King v Accident Compensation Corporation and another

King v Accident Compensation Corporation and another

Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the particular property or characteristic of his employment caused or materially contributed to his osteolysis to the extent required by s30(2) because credible medical evidence established a strong association between the condition and non-employment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] NZACC 135
Parties
Appellant: Kipa King; First Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation; Second Respondent: Primary Producers Co-operative Society Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Accident Compensation Appeal / Hearing and Reserved Judgment in District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Gradual Process, Causation, Cover Under S30, Osteolysis, Comparative Risk
Accident Compensation Personal Injury Employment Law Gradual Process Causation Cover Under S30 Osteolysis Comparative Risk

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kipa King

Appellant

Accident Compensation Corporation

First Respondent

Primary Producers Co-operative Society Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Accident Compensation Appeal / Hearing and Reserved Judgment in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether osteolysis of the distal clavicle is a work-related gradual process injury under s30 of the 2001 Act
  2. 2 Whether the particular property or characteristic of the employment task caused or contributed to the injury and is not found to any material extent in non-employment activities
  3. 3 Whether the risk of the injury is significantly greater for persons performing the employment task than for others

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the particular property or characteristic of his employment caused or materially contributed to his osteolysis to the extent required by s30(2) because credible medical evidence established a strong association between the condition and non-employment weightlifting and the appellant did not exclude gym weightlifting as a substantial cause; therefore s30 is not satisfied and cover is not available.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs