New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Toxic exposure

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2010

Purdie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her scleroderma was caused by occupational solvent exposure: epidemiological evidence is weak and inconsistent, summary OR for women is below the 2.0 threshold, no exceptional or quantifiable individual exposure was established, and no plausible biological mechanism or distinguishing clinical pattern was shown; therefore s.30(2) causation not established and s.30(3)/Schedule 2 inapplicable, so cover is denied.
19 Apr 2004

Clarke v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

The judge accepted the expert medical opinion that the appellant's exposures were brief and insufficient to cause the alleged systemic conditions, that the facial lesions were explained by staphylococcus aureus and not by the sealant/stain, and therefore the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her ongoing symptoms were caused by the 31 October 2000 exposure; appeal dismissed.
15 Jan 2004

Sarten v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 2
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that exposure to the alleged chemicals caused his reported symptoms because the substances were unanalyzed, exposure was undocumented and medical evidence was insufficient and nonspecific; therefore ACC’s refusal of cover was upheld.