The Open Occupational Health & Safety Journal, 2011, 3, 65-72 65 1876-2166/11 2011 Bentham Open Open Access Developing a List of Compensable Occupational Diseases: Principles and Issues Tim Driscoll* ,1 , Mark Wagstaffe 2 and Neil Pearce 2 1 Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia 2 Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, New Zealand Abstract: Background: A number of countries have a list of occupational disorders for use in workers’ compensation processes and decisions. These lists have two potential uses – to formally recognise that a disorder may be related to work (and so be potentially compensable), or to formally identify disorders that are likely to be related to work and so can be considered to have arisen from work if sufficient relevant exposure can be confirmed. However, many of these lists have shortcomings. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the concepts and approaches that should be taken into ac- count when developing a list of occupational disorders that can be accepted for fast tracking of the compensation claim. Results and Conclusions: A list of occupational disorders to be used as a schedule for compensation purposes is best based on a combination of specific disorder-exposure combinations, unless the number of potential exposures linked to a particular disorder, or the number of disorders linked to a particular exposure, make it impractical to list them all. For in- clusion in a schedule it is desirable that there is strong evidence of causal link between the occupational exposure and the disorder; there are clear and repeatable criteria for diagnosing the disorder; and the disorder comprises a considerable pro- portion of the cases of that disorder in the overall population or an identifiable subset of the population. Keywords: Occupational, compensation, criteria, ILO. INTRODUCTION The International Labour Organization’s List of Occupa- tional Diseases (the ILO List) is documented in ILO Con- vention 42 (Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Dis- eases) Convention (Revised), 1934). This has been revised several times since it was first released, most recently at a meeting in late 2009, with ratification expected in 2010 [1]. A number of countries have their own equivalent of this list, almost always based heavily on the ILO List, which is used to guide workers’ compensation processes and decisions. Many examples are available – e.g. lists from Europe [2], Hong Kong [3], Germany [4], Ireland [5], Ontario (Canada) [6], the Phillipines [7] and South Africa [8]. These lists have two potential uses – to formally recognise that a disorder may be related to work (and so be potentially compensable), or to formally identify disorders that are likely to be related to work and so can be considered to have arisen from work if sufficient relevant exposure can be confirmed (this latter commonly referred to as a disease schedule). Such lists are potentially very useful for both workers and public authori- ties. However, many of them have shortcomings, particularly when used for the second of these purposes. Some of the issues relevant to the development of such lists for the first use are considered in a document produced to support the development of the most recent version of the ILO List [9]. *Address correspondence to this author at the Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building (A27), University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia; Tel: 61-2-9351 4372; Fax: 61-2-9351 7420; E-mail: Tim.Driscoll@sydney.edu.au The focus of the current paper is the second of the above- mentioned uses. Schedule 2 of the New Zealand Injury Prevention, Reha- bilitation and Compensation Act 2001 provides a list of oc- cupational disorders and exposures. Claims made for disor- ders and exposures contained within Schedule 2 of the Act are able to be considered more quickly than other claims because the connection between the disorder and an occupa- tional exposure is automatically accepted. The content of Schedule 2 was recently reviewed. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the concepts and approaches that should be taken into account when developing a list of ac- cepted occupational disorders, using recent experience with New Zealand’s Schedule 2 to illustrate some of the princi- ples and issues involved. PRINCIPLES AND ISSUES Schedules are designed to provide a list of disorders for which there is very good evidence of a causal connection to one or more workplace exposures. Disorders listed on such a schedule are accepted as arising from work, provided that the claimant has experienced the relevant exposure in the course of work, and can be handled using a fast-track process. Dis- orders not listed on the schedule may still be the subject of a workers’ compensation claim, but the connection to work will need to be established as part of the claim process. Dis- orders potentially related to work may not be listed on a schedule for two main reasons. For many disorders, the level of scientific evidence of a causal connection to work is insuf- ficient to allow a connection to work to be automatically accepted. For others, the proportion of cases due to work is