Help
A new twist on the intrepretation of WORK PAID/UNPAID
Consider the implications, this is a genuine letter to a claimant, I'm still struggling to come to terms with it. ACC making yet another attempt to pass off policy as law. Blatant arrant nonsense.
For heavan's sake, don't make your own bed - you could be demonstrating the skills, education, training and experience of a domestic worker, your vocational rehabilitation is complete - go straight to Vocational Independence Assessment, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Alterations and addendums referred to are the 167, 174, 261, Supplementary Sheets and a restricted consent forms.
Here we go again!!
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
30 September 2005
Northwood Branch
1 Radcliffe Road
PO Box 5293
Christchurch
New Zealand
Ph 03 962 9400
Facsimile 03 962 9401
www ace co nz
Dear Mr X
Thank you for taking the time to come in to the office again to further negotiate your Individual Rehabilitation Plan
As agreed yesterday, I will forward your latest Initial Occupational, Initial Medical Assessment and draft Individual Rehabilitation Plan to Mr Penny for comment. If no response is received from Mr Penny ACC may have to take the stance that there is no issue with the proposal until other wise advised
With regards to the forms supplied byACC for your completion, I advised that I will be seeking opinion on the acceptability of the alternations and addendums However I am in a position to advise that you are required to notify ACC of any work, paid or otherwise. Otherwise refers to voluntary work, unpaid work, study, community service, hobbies or any other activity that reflects exertion, mental or otherwise Please note that work does not necessarily mean for pecuniary gain
This is because you have a responsibility to be available for rehabilitation and if you have other activities that coincide or conflict with your rehabilitation ACC needs to be kept fully informed In addition any other activities that fall in to the categories described above, may identify further skills, training or experience that should be identified in your vocational assessments, it also indicates what level of work capacity a person may have Your responsibilities to provide this information are under Section 72 of the Injury Prevention Recovery Compensation Act If you are participating in any of the above categories, please advise ACC in writing of the details, of hours each week, tasks involved and any remuneration received be that monetary or otherwise
Once opinion has been provided on the alterations of these forms, I will duly notify you in writing
If you have queries regarding this matter or anything else, please feel free to contact me on 9629155 or by post
Yours sincerely
Michelle Barr Case Manager
Encl Section 72 and 115 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation Compensation
Work Paid/unpaid
#3
magnacarta 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 22-October 04
Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:16 AM
Watcha, this letter to a claimant is a new development.
The word "Work" is not defined in the Act.
If ACC was meant to impose such definitions one would expect to find them in the principle governing statute
Or, at least, the basis of those express ACC definitions must be found in the Act.
Any rule or policy that confers or imposes such a power on themselves may beyond their powers in the Act (ultra vires)
There is no law conferring or imposing such powers of definition upon ACC.
In any evet, all the issues referred to in the letter are to be way of objective and independent assessments. (see s.6 definition Vocational Independence - s.72 (1) (g) - s.77 and s.107.
The issues of capabilities and work capacity are not to be decided by the subjective opinion of ACC.
Parliament could not have intended that - the test must be objective by way of assessments independent of ACC.
IMHO those definitions in the letter from this case manager are also arbitrary and oppressive.
There is a question of law - "Whether statutory provisions laid down in the Act have been ignored or misapplied?"
The word "Work" is not defined in the Act.
If ACC was meant to impose such definitions one would expect to find them in the principle governing statute
Or, at least, the basis of those express ACC definitions must be found in the Act.
Any rule or policy that confers or imposes such a power on themselves may beyond their powers in the Act (ultra vires)
There is no law conferring or imposing such powers of definition upon ACC.
In any evet, all the issues referred to in the letter are to be way of objective and independent assessments. (see s.6 definition Vocational Independence - s.72 (1) (g) - s.77 and s.107.
The issues of capabilities and work capacity are not to be decided by the subjective opinion of ACC.
Parliament could not have intended that - the test must be objective by way of assessments independent of ACC.
IMHO those definitions in the letter from this case manager are also arbitrary and oppressive.
