21 Jun 2005
Court held that contemporaneous medical notes from April–July 1996 disclosed swelling, tenderness and symptoms consistent with a discrete physical injury (probable carpal tunnel syndrome and tenosynovitis) at the time cover was granted; revocation was therefore unsustainable and must be quashed, with cover restored for the identified injury.
25 Feb 2003
The court accepted the occupational medicine specialists that the appellant’s current chronic pain syndrome is not causally linked to the 1996 wrist tendinitis for which cover was granted; because the current incapacity is not attributable to the compensable injury the respondent correctly suspended entitlements under s116 and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Oct 2001
The appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that a discrete physical injury caused by a particular workplace task, property or characteristic existed; the medical evidence was non-specific and lacked contemporaneous workplace assessment and therefore did not satisfy s.7's causation requirements, so the respondent's decision to decline cover was correct.
13 Jul 2001
The Review Officer and Dr Nicholson's medical and vocational assessments properly applied the statutory definition in s15 and established the appellant's capacity to perform identified work for 30 hours or more per week; contrary medical opinion did not demonstrate lack of capacity as defined by the Act; no breach of natural justice was shown because the appellant was notified, participated and submitted material to the assessors, therefore the appeal fails.
31 Oct 2000
The court revoked ACC's grant of cover because the claimant failed to establish a discrete physical personal injury as required by s7 and there was insufficient evidence to identify a property or characteristic of any employment task causing such an injury (s7(1)(a)) or to satisfy s7(1)(c); therefore ACC erred in granting cover and the decision is revoked.
27 Oct 2000
On the balance of probabilities the appellant sustained a work‑related tendonitis/OOS type injury in November 1995 caused by Carters' workplace conditions; the Corporation's revocation of cover ab initio was incorrect and cover must be reinstated (entitlement continued and ERC wrongly ceased).
22 Sept 2000
On the preponderance of the medical evidence (original clinical records indicating tenosynovitis, reports from Dr Ching and Mr Taine, confirmation from Dr Fanning and supporting opinion from Dr Bell) the respondent properly accepted the claim as work-related and correctly exercised its discretion under s.104(1) to include the costs in the appellant's 1998/99 experience rating; the appeal is dismissed.
26 Jun 2000
On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffered a physical injury in the course of employment (initial OOS and thoracic spine sprain) caused or substantially contributed to by prolonged computer use under stressful conditions and inadequate workstation ergonomics; that causal nexus satisfies section 7(1) criteria and overcomes competing medical opinion attributing the syndrome to non-physical stress, thereby entitling the appellant to ongoing cover.
19 Jun 2000
The Court found the evidence did not establish that the appellant's current disability was causally connected to the 1990 gradual process injury; the weight of expert medical opinion was that marked degenerative spondylosis (ageing process) substantially or wholly caused the condition, so ACC's decision to cease entitlements under section 10 was correct; appeal dismissed.
3 Feb 2000
Applying the Mcdougall factors the Court found the solicitor's absence and file mishandling a reasonable explanation for delay, the medical evidence and witness testimony established on the balance of probabilities that the appellant received treatment and lodged a claim before 1 July 1992, there is no real prejudice to respondent, and therefore leave to file out of time is granted and the appellant is entitled to cover under the Accident Compensation Act 1982 pursuant to s135.