17 Aug 1999
On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence supports an acute shoulder injury consistent with the appellant's account and the employer witness statements were tainted and therefore discounted; consequently the Review Officer's conclusion was wrong and the appellant did suffer a work injury on 16 October 1997.
4 May 1999
Given the contemporaneous claim form and GP diagnosis, corroboration by an orthopaedic report, and the employer's initial acceptance and payment of compensation, the respondent was correct to accept the injury as work-related and, following Nelson Marlborough precedent, the matter could not be reopened; appeal dismissed.
10 Dec 1998
On the balance of probabilities the Review Officer was entitled to find the claimant slipped on water at work and suffered a compensable back injury; the appellant failed to discharge the burden to show the Review Officer's credibility finding and decision were wrong, and medical and contemporaneous complaint evidence supported the finding.
1 Dec 1998
The District Court held that the Review Officer had properly evaluated credibility, made a specific finding that the claimant was sincere and credible, and there was no evidence before the Court sufficient to disturb that finding; accordingly the determination that the claimant suffered a work injury on or about 10 October 1995 was confirmed and the employer's appeal dismissed.
5 Aug 1997
The appeal is dismissed because the Review Officer's finding that the 1995 incapacity was connected to the prior work injury was a permissible view open on the evidence, based on credibility findings and medical material, and was not against the weight of the evidence such as to justify appellate interference.
29 May 1995
The Review Officer's decision relied solely on the claimant's uncorroborated statement while there was an available alternative explanation (the car accident), credibility issues about the asserted mechanism (bag holder height) and absence of contemporaneous employer reports; on the balance of probabilities the claimant did not establish a work injury, so the appeal is allowed.