8 Aug 2013
On the balance of probabilities the C3/4 myelopathy/myelomalacia was substantially caused by an ongoing degenerative process present before the fusion; any additional stress from the C5/6–C6/7 fusion operated as an aggravation or acceleration of that degeneration and does not attract cover under s26, therefore ACC was entitled to suspend entitlements and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Jul 2011
On the balance of probabilities the available contemporaneous imaging and expert panel opinion demonstrate pre-existing degenerative rotator cuff disease and render it more likely than not that the need for the 2010 surgery was not primarily caused by the 29 October 2002 accident; ACC's decision to decline funding was therefore likely correct, subject to a requested further report from the operating surgeon.
25 Jul 2008
The court found the appellant's ongoing pain is attributable to identifiable pre-existing degenerative pathology (lumbar spondylosis and hip osteoarthritis), not a chronic pain syndrome as a primary mental injury causally linked to the covered 2000 strain; the psychiatric opinion was insufficiently specific on etiological contribution, so the suspension of entitlements was lawful and the appeal failed.
24 May 2005
On the balance of probabilities a reputable expert (Dr Grayson) maintained there remained some causal connection between the 15 April 1990 injury and the appellant's ongoing symptoms; because degeneration was not shown to be the exclusive cause the appellant's entitlements continue and the appeal is allowed.
5 Aug 2003
Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned decision was a factual finding based on medical evidence that the 1983 injury had long since healed and that the degeneration from the 1967 accident was the cause of the ongoing condition; no question of law was demonstrated.
21 Jul 2003
On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Appellant’s ongoing incapacity remained significantly caused by the January 1996 specific injury (bicipital tendonitis) and was not shown to be caused wholly or substantially by degenerative changes; therefore the Respondent’s decision of 25 June 1999 to suspend weekly compensation was incorrect and must be set aside and compensation reinstated from June 1999.
1 Mar 2001
On the balance of probabilities the appellant's present incapacity was wholly or substantially due to longstanding degenerative disease of the lumbar spine rather than continuing effects of the 1985 accident; accordingly the respondent's decision to suspend entitlements under s116(1) was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Feb 2001
On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that her ongoing pain and incapacity are caused by the August 1995 accident for which she has cover; the weight of medical evidence (Nicholson and Hooker) establishes degeneration as the predominant current cause and therefore the respondent properly terminated ongoing entitlements under s116.