There is a question of law - "Whether statutory provisions laid down in the Act have been ignored or misapplied?"
#4
batman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 75
- Joined: 17-September 05
Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:41 AM
If the CM is right then any claimint on a unfit cert will need 24 hour care.If you ask for that and the cm does nothing an you can't cook etc an fade away than the cm will have to answer would they be responsible if you died.the home help people will do well out of this.
#5
watcha
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 15-November 03
Posted 26 November 2005 - 07:52 PM
Think on this, every single action a person does requires the expenditure of energy, both mental and physical.
Cooking, eating, getting dressed and undressed, reading a bedtime story to a child, even sleeping - until the brain finally goes into deep dreamless sleep - and don't forget relations with a spouse
According to ACC - such expenditure represents work so anything could end up in your occupational assessment as transferrable skills by virtue of education training and experience - no, don't laugh - I have seen enough examples of exactly that kind of twaddle from the Anne Potters and the Sue Downeys to say that it does indeed happen.
"Whether statutory provisions laid down in the Act have been ignored or misapplied?" is putting rather mildly. Perhaps Rankin came close to getting it right when he said in his infamous published comment that claimants sit and watch TV all day; what he should have said is that claimants should sit in front of the TV all day, to do otherwise would be construed as working.
This particular case manager, no doubt at the behest of someone further up the pecking order, has reduced the law to an absurdity. The wording of the offending letter is too pat so it must be official policy.
Ridculous, I hear you say, arrant nonsense, unmitigated crap, and it is all that and much more - scary, intimidatory, minacious. The Corporation is running out of control and it is very doubtful whether the new CEO has either the will, the ability or the backing to bring it up with a round turn. Don't overlook the point that Snake McGreevey is a thwarted CEO, probably harbouring resentment at his defeat - I wouldn't like to be in her shoes.
Cooking, eating, getting dressed and undressed, reading a bedtime story to a child, even sleeping - until the brain finally goes into deep dreamless sleep - and don't forget relations with a spouse
According to ACC - such expenditure represents work so anything could end up in your occupational assessment as transferrable skills by virtue of education training and experience - no, don't laugh - I have seen enough examples of exactly that kind of twaddle from the Anne Potters and the Sue Downeys to say that it does indeed happen.
"Whether statutory provisions laid down in the Act have been ignored or misapplied?" is putting rather mildly. Perhaps Rankin came close to getting it right when he said in his infamous published comment that claimants sit and watch TV all day; what he should have said is that claimants should sit in front of the TV all day, to do otherwise would be construed as working.
This particular case manager, no doubt at the behest of someone further up the pecking order, has reduced the law to an absurdity. The wording of the offending letter is too pat so it must be official policy.
Ridculous, I hear you say, arrant nonsense, unmitigated crap, and it is all that and much more - scary, intimidatory, minacious. The Corporation is running out of control and it is very doubtful whether the new CEO has either the will, the ability or the backing to bring it up with a round turn. Don't overlook the point that Snake McGreevey is a thwarted CEO, probably harbouring resentment at his defeat - I wouldn't like to be in her shoes.
#6
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 26 November 2005 - 08:15 PM
looks like she doesn't know what she is doing or saying.may be a letter to the manager asking if the CM is fit to do the job as a case manager.
I gather that you are fit for selected work. this must be a requirement to do Vocational Rehabilitation
This is a very good statement. The reply should include that the corporation does not need to be advised of all activities. If the Occupational assessor has not completed a proper and correct assessment to look at Vocational Rehabilitation he/she may have left out what is considered to be Vocational Rehabilitation in the owners right. The corporation will be advised of any work taken part time voluntary if you need to be notified but I can inform you that the voluntary or rehabilitation work should be in the IRP and the Occupational Assessment. If this is not the case then I advise that the corporation apply the Act and correct there mistake.
You have mention that I have the responsibility to be available for my own rehabilitation. I would like to mention that the corporation is responsible to finance any rehabilitation that is economical under the Act and not produce any correspondence , files, rummers, or pape workr that does not advance the provision of the appropriate rehabilitation treatment and compensation.
