New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Significantly greater risk test

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2018

Sasa v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 117
Court

District Court

On the evidence the judge found the appellant's welding and joinery tasks together with periods of heavy lifting over some 30 years constituted a property or characteristic that contributed to the development of his right AC joint arthropathy and that those tasks placed him at a significantly greater risk than persons who do not perform those tasks; accordingly the ACC decision declining cover was set aside and cover was to be granted.
6 May 2011

Kiwirail v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 133
Court

District Court

The Court preferred the orthopaedic surgeon's (Mr Swan) specialist interpretation of the imaging and his surgical experience, concluding the claimant suffered distal clavicle osteolysis caused by his employment tasks; the claimant satisfied s30 causation and the appellant failed to discharge the s30(2A) burden to show the risk was not significantly greater, therefore cover is payable.
8 Apr 2011

Atkins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 112
Court

District Court

Medical evidence established the appellant's spondylosis predated her Dunblane employment and there was insufficient evidence that wool-handling or caregiving tasks caused the degenerative changes or placed workers at a significantly greater risk; therefore the statutory requirements of s30 were not satisfied and cover must be declined.
24 Mar 2010

Draper v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 47
Court

District Court

Court accepted occupational medicine evidence that the appellant's subacromial bursitis is an age-related degenerative condition not caused by the documented nature of her work and, in any event, the significantly greater risk test under s30(2)(c)(i) was not satisfied because the condition is common in middle age; therefore ACC's decision to decline cover was correct.
22 Sept 2008

Jocelyn v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 232
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the appellant's CTS was caused by repetitive and sustained mouse use in her employment and, based on the Andersen study, persons who use a computer mouse for more than 30 hours per week face a significantly greater risk of CTS than those who do not; therefore the statutory criteria of s30 are satisfied and cover is granted.
10 Apr 2008

Phillips v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 80
Court

District Court

On the medical evidence the Judge correctly found no discrete physical injury on the balance of probabilities; absent such a physical injury the statutory tests in s30 (causation and significantly greater risk) cannot be engaged; no tenable question of law arose from the District Court decision and leave to appeal to the High Court is declined.
22 Aug 2007

Phillips v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 190
Court

District Court

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to establish a discrete physical injury on the evidence; absent proof of a physical injury the statutory tests in s30 cannot be met and ACC's decision to decline cover was correctly upheld.
15 Jun 2005

South v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 177
Court

District Court

The Court found the appellant’s repetitive, significant above-shoulder work over decades contributed causatively to an accelerated degenerative process in the right AC joint, satisfying the s30 causation and significantly greater risk requirements; ACC’s decision declining cover was quashed and cover awarded.
17 May 2005

Logan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 159
Court

District Court

Court preferred the applicant's specific factual and expert evidence (Ms Reilly workplace assessment and Dr Glass) over the respondent's generalized medical opinion, found the claimant's keyboard/mouse technique caused CTS, found no material non-employment causative activities, and determined that the risk of CTS is significantly greater for persons performing those specific work characteristics; consequently s30 satisfied, ACC decision quashed and cover granted.
22 Mar 2005

Cowan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 83
Court

District Court

The appellant sustained an ulna impaction injury caused by the pelting task, but failed the s33(2)(c) test because the injury resulted from the appellant's uncommon anatomical predisposition (long ulna) and there was no evidence that pelting posed a significantly greater risk of ulna impaction to persons in general; therefore cover is denied and the appeal is dismissed.