New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Work-related gradual process

Legal area

Court

5 Jun 2019

Henare v Accident Compensation Corporation (Gradual Process Injury)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 61
Court

District Court

On the evidence the appellant performed prolonged kneeling and lifting over a 25-year period (including the 5000 hours threshold referenced in studies). Interpreting 'significantly' as more than marginal or a statistically significant increased risk, and having regard to the literature showing at least a 26% increased risk (rising when kneeling is associated with lifting), the Court concluded the employment tasks caused or contributed to the knee osteoarthritis and the risk was significantly greater for persons performing those tasks; appeal allowed and cover established.
31 May 2019

Estate of Gilchrist v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Claim)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 56
Court

District Court

Epidemiological literature permits only a possible association between asbestos and oesophageal adenocarcinoma limited to heavy, prolonged exposure; claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he experienced heavy or prolonged asbestos exposure (radiology lacked signs of asbestos disease and work history did not establish sufficient disturbance/exposure), so s30 requirements were not met and ACC's decision to decline cover was correct.
16 May 2019

Bloomfield v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury Work Related Gradual Process)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 51
Court

District Court

Appeal dismissed because claimant failed to establish, on the evidence, that his COPD is caused or materially contributed to by occupational asbestos exposure under s30; imaging and specialist opinions showed no asbestos disease and attributed the condition to long-term smoking, and no Schedule 2 disease was identified, so the s30 three-part test was not satisfied.
8 Nov 2018

Morgan v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 179
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that he suffered a physical personal injury caused or contributed to by workplace pesticide exposure; the medical evidence, including the Toxicology Panel and occupational medicine experts, did not establish a physiological basis or causal link sufficient to satisfy s30(2) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and therefore cover for a work-related gradual process was properly declined.
18 Sept 2018

Ivanov v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 150
Court

District Court

The expert medical evidence established longstanding degenerative osteoarthritis in the left knee that was rendered symptomatic while at work but was not caused or materially contributed to by the employment tasks, and there was no evidence of a significantly greater risk for persons performing those tasks; accordingly the appellant failed to satisfy s30(2)(b) and (c) and cover was properly declined, so the appeal is dismissed.
8 Aug 2018

Maddren v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover Issues)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 127
Court

District Court

The Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her allergic contact dermatitis was caused by a recognised sensitising agent inherent in the work process (s30(3)) or, alternatively, that the s30(2) criteria were satisfied; permethrin was ruled out by testing, the Callington Airez spray was not established as a recognised sensitiser and the expert and panel evidence indicated isothiazolinone or unknown causes were at least as likely and occupational risk was not shown to be significantly greater.
14 Jun 2018

Gilkison v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 88
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the opinion of Dr Walker that degenerative lumbar changes were primarily due to ageing and genetic factors and that occupational exposures, at best, played a minor role; the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that his employment tasks had the particular properties required by s30 or that the risk was significantly greater for persons performing those tasks, therefore the reviewer's endorsement of ACC's decline of the work-related gradual process claim was upheld.
19 Apr 2018

Estate of Trevarthen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Decline Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

Mesothelioma is a disease and, absent qualifying statutory carve-outs (s20(2)(e)-(h)), is excluded from the definition of personal injury under s26(2); alternatively, even accepting asbestos causation generally, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the asbestos inhalation occurred on the specific occasion required by s25(1)(b); accordingly ACC's decisions declining cover are affirmed and the reviewer erred in holding that mesothelioma per se met the statutory definition of personal injury.
8 Feb 2018

Van Essen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 27
Court

District Court

The judge accepted the view that although the appellant's work could be linked to low back pain, there was insufficient credible medical and epidemiological evidence to find that the particular properties of her cleaning tasks caused or contributed to the degenerative lumbar changes shown on MRI (s30(2)(b)(i)); because the threshold in s30 was not met the claim failed and the appeal was dismissed.
28 Jun 2017

Ryman Healthcare v Accident Compensation Corporation (Deemed Review decision S 146)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 72
Court

District Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not establish the s30 three-part test: medical evidence did not support a causal link between the 28 August 2015 lifting incident and carpal tunnel syndrome and there was insufficient evidence that the employment tasks materially caused or increased the risk of the condition; therefore the deemed review decision granting cover was quashed and the primary decision of 10 February 2016 declining cover was reinstated.