I find the letter of 30 September 2005 and the forms 167, 174 and 261 all are not for the purpose of the Act (section 3), or section 279 and s 200 Crown
Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115)
I gather that you are fit for selected work. this must be a requirement to do Vocational Rehabilitation
Quote
However I am in a position to advise that you are required to notify ACC of any work, paid or otherwise. Otherwise refers to voluntary work, unpaid work, study, community service, hobbies or any other activity that reflects exertion, mental or otherwise Please note that work does not necessarily mean for pecuniary gain
This is a very good statement. The reply should include that the corporation does not need to be advised of all activities. If the Occupational assessor has not completed a proper and correct assessment to look at Vocational Rehabilitation he/she may have left out what is considered to be Vocational Rehabilitation in the owners right. The corporation will be advised of any work taken part time voluntary if you need to be notified but I can inform you that the voluntary or rehabilitation work should be in the IRP and the Occupational Assessment. If this is not the case then I advise that the corporation apply the Act and correct there mistake.
You have mention that I have the responsibility to be available for my own rehabilitation. I would like to mention that the corporation is responsible to finance any rehabilitation that is economical under the Act and not produce any correspondence , files, rummers, or pape workr that does not advance the provision of the appropriate rehabilitation treatment and compensation.
I find the letter of 30 September 2005 and the forms 167, 174 and 261 all are not for the purpose of the Act (section 3), or section 279 and s 200 Crown
Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115)
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#7
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 26 November 2005 - 08:22 PM
work done = distance * resistance
that is what I learned in school but that only applied to Engineering calulations
that is what I learned in school but that only applied to Engineering calulations
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#8
roamy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 14-October 03
Posted 26 November 2005 - 10:24 PM
""any other activity that reflects exertion"" section 72 does not mention this.
Maybe a letter sent back listing all activities that require exertion, would shed light on the sinister/desperate truth of this tactic, to acc .The tactic being to outlaw everything that a human being does while alive.This would achieve the ultimate goal for acc, that as soon as a living person lodges a claim, they are from that moment committing fraud by virtue of non work related and not reported (to acc) exertion like-breathing/blinking/twitching/coughing/crying/thinking etc..
or the letter could ask for a full and complete list of what acc consider to be exertion.
I think our dark and smelly form designer has been working overtime.roamy
Maybe a letter sent back listing all activities that require exertion, would shed light on the sinister/desperate truth of this tactic, to acc .The tactic being to outlaw everything that a human being does while alive.This would achieve the ultimate goal for acc, that as soon as a living person lodges a claim, they are from that moment committing fraud by virtue of non work related and not reported (to acc) exertion like-breathing/blinking/twitching/coughing/crying/thinking etc..
or the letter could ask for a full and complete list of what acc consider to be exertion.
I think our dark and smelly form designer has been working overtime.roamy
#9
magnacarta
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 22-October 04
Posted 27 November 2005 - 06:09 AM
Read Me, a claimant has searched Google for "Gerard McGreevey" - Mr McGreevy has been with ACC since 1991 according to the ACC website.
Also with reference to our thoughts about Chief Complaints Investigator, Toni Izzard, it is noted from the results of the Wellington Bridge Club for 22 November 2005 that Toni Izzard and Gerard McGreevy were partnered in a bridge tournament.
From the strategies and tactics applied in the card-game bridge it is now easy to see how and why the thinking and policies arise at ACC.
Bird's of a feather flock together???????????????
Further, if a claimant has been certified by a doctor as unfit for "work" then because of ACC's definition of "work" and "otherwise" in the above letter a claimant essentially can only breath (although that's now doubtful).
They simply cannot make any physical or mental exertion because that would be "work" and "otherwise" as defined by ACC.
Accordingly, all claimants should now apply for social rehabilitation (home help) to be provided 24/7.
Of course. if ACC applied the law and arranged the s77 (3) (a) social rehabilitation needs assessments they would already know that home help was required 24/7 because of this "work" definition.
I am really looking forward to seeing this tested in Court. If it comes to that, we should try and load the Court with breathing claimants and the media.
ACC has defined "work" and "otherwise" which even Parliament didn't define
If ACC want to be law-makers then let them stand for Parliament.
Also with reference to our thoughts about Chief Complaints Investigator, Toni Izzard, it is noted from the results of the Wellington Bridge Club for 22 November 2005 that Toni Izzard and Gerard McGreevy were partnered in a bridge tournament.
From the strategies and tactics applied in the card-game bridge it is now easy to see how and why the thinking and policies arise at ACC.
Bird's of a feather flock together???????????????
Further, if a claimant has been certified by a doctor as unfit for "work" then because of ACC's definition of "work" and "otherwise" in the above letter a claimant essentially can only breath (although that's now doubtful).
They simply cannot make any physical or mental exertion because that would be "work" and "otherwise" as defined by ACC.
Accordingly, all claimants should now apply for social rehabilitation (home help) to be provided 24/7.
Of course. if ACC applied the law and arranged the s77 (3) (a) social rehabilitation needs assessments they would already know that home help was required 24/7 because of this "work" definition.
I am really looking forward to seeing this tested in Court. If it comes to that, we should try and load the Court with breathing claimants and the media.
ACC has defined "work" and "otherwise" which even Parliament didn't define
If ACC want to be law-makers then let them stand for Parliament.
#10
freefallnz
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 29-June 04
Posted 27 November 2005 - 08:33 AM
Just a thought that occured to me..... and probably of topic (sorry)
As I was being railroaded through the Vocational independence process....
It wasnt until the process was complete.. ie. Vocational rehab assesment. IOA and vocational rehab eg. work ready program had been completed that ACC asked that I contact my Doctor for an updated medical certificate stating I was fit for a work trial !!!!
How many others have been "mistreated?" the same way...
Would it be possible to prove in a court of law that ACC broke the Law by performing all the assements reports etc.. before the claimant was fit for anything ?
Is this a standard malpractice?
As I was being railroaded through the Vocational independence process....
It wasnt until the process was complete.. ie. Vocational rehab assesment. IOA and vocational rehab eg. work ready program had been completed that ACC asked that I contact my Doctor for an updated medical certificate stating I was fit for a work trial !!!!
How many others have been "mistreated?" the same way...
Would it be possible to prove in a court of law that ACC broke the Law by performing all the assements reports etc.. before the claimant was fit for anything ?
Is this a standard malpractice?
#11
freefallnz
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 29-June 04
Posted 27 November 2005 - 11:57 AM
Ah what a great idea..
Seeing as the Acrimious Corrupt Corporation reckon I can now be a programmer again..
As a sphincter tightening excercise for my CM
I shall apply forthwith for said rehabiltation tool namely a new Computer..
Seeing as the Acrimious Corrupt Corporation reckon I can now be a programmer again..
As a sphincter tightening excercise for my CM
I shall apply forthwith for said rehabiltation tool namely a new Computer..
#12
MadMac
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 26-December 04
Posted 27 November 2005 - 03:22 PM
Hi Wierd Humourist ... Most interested in the part ... "recieves no ERC because of being Self Employed when the accident occured"
I know the feeling of working hard ,going placesin this world, had an accident ...whilst at work ... causing severe multiply injuries ... lose everything ... 
... sorry gained a managed mountain pile of paper that is absurd and a costly frigging headache ... thanks ACC for the style of management that is clear and evident.Anyway would like to know more about ... recieves no ERC...
#13
fairgo
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 15-September 03
Posted 28 November 2005 - 07:39 AM
This is indeed an most disturbing letter! If ACC believe this is their right I wonder if we are now to advise our days like this.. this is my day so far.......
woke to alarm - mental
got out of bed - physical
went to toilet - physical
had a shower - physical
brushed teeth- physical
walked to kitchen - physical
filled kettle -physical
opened cupboard, put in toast -physical and mental
made tea -physical and mental
ate toast, drank tea
talked to husband -
kissed husband goodbye
fed dogs
walked dogs to mailbox
picked up newspaper and mail
walked back from mailbox
turned on computer
read absolutely stupid request from acc
answered stupid request with equally stupid reponse....
and its only the start of my day... what happens when I go to work? (which by the way is recorded and earnings declared) and what happens after I finish work? Am I to record what books I read, what programmes I watch, who I talk to, what housework I do? How many times I laugh a day? How many tears I cry.......need I go on?
Living is constantly both physical and mental anything else is referred to as "a vegetative state". Sorry ACC you have not reduced me to that yet and if ACC want to do me for fraud for living the best way I can with what I have left, go right ahead! See you in court............
woke to alarm - mental
got out of bed - physical
went to toilet - physical
had a shower - physical
brushed teeth- physical
walked to kitchen - physical
filled kettle -physical
opened cupboard, put in toast -physical and mental
made tea -physical and mental
ate toast, drank tea
talked to husband -
kissed husband goodbye
fed dogs
walked dogs to mailbox
picked up newspaper and mail
walked back from mailbox
turned on computer
read absolutely stupid request from acc
answered stupid request with equally stupid reponse....
and its only the start of my day... what happens when I go to work? (which by the way is recorded and earnings declared) and what happens after I finish work? Am I to record what books I read, what programmes I watch, who I talk to, what housework I do? How many times I laugh a day? How many tears I cry.......need I go on?
Living is constantly both physical and mental anything else is referred to as "a vegetative state". Sorry ACC you have not reduced me to that yet and if ACC want to do me for fraud for living the best way I can with what I have left, go right ahead! See you in court............
Like water, be gentle and strong. Be gentle enough to follow the natural paths of the earth, and strong enough to rise up and reshape the world
#15
fairgo
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 15-September 03
Posted 28 November 2005 - 08:40 AM
oh and god forbid that you should actually have sex..... does that mean your vocational independence could be as a sex worker?? (which now that it isn't an illegal profession could be on the list of suitable job types) eeeeeeeeeeeekk!
Like water, be gentle and strong. Be gentle enough to follow the natural paths of the earth, and strong enough to rise up and reshape the world
#16
freefallnz
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 29-June 04
Posted 28 November 2005 - 11:22 AM
Oh Cool Jolly Jolly
Ive just moved to the Horowhenua district.
Mind you their staff is a little confused..
Last week I took in some paperwork and the "professional" at the front desk at first refused accept the letter..
It was only after I explained (Tersely) Lady its a Standard Business Letter. My name and address are the letterhead.. See its actually addressed to ACC!
Makes one wonder as too how competent some of these f*&%kwits really are.
Ive just moved to the Horowhenua district.
Mind you their staff is a little confused..
Last week I took in some paperwork and the "professional" at the front desk at first refused accept the letter..
It was only after I explained (Tersely) Lady its a Standard Business Letter. My name and address are the letterhead.. See its actually addressed to ACC!
Makes one wonder as too how competent some of these f*&%kwits really are.
#17
Accme
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 29 November 2005 - 10:13 AM
I think that his cm is acting outside their authority, and is possible demonstratin a case of recreational or medicated drug over usage, IMHO. Perhaps they are long overdue for some stress leave. It would be interesting to see how far up the food chain the cm's masters are aware of this letter to the poor claimant ?
#18 Guest_Percy_*
Posted 29 November 2005 - 07:36 PM
I do hope that this claimant has replied to this letter, with a copy to the Northwood Branch Manager. "I am sure he would not approve of this carry on.
Once again a CM HAS HIJACKED A PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT where a claimant has been referred by GP for an assessment regarding surgery.
I understand all the Surgeon did was ask the appropriate questions sent by the CM. The claimant was left with no resolution regarding his surgery. Firstly ACC would have to pay for it and secondly it is obvious the CM decided it was not necessary for the claimant to have surgery, but to return to work without it.
