New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Work-related injury

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2013

Downer New Zealand Limited (Formerly Downer EDI Works Limited) v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 175
Court

District Court

On the found facts the road roller was being used for its designed purpose of compaction, not 'as a means of conveyance'; therefore s35(2)(b) excludes the injury from the motor vehicle injury definition and it must be classified as a work‑related personal injury; the district court's factual finding and legal application were correct and leave to appeal is declined.
23 Nov 2012

Blakie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 381
Court

District Court

The 2010 injury occurred while the appellant was on paid leave for union business and not for the purposes of his employment, therefore it was not a work-related injury; consequently there was no entitlement to first week compensation for that incident and WorkAon's decision declining cover is correct; questions about incapacity from aggravation of the 2007 injury were outside the scope of the cover decision and required a separate primary decision.
11 Aug 2011

West v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 232
Court

District Court

By consent, after a partial hearing at the District Court level, the 2 July 2009 decision of ACC granting cover is reinstated.
20 Nov 2009

Accident Compensation Corporation v Paul

Citation

[2009] NZACC 204
Court

District Court

The respondent's work at Mount Eden could not be considered employment for ACC purposes because the statutory definition of employment and the relevant provisions of the Penal Institutions Act 1954 and Corrections Act 2004 prevent treating a prisoner performing prison work (paid by incentive under prison control and not subject to PAYE/ACC) as employed by the prison; accordingly the injury is not work-related under the Act and the appeal is allowed.
7 Mar 2008

IHC NEW ZEALAND INC V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV-2007-485-2786

Citation

openlaw-fa05f2d2_01d6_46a2_9a3d_939244c866b0.pdf
Court

High Court

The court refused to grant the declaratory relief because the question posed was inseparable from mixed questions of fact and law and should be determined through the statutory ACC processes; accordingly the court would not decide the substantive merits or whether s133(5) ousted jurisdiction.
26 Oct 2004

Wei in the Estate of Wei v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 338
Court

District Court

The court found uncontested medical and coronial evidence that severe atherosclerotic ischaemic heart disease was the whole or substantial cause of death; although the assault triggered a fatal episode, the disease remained the substantial cause so the statutory exclusion applies and the estate is not entitled to cover; appeal dismissed.
2 Apr 2004

Bennie & Son Ltd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 90
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the uncontradicted specialist evidence of Dr Fields that the gas cannon explosion caused a 1% trauma-induced hearing loss; the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving otherwise on the balance of probabilities, therefore the respondent's decision to grant cover is correct and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Nov 2003

Coulter v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 298
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she sustained a discrete personal injury in December 2000 or that any such injury was caused by her work at PostiePlus or was consequential on a prior covered injury; medical evidence was insufficient and the statutory onus was not discharged, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
19 Oct 2000

Alexander v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 273
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's ongoing symptoms are causally connected to the acknowledged work-related injury (right lateral epicondylitis arising from repetitive keyboarding and a poorly adjusted workstation) and therefore the appellant is entitled to ACC cover under section 7; the reviewers' conclusion that ongoing symptoms were unrelated was erroneous given the totality and timing of medical and workplace evidence.
3 Nov 1997

Barrett v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 216
Court

District Court

The Review Officer erred in treating the appellant's home self-employed typing as non-employment activity for s7(1)(b); self-employed typing counts as employment and therefore does not negate the employment characteristic; there was no evidence that stress or other characteristics in the non-employment environment duplicated the employment environment; medical evidence established OOS arising during employment and the risk of OOS is significantly greater for keyboard workers, so s7(1)(a),(b) and (c) were satisfied and the Corporation's acceptance of cover under s7 stands.