New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 30 acc act

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2018

Renfro v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 96
Court

District Court

No bona fide question of law was identified because the challenged findings were factual evaluations of competing medical evidence including the threshold determination that no identifiable physical injury was established under s30; accordingly there is no legal error to appeal and leave is refused as there are no sufficient discretionary reasons (public interest or other) to grant leave.
8 Jun 2016

New Zealand Police v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

The unchallenged specialist medical evidence (Dr Monigatti) established the claimant did not meet the statutory s30 test for a work-related gradual process injury; accordingly the deemed review decision granting cover was quashed and the original decline of cover reinstated, with the appellant entitled to challenge the merits of the deemed decision pursuant to Weal.
11 Oct 2013

Hoffman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 326
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the direct clinical assessments of Dr Black (supported by Dr Soul and Mr Tonkin) over the ACC paper review, finding on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's long history of forceful, repetitive manual work (notably fencing and heavy sawmill duties) cumulatively caused bilateral epicondylitis and right shoulder acromioclavicular osteoarthritis and that the Kopu employment was the final aggravating event; consequently the appellant met the s30 test and was entitled to ACC cover for those conditions and resulting CRPS.
20 Feb 2013

Teariki v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 37
Court

District Court

The Court preferred Dr Ruttenberg's detailed task analysis and medical reasoning and found the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her employment had the particular property or characteristic required by s30 to have caused or substantially contributed to her carpal tunnel symptoms; appeal dismissed.
30 Nov 2012

Kokaua v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 395
Court

District Court

Judge found Dr Hartshorn had an inaccurate understanding of the appellant's repetitive work exposure and gave insufficient weight to the frequency and force of bending/twisting; Dr Wigley's opinion, grounded on the accurate work history and supporting literature, established on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's L5/S1 disc loss was caused by his employment over time; therefore appellant is entitled to cover for the L5/S1 condition as a work-related gradual process injury under s30.
24 May 2012

Longtime v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 188
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant did not demonstrate a physical injury causally linked to his employment; the thoracic osteophytes were degenerative and not shown to be caused by work and the ongoing lumbar mechanical pain, though likely related to work exposure, is non-specific pain not constituting a physical injury under s30; accordingly ACC's refusal of cover was correct.
28 Feb 2012

Nawalaniec v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

Contemporary medical reports and employment history established, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant's teenage heavy workplace lifting caused Scheuermann's osteochondritis; the respondent failed to satisfy its statutory burden under Section 30 (as amended) to show the risk was not significantly greater for those performing the task, therefore cover must be granted.
8 Oct 2010

Rapana v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 173
Court

District Court

Medical evidence established the appellant's lumbar degeneration is primarily degenerative in nature and not caused or materially contributed to by the work characteristics; furthermore the work did not create a significantly greater risk of multi-level lumbar spondylosis, so the claimant cannot meet the s30 requirements and cover is properly declined.