30 Jun 2015
The court preferred the detailed expert opinion of Dr Hartshorn that hairdressing activities were highly unlikely to produce the ligamentous disruption shown on MRI and that regional pain syndrome could occur without an identifiable precipitating workplace injury; therefore the appellant failed to prove the first limb of s30 on the balance of probabilities and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Apr 2015
On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the treating surgeon's opinion and direct surgical observations, found the tear was not wholly or substantially caused by degenerative change, and concluded the February 2012 lifting event caused the injury requiring surgery; accordingly the appeal is allowed and ACC liable to fund treatment.
30 May 2006
On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffers from COPD in addition to bronchiectasis and workplace exposure to formaldehyde, wood dust and diesel fumes over years materially contributed to and aggravated his respiratory condition; the s30 requirements including the significantly greater risk test in s30(2)(c)(ii) were satisfied for the type of environment in which he worked; accordingly the Reviewer’s decision to revoke cover was quashed and ACC’s revocation set aside and cover and entitlements restored.
23 Jul 1999
The work tasks identified could cause or contribute to extensor tenosynovitis (s7(1)(a)) and non‑work activities did not materially account for it (s7(1)(b)), but the appellant failed to prove s7(1)(c): on balance the risk of developing the condition was not shown to be significantly greater for persons performing the employment task than for those who do not, the Court preferring Dr Monigatti's analysis and epidemiology; therefore no entitlement to cover and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Jun 1999
The appellant has not established physical injury within the meaning of s4; accordingly there is no cover. Alternatively, even if personal injury were established, the evidence does not satisfy s7(1)(b) and (c) because idiopathic/spontaneous acute low back pain is common and there is no clear, cogent expert opinion that the risk is significantly greater for the appellant's employment tasks, so cover under s7 is not available.
25 Mar 1998
The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her symptoms were caused by a particular property or characteristic of her employment as required by s7(1)(a); there was no evidence to satisfy s7(1)(c) that the risk was significantly greater for persons performing the employment task; medical opinion favored psychological/fibromyalgia causation which is excluded by s7(4); accordingly the claim for cover fails and the appeal is dismissed. An extension of time to file the appeal was, however, granted as it was always intended to be lodged and justice required it.