Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Kumar v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 09/07/08)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
The applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal from my decision delivered on 13 August 2007 under Decision No. 183/07. 
[2]
The issue in the appeal was whether the respondent was correct to decline to grant cover for an intracerebral haemorrhage claimed to have been suffered by him in a motor accident on 24 November 1999. 
[3]
It had been accepted by the respondent that the applicant had suffered an intracerebral haemorrhage, but its contention was that such haemorrhage was caused from non-accident related factors. 
[4]
The essence of my decision was that the more persuasive evidence from medical specialists was that the particular type of haemorrhage which the applicant suffered was one which did not occur as a consequence of a traumatic brain injury, but was one consistent with having its cause in diabetes and hypertension. 
[5]
The medical specialists had determined that the applicant did suffer from diabetes and hypertension and further, that there was no evidence of any traumatic brain injury suffered by the applicant in the motor accident. 
[6]
Following the lodging of the application for leave to appeal, the Registry notified the applicant of the requirements of seeking leave under Section 162 of the Act, and of the fact that submissions identifying a question of law need to be filed. 
[7]
Despite numerous follow-up letters from the Registry, the last being on 28 April 2008, no submissions have been received from the applicant in support of his application for leave. 
[8]
The decision sought to be appealed was one where the issue was dependent upon medical evidence, and was wholly a question of fact. 
[9]
Both for the reason that the applicant has not lodged any submissions in support of his application, and secondly, for the reason that no question of law arises from the decision which ought to be the subject of appeal to the High Court, leave to appeal to the High Court is refused. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents