30 Oct 2015
Because the claimant had a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma and the workplace incident did not produce a disease distinct in nature or substance from that pre-existing asthma but only an exacerbation, the event did not cause a new injury for ACC purposes; consequently cover for 'asthma' cannot be granted and the review decision was wrong.
27 Jul 2012
On the balance of probabilities the appellant developed occupational asthma and occupational rhinitis caused by exposure to treated pine wood dust at Placemakers; the workplace exposure constituted a discrete occupational disease rather than merely an aggravation of pre-existing asthma, therefore the review decision refusing cover was quashed and cover granted.
11 Apr 2006
On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the occupational medicine specialists (Dr Sprott and Dr Hancock) that long term, sustained workplace exposure to known asthmagenic agents (glutaraldehyde and xylene) in a worker with a predisposition more probably induced or materially contributed to the appellant's bronchial asthma; predisposition alone did not bar cover and the contrary expert opinions did not outweigh the weight of occupational specialist evidence and the documented exposure history, therefore cover for occupational asthma was required.
8 Oct 2004
The appellant failed to identify the particular property or characteristic in the workplace required by s 7(1) and therefore failed on the balance of probabilities to prove employment caused or contributed to the disease; temporal association alone is insufficient and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Oct 2000
Although the evidence was finely balanced on whether the claimant had developed occupational asthma, the Court found sufficient credible medical opinion to conclude the claimant suffered a physical injury by gradual process (bronchial hyper-responsiveness) causally related to potroom exposure satisfying s7(1)(a)-(c); therefore the Review Officer's decision granting cover is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.
9 Jun 2000
The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the first respondent knowingly made an untrue written representation on the pre-employment questionnaire; the Review Officer's credibility finding that the respondent genuinely forgot the 1990 tests (consistent with post-assault memory problems) was open on the evidence and entitled to stand, so the appeal is dismissed.
23 Dec 1999
On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence established that exposure to workplace aerosol cleaning agents contributed to the appellant's anaphylactic reactions and respiratory condition; that exposure was not present to any material extent outside work; and the risk of such injury was significantly greater in the workplace, therefore all elements of s.7(1)(a)-(c) were satisfied and cover under s.7(1) is established.