15 Jun 2015
On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish a causal nexus between the 7 July 2011 incident and the shoulder condition necessitating surgery; likewise the appellant failed to discharge the heavy evidential burden under s30 to show a work-related gradual process injury; suppression under s160 was not justified.
18 Mar 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court had ample comprehensible evidence (toxicology panel reports, medical reports) on which to reach a fair conclusion; no arguable error of law was shown in the Judge's evaluation of expert evidence and the discretionary power to appoint an assessor under s157 did not require invocation in the circumstances.
23 Jun 2008
There was conflicting and inconsistent medical evidence and credibility of the appellant's account was central; the Judge was not satisfied the record permitted a final factual determination on whether a physical injury occurred or whether any injury qualified as a gradual-process claim, and therefore ordered reconvening of the hearing to hear the appellant's evidence and allow cross-examination before resolving cover.
25 Nov 2003
The revocation was set aside because CRM revoked cover on the incorrect premise that the grant related to a gradual process injury under s30 when the original grant was for an accidental work-related sprain, and CRM failed to obtain sufficient or appropriate medical evidence to justify revocation; therefore cover must be reinstated and costs awarded.