22 Apr 1997
Matthews v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 62
- Court
- District Court
The appeal was dismissed because the court found insufficient evidence that the workplace possessed a particular property or characteristic (namely demonstrable airborne chemical exposure) that caused or contributed to the appellant's MCS as required by s7. The medical controversy over MCS aetiology meant persuasive, tangible expert evidence of exposure was necessary and was not provided; negative monitoring and contrary expert opinions outweighed the appellant's evidence and workplace observations.