New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2013

Roser v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 246
Court

District Court

The appeals are dismissed because the appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities a demonstrable physical personal injury (whether neurotoxicity or other organic injury) causally linked to workplace exposures or the accepted acute burn; medical opinion from specialists and the ACC Toxicology Panel found no objective evidence of physical or neurotoxic injury and a mere temporal association is insufficient to establish causation for ACC cover; claimant also failed to provide adequate medical evidence of incapacity for weekly compensation under the Act and obligations in s55 we…
15 Apr 2011

Roser v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that workplace chemical exposures caused his tinnitus; the uncontradicted specialist evidence (Dr Walls) concluded exposures were neither acute nor cumulative enough and literature does not support solvents as a cause of tinnitus.
2 Sept 2010

Flett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 151
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or dermatitis was caused by workplace exposure to glutaraldehyde; although MCS may constitute a personal injury if proven, the medical evidence was equivocal and the necessary causal nexus under s.30(2) was not established, so ACC's decision declining cover is upheld.
11 May 2010

Whiting v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 71
Court

District Court

The court preferred the objective independent and respondent experts and found the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he inhaled or retained toxic quantities of heavy metals sufficient to cause neurotoxicity or that his medical conditions were caused by workplace heavy metal exposure; therefore ACC's decision to decline cover under Section 30 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Nov 2001

Davis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 307
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that exposure to glutaraldehyde caused her multiple chemical sensitivity; the evidential gap on causation is fatal to the claim and the Corporation's decision to decline cover for MCS is upheld.
21 Mar 2001

Robertson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 58
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish a causal connection between the 1989 Grazon exposure (for which only irritant dermatitis was accepted) and the 1999 Plasti‑cote symptoms; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not a compensable personal injury under the Act, and the 1999 exposure was not workplace connected, therefore the respondent's decision to decline further entitlements is upheld.
1 Aug 2000

Prichard v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 196
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish that MCS constitutes a personal injury within section 4 and failed to prove the section 7(1)(a),(b) and (c) requirements because (i) the etiology of MCS is uncertain and alternative non-work explanations exist, (ii) exposure levels at the workplace were likely low and not shown to be the specific cause, and (iii) similar non‑work exposures occurred, so the statutory causal nexus and increased risk required by s7 were not proved.
23 Dec 1999

Mitchell v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance,Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 381
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the evidence did not establish, on admissible medical opinion, that the appellant suffered a personal injury caused by workplace chemical exposure; the specialist opinion that exposure was insufficient is determinative and self-diagnosis with supporting literature cannot substitute for medical proof required under section 7.
22 Apr 1997

Matthews v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 62
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the court found insufficient evidence that the workplace possessed a particular property or characteristic (namely demonstrable airborne chemical exposure) that caused or contributed to the appellant's MCS as required by s7. The medical controversy over MCS aetiology meant persuasive, tangible expert evidence of exposure was necessary and was not provided; negative monitoring and contrary expert opinions outweighed the appellant's evidence and workplace observations.
29 Nov 1996

Flay v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 144
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged exposures caused a personal injury or occupational disease within the Act; medical expert opinion did not establish causation for the ongoing symptoms and therefore cover was properly declined.