A man attended his GP three times with respiratory symptoms, but was not diagnosed with pneumonia until his third visit, by which time he needed hospital treatment and subsequent surgery for empyema as a result of pneumonia. His GP supported a claim for cover for a treatment injury, stating that oral antibiotics at an earlier stage "would have reduced the likelihood of complications". ACC declined cover on the basis that the GP's actions were reasonable and that there was no evidence that the man had pneumonia during his first two visits. On appeal, the District Court emphasised that "the statute sets no objective standards of reasonableness...", and concluded that if there was a realistic possibility of effective treatment with antibiotics, and that opportunity was lost, then there was a "failure to treat", allowing cover. Amosa v ACC [2012] NZACC 77