New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Gradual process injury

Legal area

Court

2 May 2019

Brereton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Surgery)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 38
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence of a longstanding degenerative subacromial impingement (including OS acromiale) rendering the supraspinatus tendon abnormal outweighed the treating surgeon's opinion of acute causation; the mechanism described was more consistent with rendering a pre-existing degenerative tear symptomatic rather than causing a new tear. Temporal coincidence alone did not establish causation under s25, so the injury requiring surgery is a gradual process injury not covered by ACC and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Feb 2018

Carson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 34
Court

District Court

The court found the deemed grant of cover for the January 2010 shoulder claim was made in error because contemporaneous records and multiple expert opinions established a pre‑existing degenerative rotator cuff tear with no reliable evidence of a discrete traumatic event in January 2010, permitting lawful revocation under s65; similarly the court found the June 2012 fall did not materially extend the tear such that a new compensable injury arose and the respondent correctly declined to add cover (s26 exclusion), so both appeals were dismissed.
12 Oct 2017

Moloney v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 126
Court

District Court

The District Court's factual findings that the applicant gave informed consent, that any nerve cutting and regrowth were ordinary consequences of the open hernia operation, and that there is no reliable evidence of a causal link between the surgery and the applicant's chronic pain meant the statutory test for a treatment injury under s32(1) was not met; those conclusions were factual and open to the Judge on the evidence, and no question of law of sufficient merit for High Court leave was identified.
21 Sept 2016

Cone v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 265
Court

District Court

Judge Harrison concluded the application for leave disclosed no question of law because Judge Mathers correctly applied law requiring identification of bodily harm with precision and made factual findings, based on medical evidence, that no physical injury caused the claimant's pain; therefore there was no proper legal question for High Court review.
12 Jul 2016

Chapman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 189
Court

District Court

On the evidence before the Court the appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his knee osteoarthritis was caused or materially contributed to by his employment and failed to show that persons performing his work tasks are at significantly greater risk under s30(2); reviewer’s decision was not shown to be wrong and appeal is dismissed; suppression not justified.
15 Jun 2016

Simmons v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 173
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the contemporaneous, reasoned medical opinion of Dr Hartshorn that the appellant’s symptoms were non-specific musculoskeletal pain driven by muscle tension and workplace psychosocial and ergonomic factors rather than a diagnosable physical injury (epicondylitis); the appellant failed to prove the threshold physical injury required under the Act and the appeal was dismissed.
29 Apr 2016

Gapuzan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 124
Court

District Court

The court preferred the opinions of Drs Strack and Souter over Dr Bowles, finding on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's work as a kitter was generally light, of short duration, and did not have the forceful repetitive characteristics that would materially cause or put workers at significantly greater risk of lateral epicondylitis; pre-existing tendinopathy and other risk factors made exacerbation more likely than new occupational causation, therefore the s30 three-part test was not established.
7 Apr 2016

Merrick v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 90
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the third limb of s 30(2) is satisfied: taking the totality of the evidence (including that force comprised approximately 16% of the working day and expert opinion that twice the normal risk would be significant), the Judge preferred the view that the employment tasks placed persons performing them at a significantly greater risk of developing bilateral epicondylitis; accordingly the appeal is allowed and cover is established.
28 Jan 2016

Golden Bay Cement v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 9
Court

District Court

The Court found on the evidence that a property or characteristic in the claimant's employment (forklift driving with repetitive wrist deviation and periodic heavy manual handling) contributed to the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and that no non-employment activity explained the condition; however, experts did not apply the correct statutory comparator/test for s30(2)(c) and the evidence was therefore insufficient on whether the risk was significantly greater for workers doing those tasks, so the appeal was allowed in part and ACC was directed to reinvestigate s30(2)(c).
23 Dec 2015

Dunckley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 404
Court

District Court

Judge accepted Dr Black's occupational and clinical analysis as tipping the balance of probabilities in favour of a causal link: appellant's long history of repetitive forceful building work produced work related CTS and, on the evidence and clinical reasoning, most likely caused or materially contributed to bilateral ulnar neuritis; absence of definitive epidemiological studies was not determinative and did not outweigh the persuasive expert opinion establishing causation.