Then to get a letter like this where she stated that any activity involving EXERTION, mental or otherwise was standing in the way of rehabilitation. I am sure this person spends a lot of exertion walking the floor when they should be sleeping, in pain and misery?
How can this person go back to work if the CM has hijacked the appointment to discus restorative surgery, therefore restoring a modicum of health. After recovery, Rehab may follow?
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A CM HAS HIJACKED an interview arranged by the claimant's GP. They "surgeon shop" and then send in a list of questions. In this other case, the GP was not even replied to and all that happened was, the condition that the claimant was sent for to see if any surgery could help, was not even looked into,- why? Because the CM sent 12 questions and all the surgeon did was reply to these to ACC> He told the Claimant, HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO ANSWER THE ACC CM. Is this the correct thing to do for a patient?? Ignore the GP???????? Does this meet the code of ethics for a surgeon???
Michelle Barr is a throwout from Auckland. Has anyone had any dealings with this woman?
So it seems, Rehab is done by prevention of surgery or treatment and then tell the Claimant that any exertion or hobby, mental or otherwise, reflects CONFLICT OF REHAB.
Case Management has sunk to the lowest point ever and it is time that the ACC, CEO who reads this forum, got in behind the claimants and told staff to treat them fairly and within the law. I hope you are reading this, McGravy and Dr CEO!!!
Percy
Once again a CM HAS HIJACKED A PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT where a claimant has been referred by GP for an assessment regarding surgery.
I understand all the Surgeon did was ask the appropriate questions sent by the CM. The claimant was left with no resolution regarding his surgery. Firstly ACC would have to pay for it and secondly it is obvious the CM decided it was not necessary for the claimant to have surgery, but to return to work without it.
Then to get a letter like this where she stated that any activity involving EXERTION, mental or otherwise was standing in the way of rehabilitation. I am sure this person spends a lot of exertion walking the floor when they should be sleeping, in pain and misery?
How can this person go back to work if the CM has hijacked the appointment to discus restorative surgery, therefore restoring a modicum of health. After recovery, Rehab may follow?
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A CM HAS HIJACKED an interview arranged by the claimant's GP. They "surgeon shop" and then send in a list of questions. In this other case, the GP was not even replied to and all that happened was, the condition that the claimant was sent for to see if any surgery could help, was not even looked into,- why? Because the CM sent 12 questions and all the surgeon did was reply to these to ACC> He told the Claimant, HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO ANSWER THE ACC CM. Is this the correct thing to do for a patient?? Ignore the GP???????? Does this meet the code of ethics for a surgeon???
Michelle Barr is a throwout from Auckland. Has anyone had any dealings with this woman?
So it seems, Rehab is done by prevention of surgery or treatment and then tell the Claimant that any exertion or hobby, mental or otherwise, reflects CONFLICT OF REHAB.
Case Management has sunk to the lowest point ever and it is time that the ACC, CEO who reads this forum, got in behind the claimants and told staff to treat them fairly and within the law. I hope you are reading this, McGravy and Dr CEO!!!
Percy
#19 Guest_Percy_*
Posted 29 November 2005 - 07:40 PM
I would also like to add, THAT NO IRP, IOA AND IMA REPORTS SHOULD BE SENT TO A SPECIALIST WHO IS TO ONLY ASSESS A CLAIMANTS CONDITION. What is contained in an IRP is of no interest to a treating surgeon, unless the claimant has asked for him to be included in the preparation of the IRP.
These people do not understand the Act, neither do they care.
KPI's MUST GO!!!
#20
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 29 November 2005 - 09:43 PM
Percy I agree with you in that something must be done. An IRP does not have to include treatment and a treating specialist and not a toady only needs the relevant information that was supplied by the GP.
I am sure that you could place a review of the decision not to provide the approximate treatment . sure it requires a bit of social help but then give the ACC a bit of reason to get there nickers in a twist.
I am sure that you could place a review of the decision not to provide the approximate treatment . sure it requires a bit of social help but then give the ACC a bit of reason to get there nickers in a twist.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
