Also, caution should be shown in accepting liability for major treatment where the accepted claim was for a minor injury.

The case was in favour of the employer when Mr Dekker could not prove that work was a significant contributing factor.

The High Court considered whether "dizziness" should be classified as an injury or a disease pursuant to the SRC Act.

The demands of business and performance expectations must be consistent with work methods to ensure a safe workplace.

The meeting was not considered to be undertaken "in a reasonable manner", so he was entitled to workers' compensation.

With updated legislation insurers will achieve much needed clarity and certainty around third party claims against them.

Recent case highlights the importance of collecting competent expert evidence from relevant fields of expertise.

Work may cause more pain, but this does not mean that the underlying condition has been made worse by those work duties.

Comcare was prejudiced by failure to give earlier notice as it was denied an opportunity to manage the emerging injury.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant suffered an injury for the purposes of section 5A of the SRC Act.

An aggravation requires a causal, and not merely consequential, connection between employment and onset of symptoms.

This case highlights that employers, although an easy target due to a non-delegable duty of care, are not always liable.

It must be determined that the employee would not have suffered a disease if the administrative action was not taken.

The QAS was not obliged to mandatorily impose assistance, as the plaintiff was aware that counselling was available.

This case distinguished between a condition made worse by the work, or whether the condition simply became worse at work.

Evidence for the dog did not fit definitions of medical treatment, an aid or appliance, so compensation was not payable.

Recent case indicates that Tribunal will not accept very late claims, even for psychological injuries.

Assessment via the Comcare Guide is a somewhat mechanical process that does not allow a significant amount of discretion.

This decision is interesting in its consideration of 'expert peer opinion' within s5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Tribunal considers whether falls contributed to or aggravated a pre-existing osteoarthritis condition.