act 2002(ACC), there are three claims Julie can make to ACC. The first claim is there an injury under section 20(2)(a)? The second claim is treatment injury by misdiagnosis. The last claim is mental injury. The first claim is there an injury under section 20(2)(a)? Yes as the injury has occurred after 2001. On Saturday 15 November 2014 in NZ while crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing, a car approached at a reasonably fast speed and not stopping at the crossing hits Julie. Julie has seriously injured her knee. During the accident Julie is left bleeding badly and in a state of semi consciousness. Jill is also injured as she had jumped out of the way in order to avoid the car, causing her to twist her ankle well landing. Julie accident has caused a personal injury. The case of ACC v Mitchell applies to section 25(a) of the ACC act where it describes an accident as an application of force to the external to the body. As Julie was hit by a car this can sufficient application of external force to her body. Section 35(1)(a)(i) of the act states that a personal injury suffered because of the movement of the motor vehicle is covered. As Julie was hit by a car which is a motor vehicle and has suffered from personal injury. This could mean she may be covered under motor vehicle injury. The second claim is whether issue with her knee is covered and whether her infected knee is also covered under the act. As she is receiving on going treatment from GP and orthopaedic she will be cover as she is being clinically diagnosed. Section 33 of the act states that treatment includes the giving of the treatment, a decision not to provide treatment, and failure to provide treatment. Under section 33 (d) states that failure to provide treatment in a timely manner. When the GP finally referred her to the Orthopaedic surgeon the X-ray reveal that the infection has extended and that clearly the antibiotics were not working, also failed to treat her with anything else. Section 32(1)(c) states that treatment injury suffered by personal injury is not an ordinary consequence of the injury but rather a result of failing to treat or misdiagnosis. In application, Julie was given antibiotics to address the infections in her knee. After the GP realised theses were not working, he continued in giving her antibiotics until a further 8 months and increasing pain had occurred. The GP’s failure to treat her effectively by changing medications she was on after realising they were not working. Could amount to a treatment injury section 33 of the act. If her knee was tended to earlier, another reconstruction may not have been needed, thus causing no further problem for her knee. The case Corbishley v ACC, the claimant had an underling medical condition which was not quickly diagnosed or treatment thus resulting in further damages. Whilst she had an underlining medical condition, if it had been diagnosed and treated earlier then further damage may not have occurred. She can claim under failing to diagnose. Therefore Julie should be able to claim under failing treat or diagnosis. ACC v McEnteeris also applicable as it was said that relevant treatment that should be given, is the treatment needed once the nature of the claimant’s condition becomes apparent during the course of the treatment. Therefore once the GP had known that the antibiotics were not work, he should have prescribe something else or done further assessments to address the issue. Claim 3 mental injury The case of ABM v ACC states that a report is needed from the GP to say that the mental injury has been clinically dragooned in order for it be covered under the ACC act. Under section 26(1)(c) it states that a mental injury maybe covered if it is suffered by the claimant because of the physical injuries they have suffered. Utilising the ‘but for’ test we can establish whether Julie’s depression is result of her initial injuries. Therefore but for the failing to treat her knee instantly with the correct and through treatment, than she may not have needed a second knee reconstruction, thus leading to

further problems that could not be fixed, leading her to be unable to work and eventually resigning. The case ACC v Ambros the test is taken, then Julie may be covered under mental injury In con, if Jill wants to claim under the act then she must lodge claim with the ACC for cover of her personal injuries. Then they will decide if whether she will have cover and if she does then they will let her know what entitlements if she is does then they will let her know what entitlement she is entitled to. Jill may be entitled to rehabilitation or monetary compensation to assist in her unemployment status under section 69 of the act. Under section 105(2) the corporation must determine whether the claimant is unable to engage in work due to their personal injury. Claim 4 if Jill had not fallen and twisted her ankle she would not covered under ACC as section 26 states that the mental injury needs to be linked to the physical injury. In Queenstown lakes v Palmer secondary victim may be make a claim in nervous mental shock. In applying this to facts as Jill witness Julie being hit by the car she may be covered under a claim in tort for nervous and mental shock....