ACC accepted the claim for post-concussion syndrome, contusion of the eye, and a lumbar sprain.
The decision says the man continued to report symptoms, including ongoing concussion and constant discomfort in his back, which he rated as “8.5 out of 10″.
In December 2020, the man returned to work on a limited basis but continued to struggle, particularly with concentration. He worked limited hours during early 2021.
At that time, he told a psychiatrist that during the attack, which he thought may have been racially motivated, he was going to die.
Later that year, ACC approved cover for other PTSD, adding to his existing cover for PTSD and depression.
The man continued to experience difficulties, and in 2022, a GP certified him as only able to work for eight hours a week, noting that he still had significant back pain.
In March the following year, an occupational physician noted the man continued to complain of left lower back pain, flashbacks, nightmares, and difficulty sleeping.
The man argued his back pain was a result of the attack.
She told the man he was capable of sedentary light work and suggested he could return to the job he had at the time of the attack.
Four months later, the decision says, ACC decided there was no reason the man couldn’t work and declined further weekly compensation on the basis that his injury was not preventing him from working.
The man applied for a review of that decision.
In January 2024, after the review, ACC’s decision was quashed, and the man’s weekly compensation resumed, and he didn’t return to work.
ACC was also directed to obtain an up-to-date medical case review for the man’s mental injuries, and he was referred to another occupational specialist.
In July 2024, a GP provided a medical certificate that added a diagnosis of lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy, where a disc presses on the spinal nerve in the lower back, causing back and leg pain.
According to the decision, ACC began investigating that claim.
In September 2024, based on a physiotherapist’s report that the man’s back pain couldn’t be linked to the accident, the claim was declined.
The man then filed a review application against the decision.
After further medical investigations, his application for review was dismissed on the basis that the evidence showed the 2020 assault was unlikely to have caused the disc prolapse injury.
In October last year, the man’s case was reviewed by ACC’s clinical advisory panel, comprising orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists.
It found the man presented with non-specific low back pain after the accident event and was given ACC cover for a “lumbar sprain”.
“The described mechanism of injury, involving an assault with tasering and blows to the head, would not be expected to result in significant injury to the lumbar spine.
“There is no indication of direct impact, torsional load or axial compression to the lower back that would typically be associated with a lumbar disc injury,” the group found.
It went on to say it did not consider the subsequent evidence to support that his back pain was a significant cause of incapacity and the need for rehabilitation.
It also found that most of the low-level back pain the man experienced since the accident was mainly on the left.
And the group found there was no evidence of leg pain or radicular-type symptoms until August 2021, about one year after the accident.
The man went on to appeal ACC’s decision to decline his cover for the lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy in the District Court.
In its decision issued late last month, the District Court dismissed the man’s appeal, finding that, having weighed up all the medical evidence, the man hadn’t established, on the balance of probabilities, that the personal injury he suffered in 2020 caused his lumbar disc prolapse condition with radiculopathy.
“This Court extends its sympathy to the appellant for having endured an undeserved and horrible experience in August 2020 and for the physical and mental health challenges that he has encountered over a number of years.
“However, this Court has to decide his appeal according to the law and weight of the relevant evidence,” the decision said.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.