Help
Just wondering if anyone can tell me how you work out how much income you are entitled to when claiming ACC plus working part time. (as in work arranged by ACC). What I would like to know is, for example if you are say grossing $700 from acc, how do you work out how much acc will take off your entitlement because you are now a part-time worker ( earning for example $250 gross). Is there a table we can use somewhere to work this out? None of the case managers I have asked seem to be able to tell me clearly how this is worked out. Is there a minimum ( for example $80.00 per week ) that you need to earn before your weekly acc entitlement is abated?
Page 1 of 1
Acc Plus Wages acc top up
#1
niceguyXXOO 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 20-September 04
Posted 05 February 2006 - 07:50 PM
#2
freefallnz
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 29-June 04
Posted 06 February 2006 - 06:31 AM
Simple really.
You can earn up to $100.00 per week (gross) with no loss from your ERC.
Earnings over $100.00 per week are abated from ERC at 80%.
You can earn up to $100.00 per week (gross) with no loss from your ERC.
Earnings over $100.00 per week are abated from ERC at 80%.
#3
watcha
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 15-November 03
Posted 06 February 2006 - 03:32 PM
I have been given to understand that you can earn up to $60 per week before ACC begins to abate your weekly compensation.
ACC has a special form it uses to work out abated weekly compensation, claimants on part-time work will have their weekly compensation cut back by the amount of part-time earnings and may receive make up pay up to the level of their preinjury earnings but cannot earn more than the latter amount.
I am generalising here, but I can't understand why most claimants who do have some level of work capacity, no matter how small it may be, do not attempt to enter the workforce on a part-time basis, there are definite financial and psychological advantages in attempting to perform part-time work.
If you are fortunate enough to have a good case manager, (as scarce as hen's teeth) he or she should assist you into part-time work and should also go so far as to arrange a worksite assessment to see if there are any aids you may require or will assist you in with the job. Don't forget though, that any attempt to re-enter the workforce must be approved by your GP and must be entered into an updated IRP after consultation with ACC, your GP, your employer or future employer and yourself. Of course I am assuming that claimants have had or are undergoing vocational rehabilitation.
By not having the deal signed and sealed beforehand, claimants leave themselves wide open to allegations of improper conduct. