New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Epidemiological evidence

Legal area

Court

31 May 2019

Estate of Gilchrist v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Claim)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 56
Court

District Court

Epidemiological literature permits only a possible association between asbestos and oesophageal adenocarcinoma limited to heavy, prolonged exposure; claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he experienced heavy or prolonged asbestos exposure (radiology lacked signs of asbestos disease and work history did not establish sufficient disturbance/exposure), so s30 requirements were not met and ACC's decision to decline cover was correct.
23 Dec 2015

Dunckley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 404
Court

District Court

Judge accepted Dr Black's occupational and clinical analysis as tipping the balance of probabilities in favour of a causal link: appellant's long history of repetitive forceful building work produced work related CTS and, on the evidence and clinical reasoning, most likely caused or materially contributed to bilateral ulnar neuritis; absence of definitive epidemiological studies was not determinative and did not outweigh the persuasive expert opinion establishing causation.
22 Sept 2008

Jocelyn v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 232
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the appellant's CTS was caused by repetitive and sustained mouse use in her employment and, based on the Andersen study, persons who use a computer mouse for more than 30 hours per week face a significantly greater risk of CTS than those who do not; therefore the statutory criteria of s30 are satisfied and cover is granted.
1 Oct 2007

Turner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 229
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities, having applied s33(2) and Knox, the court held that the correct comparison group is the general population who do not perform the implicated tasks and that 'significantly greater' requires a measurable/statistically significant increased risk; cumulative epidemiological evidence and credible occupational medical opinion established that persistent carpentry tasks involving sustained abduction/flexion and high static loads exposed the appellant to a significantly greater risk of rotator cuff syndrome, so ACC's decline of cover was set aside and cover granted fr…
7 Apr 2004

Turner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 95
Court

District Court

While the appellant's work contained tasks capable of causing rotator cuff syndrome and non-employment activities were not shown to be material contributors, the appellant failed s33(2)(c) because he did not prove the risk was significantly greater for persons performing the carpentry tasks; appeal dismissed and cover denied.
7 Mar 2000

Turner v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 33
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant developed occupational overuse syndrome/epicondylitis arising out of and in the course of her employment from about November 1996; the employment task and environment had the requisite characteristics and increased keyboarding duties were not shown to exist materially outside work so s.7(1)(a)-(c) are satisfied; the respondent's revocation was set aside and cover granted.

New Zealand Case Law

Estate of Gilchrist v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Claim)

Dunckley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Jocelyn v Accident Compensation Corporation

Turner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Turner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Turner v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation