New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Work injury definition

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2000

Greenhouse Limited v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 150
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the specialist surgeon's and occupational physician's evidence that the factual event on 1 March 1995 caused the employee's ongoing wrist injury; the pre-existing anatomical abnormality was a predisposing factor but did not negate causation, so the Review Officer's acceptance of a work injury under the Act was correct and was affirmed.
19 Jan 2000

Good Health Wanganui v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 4
Court

District Court

On consent the Court revoked the First Respondent's decision dated 26 February 1999 and referred the substantive question of whether the Second Respondent's injury is a work injury back to a Review Officer for hearing of evidence and determination; no order for costs was made because costs were agreed.
17 Dec 1999

Mt Hutt Skifields v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 377
Court

District Court

The court held that although 'place of employment' has a broad statutory definition, it must be interpreted practically in context; where the employee's contract and duties were confined to the workshop, the entire skifield was not the place of employment for the purposes of the Act, and the injury sustained while engaging in personal recreation on a lunch break occurred outside the place of employment and therefore was not a work injury.
18 May 1999

Bryant v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 124
Court

District Court

The judge found that on the balance of probabilities the appellant's inguinal hernia was not caused by the workplace slip and strain because the contemporaneous medical opinion of Dr Guthrie, supported by the Corporate Medical Advisor and medical literature, outweighed the later surgeon's view that a causal link was possible; accordingly the decision to decline ACC cover was correct.
8 Apr 1999

BOC Gases New Zealand Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 84
Court

District Court

The fall from the tanker on 29 October 1996 was a work injury; the subsequent 14 km walk home did not constitute a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation; the later ulceration, amputations and consequences flowed from the workplace injury and are attributable to it (eggshell skull and foreseeability apply).
18 Mar 1999

Jayco Engineering Limited v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 67
Court

District Court

The Review Officer's credibility finding was entitled to deference; on the balance of probabilities the claimant's evidence and medical diagnosis established that the 3 July 1997 injury was a work injury and s10(2) ageing exclusion did not apply, therefore the Review Officer's decision is upheld.
27 Jan 1999

Kernohan Engineering Limited v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

The review officer's factual findings that the accident occurred were supported by demonstrations and medical reports showing causation consistent with the worker's account; the worker's delayed reporting and ability to complete the day did not negate contemporaneous medical evidence or the credibility of his explanation; therefore the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under ss3 and 6 and the appeal is dismissed.
15 Dec 1998

Tony Elmiger Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 270
Court

District Court

The only issue properly before the Court on this appeal under s65(6)/s89 was whether the Corporation correctly accepted the claimant's injury of 9 July 1997 as a work injury; the injury was undisputed and acceptance was correct, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 May 1998

Big Glory Seafoods v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 90
Court

District Court

The injury was a work injury under s6 because it occurred while the claimant was at his workplace and would not have occurred but for his presence there, and s81 does not apply because 'wilfully' requires that the injury itself be the intended object of the act, which was not proved; appellant failed to establish wilful self-injury.
17 Dec 1997

Leaderbrand Produce Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 264
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the employee's direct evidence that he injured his back at work on 6 March 1995 was not convincingly contradicted; non‑reporting was a relevant but not decisive factor, the Review Officer's credibility findings stand, and therefore the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; appeal dismissed.