Manawatu Knitting Mills Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 2 199 IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN MANAWATU KNITTING MILLS LTD DCA 359/96 Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT The appellant has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of this Court issued on 2 July 1998 under No.139/98. In that decision the Learned Judge confirmed the decision of the Review Officer that the appellant's employee Ms Matson had suffered a work injury, being Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, in the course of her employment with the appellant. In her submissions in support of application for leave to appeal Ms Forrest submits that the decision of the Learned Judge was erroneous, in particular that he incorrectly applied sections 7(1) and 7(4) of the Act to the evidence before the Court. In further particularising that submission it is contended that the Learned Judge failed to take N into account relevant evidence, in particular evidence relating to the applicant's non work activities which were contended either caused or contributed to her injury. Similarly she submits that the Learned Judge failed to apply section 7(4) which excludes personal injury caused by non physical stress. For the purposes of the appeal His Honour had the Review Officer's decision and the evidence taken before him, this evidence was supplemented by evidence from two experts submitted for the purpose of the appeal, one of whom was an Orthopaedic Surgeon and the other a specialist in Occupational Medicine. In his decision the Learned Judge has stated that the Court has to be guided by the medical evidence in cases of this nature and in that regard the Learned Judge made certain findings of fact which he held supported the decision of the Review Officer and he found there was nothing in the evidence, either that which had been before the Review Officer, or which had been adduced subsequently, which would contradict the Review Officer's finding. He therefore confirmed that decision, stating that the appellant had not discharged the onus on it that the worker had not suffered a work related injury. Despite the "dressing up" of the grounds of appeal which have been submitted by the appellant, I find that this decision was decided on the facts as they were found or confirmed by the Learned Judge and that no questions of law were involved. All that the Learned Judge did was to apply the facts to the well settled propositions of law applicable to section 7 of the Act. I do not consider that this appeal raises any question of law which ought to be submitted to the High Court for decision and therefore application for leave to appeal is declined. DATED at WELLINGTON 215 day of January 1999 M J Beattie DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Manawatu.doc