In his later career as a panel beater, he was regularly exposed to paint fumes and significant metal dust.
When he went for a chest X-ray in 2020, he was found to have progressive lung disease, the cause of which was “not entirely certain”, one doctor noted, but suspected that Radford’s working environment was “the most likely culprit”.
While operating on his lungs was discussed, a course of medication was tried first, with the same doctor noting that “we believe that the lung condition may be related to exposures through your work”.
The same month, a claim was lodged with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for a work-related gradual process injury.
An occupational specialist then advised that Radford’s form of lung disease was generally caused by organic materials such as bacteria, fungi, animal proteins, plant proteins, low molecular weight chemicals, and metals.
ACC has continued to decline Jeffrie Radford’s claim for cover.
“For example, certain groups of farmers and mushroom growers are at an increased risk due to the animal and plant-related exposures. Painters and hard metal workers, relevant to Mr Radford’s case, are potentially at increased risk due to exposure to chemicals – such as diisocyanates, and metal dusts such as cobalt and zinc,” the specialist found.
However, the specialist said the offending agent in Radford’s case was yet to be determined, and an analysis of his personal and working life was needed to decide whether ACC would fund his medical treatment.
Then in 2020, a different specialist noted that Radford had owned a cockatiel in the last 10 years and that “exposure to birds and their droppings can be linked to a condition known as bird fancier’s lung, which is a form of interstitial pneumonitis…”
That specialist also found that while panel restoration and welding might be associated with the disease, the majority of cases were associated with organisms or organic material.
“I was unable to find evidence that the jobs of car restorers and panel beaters do have an increased rate of developing interstitial pneumonitis,” the expert said in their findings.
Ultimately, four experts, including ACC’s own specialist, said they couldn’t find a specific link to Radford’s work and the development of interstitial pneumonitis.
In November 2020, ACC declined Radford’s claim for cover on the basis that his work environment didn’t cause his condition, nor did it put him at greater risk of developing it. many
Organic material the likely cause
Following an appeal of the corporation’s decision in 2021, ACC went back to the experts it had spoken to, with one of them claiming that the development of Radford’s lung disease was more likely linked to his keeping a cockatiel in the family home for many years.
In November 2021, ACC issued a further decision declining Radford’s claim for cover, on the basis that his work environment did not cause his condition.
Radford later went back to ACC and asked for it to have another look at his case, but in 2024, the corporation maintained that the condition was likely caused by organic material, something he wasn’t exposed to in his working life.
“Work environments and worker groups at risk of diseases caused by organic dust [e.g. hypersensitivity pneumonitis] include agricultural, plant matter processing, wood, animal-related, foodstuff, and food processing,” ACC’s specialist said.
“Just as many humans suffer allergic responses [such as hayfever and eczema] to environmental exposures to organic particulate [e.g. animal dander and pollen], a similar process can occur in cases of hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
“For example, ‘Bird Fancier’s Lung’ is a term used to describe hypersensitivity pneumonitis in patients who keep birds and is caused by a response to avian antigens.”
The fight with ACC continues
Then, in February last year, Radford tried again with ACC and asked for a review of its 2021 decision to refuse cover, as well as a review of its 2020 decision.
Both those applications for review were dismissed, and then in November last year, Radford took his fight to the District Court to appeal the reviewer’s dismissal of his applications.
At that hearing, he needed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it was his work that caused or contributed to his injury, with medical evidence in his favour being a critical part of being granted cover.
Radford’s lawyer, Benjamin Hinchcliffe, made submissions to the court that toxins in his work environment likely caused his lung problems.
Hinchcliffe referred to evidence from one of the experts ACC consulted, who said there was plenty of history in Radford’s working life where he was exposed to agents known to cause his type of lung disease.
“People exposed to chemicals and dust are at a greater risk of developing lung conditions. The work exposures materially contributed to the cause of the lung disease,” Hinchcliffe said in his submissions.
“The onus is on the corporation to prove that panel beaters are not more likely to suffer the injury, rather than state that there is no research available. Mr Radford meets all three tests required for cover of the lung condition.”
In a recently-released judgment, Judge Paul Spiller found that ACC correctly declined cover in 2020, and then again in 2025 when its reviewer reassessed the case.
Judge Spiller found that the medical evidence didn’t show that Radford had developed his lung disease from his work.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
