30 Oct 2015
On the medical evidence the appellant suffered a pain condition of indeterminate origin with no demonstrable physical injury causally linked to the claimed accident; ACC therefore had a sufficient evidential basis to suspend entitlements under s117(1) and the appellant failed to discharge the onus to show the suspension was wrong, so the appeal is dismissed.
21 Oct 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the application did not raise a fairly arguable question of law: the evidence was insufficient to establish a probable physical injury or identifiable physical mechanism (even on a microscopic level), and Judge Beattie correctly applied Teen v ARCIC to find that the claimed physiological change was speculative and did not satisfy the statutory requirement for physical injury.
28 May 2010
The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a mechanism of physical injury causing her photophobia; the medical opinion offered was no more than suspicion as to neurotransmitter modulation and, even if established, a modulation or physiological disturbance of neurotransmission does not constitute 'physical injury' (bodily harm or damage) under the Act; therefore the condition is not a compensable treatment injury.
17 Sept 2007
Although medical evidence on balance established the appellant's tinnitus was caused by the hospital treatment, tinnitus as described is a neurophysiological disorder and not a 'physical injury' within the Act's definition; therefore it cannot attract cover unless shown to be caused by a separate physical injury (for example cochlear damage). Consequently the appeal fails.
10 Apr 2006
Contemporaneous specialist medical evidence established that the appellant suffered a chronic generalized pain syndrome (fibromyalgia) predating and present at the time she sought cover; there was no reliable evidence of a discrete physical injury attributable to the 13 July 2002 work events as required by s26, therefore ACC correctly concluded the initial grant of cover was made in error and validly revoked it under s65(1).
27 Aug 2004
Specialist medical opinion outweighed the GP diagnosis and established that the appellant suffered a regional pain syndrome without objective evidence of a discrete physical injury; because the Act requires a physical injury under s29 for cover and no such injury was proved on the balance of probabilities, the respondent's decision to decline cover was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Aug 2004
The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant did not establish an identifiable physical injury within the meaning of the Act; neuronal 'budding' or rewiring and chronic pain syndromes, as evidenced here, do not meet the statutory requirement for a physical injury and established precedents (Teen and related cases) were followed.
26 Oct 1999
Although the claimant's original ocular symptoms were caused by the work environment, there is insufficient medical evidence of any physical injury or permanent physiological change causing those symptoms; therefore claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities a personal injury within s.7 and the Review Officer's decision awarding cover is set aside.