New Zealand's leading specialists in personal injury compensation.
If you have been injured by accident, workplace injury, medical treatment or a victim of crime, John Miller Law can help ensure you are getting your full compensatory entitlements. Although we are based in Wellington, we can help you wherever you live in New Zealand.
A landmark ruling means a small but significant number of Kiwis who have developed terminal lung cancer through secondary exposure to asbestos will now be covered by ACC.
John Miller Law solicitor Beatrix Woodhouse, who had been working on this case for the past three years, said “This case has been my leading interest for a few years, so I am pleased with the result – but this is obviously not about me. There are many wars being waged within the field of asbestos-related conditions, so this is a small win.”
Deanna Trevarthen, who died in 2016 at the age of 45, was one of New Zealand’s youngest sufferers of mesothelioma, or asbestos-related lung cancer.
However, ACC says cover for the illness is only available for people who inhale asbestos at work, not in other circumstances. Ms Trevarthen’s claim had earlier been turned down by an ACC reviewer and a District Court judge.
Ms Trevarthen’s father worked as an electrician and she was exposed to asbestos as a child, when he came home after work and hugged her and played with her. She also sometimes visited building sites where the toxic material was present.
Her family’s lawyer, Beatrix Woodhouse told Justice Mallon that if ACC had covered Ms Trevarthen it could have helped her live longer.
“One advantage of ACC cover is treatment such as Keytruda and … the effect of this treatment is it can extend one’s life. Therefore, ACC cover potentially equates to prolonging one’s life.”
Ms Woodhouse told the court mesothelioma almost exclusively arises from inhalation of asbestos and the question was could Ms Trevarthen’s exposure to it be classed as an accident under the ACC legislation.
Justice Mallon reserved her decision. We will keep you posted…
A woman’s appeal against ACC’s decision to
decline funding for schizophrenia treatment after she was raped has been
The woman’s application for help had been
turned down in 2016 on the grounds her condition could not
substantially be attributed to a sexual assault in 1988 when she was aged
In the Wellington District Court Judge CJ McGuire concluded the rape had meaningfully contributed to her diagnosed schizophrenia.
John Miller, principal for John Miller Law, said
the outcome was a “significant” decision and would likely
be a ruling his firm would refer back to in future cases. He was hopeful
the decision reflected a changing attitude towards mental
Every employed person in New Zealand pays levies, yet they are poorly understood. ACC levies effectively call on earners to fund part of the accident compensation scheme. They are calculated according to “business industry classification” codes (BICs) and “classification units” (CUs). The idea is that higher risk industries contribute more to the scheme in levies. You choose your BIC when you register for GST or file a tax return. ACC then assigns you a “classification unit” based on your business’ activity and your level of risk. However, ACC do not always get it right.
John Miller Law can help you by looking at your levies situation and advising you on whether your levy rate is correct. Even if it is, we can look at whether there are ways you can reduce your bill. If we cannot negotiate a change in levies with ACC, we can represent you or your business in challenging the decision through the review process. Since your levy is applied to each $100 of liable earnings, small adjustments in your levy rate can have a significant effect on your overall bill. The ACC legislation has different rules for self-employed persons as well, which can result in the wrong CU being applied when the person’s levies bill is prepared.
Recent case example
A self-employed (NZ) film worker came to us recently for advice on her levies bill. She had previously worked in two roles, the first was as a coordinator looking at what material feature films could legally use. The second was also as a coordinator, but she was managing and outsourcing work for a company. ACC applied the “Creative artists, musicians, writers, and performers” CU to her first role, and the “Motion picture and video production and other motion picture and video activities (not elsewhere classified)” CU to her second. The problem with this was that a self-employed person’s levy should be based on the nature of the work they do (in her case, coordinating), not the business or context in which the work was done (film or creative arts). We advised her to seek a different CU, and she eventually secured a change to an Office Administration CU along with a reduction in her levies bill.
If you have concerns about your levies, or if you would just like an opinion, get in touch with us for an application pack.
Soon after she was born, the appellant was seriously assaulted and injured by her birth mother. The appellant’s physical injuries were treated and the appellant healed. However, when the appellant was five years old, her adoptive parents told her about the injuries her birth mother had inflicted. From that point onwards, the appellant suffered a pain disorder and developed a number of psychological conditions, which fell within the definition of “mental injury” in s 27 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act).
The ACC declined cover for the appellant’s mental injuries on the basis that they were not caused directly by her physical injuries. Instead they were caused by the appellant learning of her injuries and the circumstances in which they were inflicted. This decision was upheld in the District Court.
At the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant (inter alia) that there was no requirement for direct causation, which had not been drafted into the legislation. It was also submitted that strong policy considerations supported broad mental injury cover, operating in a sensible way. After all, the appellant shouldn’t have been denied cover because her foster parents were transparent about the injuries she sustained as a baby!
The High Court found that the appellant need not establish direct causal link between her physical injuries and mental injuries in order to qualify for cover under s 26(1)(c) of the Act. Instead, the Court held that s 26(1)(c) will require that the claimant’s physical injuries are both a factual and legal cause of his or her mental injuries. These requirements will be satisfied when two tests are met. First (and subject to possible exceptions), the “but for” test must be satisfied. Second, the physical injury must “materially contribute” to the claimant’s mental injury. Material contribution means the physical injury must be the cause of the mental injury in some genuine or meaningful way, rather than in just a trivial or minor way. The High Court noted that the District Court had erred in law in not applying the appropriate legal test of causation, and it was directed that the appellant’s case be remitted back to District Court for rehearing.
Victims of offending are now eligible to receive greater awards of reparation following an amendment of the law to allow recovery of consequential loss not covered by ACC. Section 32(5) of the Sentencing Act 2002 now allows reparation to be awarded for the full difference between a victim’s full earnings and the 80% that the injured claimant may receive under ACC. In the decision of WorkSafe NZ v Wai Shing (2017), the victim was a 27 year old harvester with severe spinal injuries, deemed never able to work again. His employer was found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. He was awarded $452,600, discounted by 50% to take into account to the ethos of ACC. In the end, the court awarded the victim $226,300 with an additional $110,000 for emotional harm.
Four New Zealanders suffering complications from faulty hip implants have won the chance to appeal against the decision to deny them compensation. After a lengthy legal battle, John Miller Law, representing the four patients, will go to the High Court to argue that the implantation of a defective prosthesis is a physical injury.
“We believe that having a defective implant in your body is a physical injury and, by being defective, that has ACC cover as a treatment injury,” says Brittany Peck of JML. “it is not proper treatment to have a defective device implanted or remain in your body. Some of them are still suffering and have ongoing pain and high levels of metal in their blood.”