The woman had decided on sterilisation after having three children to different fathers, and a history of difficult relationships. (File photo)

A woman who had a child after a botched sterilisation operation is appealing for weekly ACC compensation for the years she was unable to work while caring for him.

The unnamed mother had the operation in 1998. She already had three children by different fathers, and a history of difficult relationships, terminated pregnancies and miscarriages.

In 2006, when in her early 40s, she began putting on weight and, fearing she might have a tumour, went to a doctor. She was shocked to discover she was 34 weeks pregnant.

FAIRFAX NZ Justice Stephen Kos said that, without a childcare arrangement, the woman's ability to work was compromised. "A baby is not an optional thing, you can't just put it in a cupboard."

​It turned out that clips which should have been attached to the fallopian tube were instead attached to part of her bladder.

READ MORE:

* Dozens of ACC claims rejected for pregnancy due to failed sterilisations

* Mum gets ACC after failed sterilisation

* ACC to appeal botched sterilisation ruling

* Supreme Court to decide on 'leapfrog' appeal in failed sterilisation case

* Mother's claim for ongoing costs after failed sterilisation rejected

ACC accepted cover for personal injury by accident, but said her entitlements were limited to the effects of the pregnancy, and a short period after her son was born.

ERIN JONASSON The woman relied on the domestic purposes benefit while raising her son. The court heard that was about 40 per cent of what it would have been had she received earnings-related compensation from ACC. (File photo)

Wednesday's hearing in the Court of Appeal in Wellington was the latest in a long-running series about her case.

She maintained she could not go back to her former job because she had to care for the boy, who is now 11.

She relied on a domestic purposes benefit, which was about 40 per cent of what she could have received in earnings-related compensation from ACC, the Court of Appeal in Wellington was told on Wednesday.

The court was told the claim was not for a specific period, and entitlement probably started to reduce when the boy started school.

The president of the court, Justice Stephen Kos, described the woman as a solo parent seeming to have very limited resources intellectually, economically and familially.

Her lawyer, Andrew Beck, said her inability to work was a consequence of the personal injury, even though the injury itself was over.

ACC said that, to qualify for weekly compensation, the woman had to be unable to work because of personal injury by accident, not because of parenting choices or childcare arrangements.

Justice Kos said that, without a childcare arrangement, her ability to work was compromised.

"A baby is not an optional thing, you can't just put it in a cupboard," he said.

But ACC lawyer Andrew Butler said many women were able to work after giving birth.

Under the law, ACC must decide whether a person was unable, because of their personal injury, to do the same work they did when they suffered the injury.

Parliament had drawn a line, for ACC purposes, around personal injuries, physical and mental, that stopped a person from working, Butler said.

The three Court of Appeal judges reserved their decision.