Russian Adoption Injury Appeal Loss – Immigration Timeline
Child Assaulted Overseas Denied ACC Cover for Mental Injury in Court of Appeal Ruling
Table of Contents
A child adopted into New zealand, who suffered a severe mental injury as a result of a physical assault in Russia when he was young, has been denied Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) cover for his condition.
Teh Court of Appeal has overturned previous decisions, ruling that the causative physical injury did not occur in New Zealand and the child was not ordinarily resident in the country at the time of the assault. This landmark decision clarifies ACC’s jurisdiction and its commitment to New Zealanders.
Background of the Case
the child, referred to as D, was born in Russia in August 2001. While a Russian citizen and residing in Russia, he endured a physical assault as a young child. In August 2004, D was adopted by New Zealanders and afterward emigrated to New Zealand.
In November 2019, D was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a condition directly attributed to the physical injuries he sustained in Russia. He subsequently applied for ACC cover for his mental injury.
ACC’s Initial Decision and Subsequent Appeals
ACC initially declined D’s application for cover.This decision was upheld on review in February 2020, with the reasoning that the personal injury had not been suffered within New Zealand.
the case then proceeded to the district court, where a diffrent outcome was reached.The district court ruled that ACC should have approved D’s cover, arguing that the mental injury, although stemming from an overseas physical injury, was suffered within New Zealand. This decision was subsequently appealed to the High court, which upheld the district court’s ruling.
The matter was then escalated to the Court of Appeal, which has now delivered its final verdict.
Court of Appeal Ruling: Causation and Jurisdiction
In its decision,the Court of Appeal set aside the previous rulings,stating that D is not covered by ACC. Justice Susan Thomas, writing the decision, emphasized that causation was the “primary consideration” as “it is indeed the physical injury which is the root of the mental injury.”
“When D suffered the physical injuries which caused his mental injury,he was neither in New Zealand nor ordinarily resident in New Zealand,” Justice Thomas stated. “It follows that D does not have cover under the Act.”
The court’s interpretation aligns with the overarching purpose of the Accident Compensation Act, which is focused on enhancing the public good and reinforcing the personal injury social contract between New Zealanders.
“The Act cannot be interpreted as intending to provide cover for injuries caused overseas to people who are not ordinarily resident in New Zealand,” the judgment read. “Such an approach would mean the scheme was required to fund the consequences of events outside its jurisdiction and over which it could have no influence.”
ACC’s Response and Empathy
Stewart McRobie, ACC’s deputy chief executive corporate and finance, issued a statement acknowledging the Court of Appeal’s decision. “ACC was seeking clarification of the law and acknowledges the Court of appeal’s decision,” he said.
“ACC acknowledges the impact of the decision on the claimant, and empathises with them and their family.”
The decision made no orders as to costs. This ruling provides crucial clarity on the geographical and residency requirements for ACC cover, notably in cases involving injuries sustained overseas.