New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Occupational dermatitis

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2015

Sakab v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 291
Court

District Court

There was insufficient evidence that the claimant suffered an injury-related incapacity for the claimed periods; contemporaneous GP and specialist opinions supported fitness for work or capacity to do alternate duties with protective measures; and the claimant was not an earner immediately before December 2013 and did not meet the strict deeming criteria of Clause 43 — therefore weekly compensation was rightly declined.
17 Jun 2014

Green v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 150
Court

District Court

The medical evidence establishes lifelong atopic dermatitis with secondary irritant aggravation from workplace cleaning products and glove perspiration but does not establish a distinct occupational allergic or irritant contact dermatitis that caused or contributed to the condition under s30(2); workplace exposures were not shown to be materially distinct from non-work exposures nor to create a significantly greater risk, therefore ACC correctly declined cover and the decision is upheld.
6 May 2013

Stapylton-Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 127
Court

District Court

Claim dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the necessary causal and temporal link between employment exposure and onset of dermatitis; the onset occurred approximately 5.5 years after employment ceased, which is inconsistent with occupational contact dermatitis as described by medical evidence, therefore the s30 threshold for cover was not met and ACC's refusal was correct.
15 Apr 2003

Copson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 63
Court

District Court

On the medical evidence the appellant was incapacitated for his employment by work-aggravated occupational dermatitis as of 6 July 2000; he was therefore an earner immediately before incapacity and entitled to weekly compensation; redundancy was a pretext and retrospective establishment of incapacity is permissible for gradual onset occupational conditions.
8 Nov 2000

Esplin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 306
Court

District Court

Because the appellant had an accepted claim for occupational dermatitis and medical evidence established incapacity from 6 April 1999, he was an incapacitated earner immediately before the 19 June 1999 wrist injury and therefore entitled to weekly compensation; the employer's unpaid leave arrangement did not negate that status.

New Zealand Case Law

Sakab v Accident Compensation Corporation

Green v Accident Compensation Corporation

Stapylton-Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Copson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Esplin v Accident Compensation Corporation