Needham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover for Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss) [2024] NZACC 133 (5 August 2024) [pdf, 314 KB]
...first assessment was based on 33.5, he had transcribed this figure as 35.5. The second assessment clarified and corrected the transposition error. [60] There is no doubt both Mr Dawes and Mr Ruske are well qualified specialists. However, careful review of the evidence shows there are flaws in their assessments that relate to the requirement regarding clinical examination and also relating to the figure used in the calculations of hearing loss regarding the time Mr Needham worked...