New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory interpretation of s30

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2018

Van Essen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 27
Court

District Court

The judge accepted the view that although the appellant's work could be linked to low back pain, there was insufficient credible medical and epidemiological evidence to find that the particular properties of her cleaning tasks caused or contributed to the degenerative lumbar changes shown on MRI (s30(2)(b)(i)); because the threshold in s30 was not met the claim failed and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Oct 2015

Murphy Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 326
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to satisfy s30: expert evidence showed an intrinsic predisposition with intermittent symptoms since youth, the concrete pole work lacked a particular property or characteristic that caused or materially contributed to the injury, and there was no evidence the risk was significantly greater for those performing the employment tasks; therefore ACC's decision to decline cover was correct.
28 Jul 2015

UT v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 205
Court

District Court

On the balance of evidence the Court found the appellant's specific employment tasks (repetitive forceful gripping, heavy fabric handling, sustained left-hand manipulation and speed pressures) contributed to the cause of her left carpal tunnel syndrome and that machinists face a significantly greater risk of CTS; accordingly all elements of s30 were satisfied and ACC's declinature was quashed.
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.
26 Mar 2012

Buchanan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 102
Court

District Court

The statutory requirements of s30 were not satisfied because there was no medical evidence of an identifiable physical injury attributable to gradual process employment tasks and no evidence of increased occupational risk; therefore ACC cover was properly declined and the appeal is dismissed.
3 Jul 2008

Luger v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 143
Court

District Court

On the evidence the appellant did not establish that her employment tasks had the particular property required by s30 that caused or materially contributed to her bilateral lateral epicondylitis or that the risk was significantly greater for persons performing her tasks than for the general population; medical opinion established degeneration aggravated but not caused by work, so cover under s30 fails and the ACC decision to decline is upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

Van Essen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process)

Murphy Accident Compensation Corporation

UT v Accident Compensation Corporation

Stapylton-Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Buchanan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Luger v Accident Compensation Corporation