New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 30 interpretation

Legal area

Court

10 May 2007

Sherwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 89
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence established a physical sprain/strain injury to elbows, forearms and wrists caused by forceful, heavy and sometimes awkward house removal work the appellant performed after a period of inactivity, and persons performing those tasks run a significantly greater risk than others, therefore the requirements of s30 are satisfied and ACC's decline of cover was quashed and substituted with a grant of cover.
24 Mar 2005

Simmonds v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 93
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her polymyositis was caused by a work-related exposure to MRSA/Staphylococcus aureus or that her employment had a particular property/characteristic which caused or contributed to the injury and placed her at significantly greater risk than others; specialist medical evidence (Dr Jones and Dr Walker) established no causal link and that colonisation was not an injury, so s30(2) was not satisfied and the ACC decision to decline cover was upheld.
20 Oct 2004

Nolan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 333
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the treating and independent examining medical evidence over the respondent’s file‑based reviewers and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered a physical injury (tendonitis) arising in the course of employment, but remitted the matter to a further review hearing to determine whether the statutory s.30(2) criteria are satisfied; appeal allowed in part and $1,000 plus disbursements awarded to appellant.

New Zealand Case Law

Sherwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Simmonds v Accident Compensation Corporation

Nolan v Accident Compensation Corporation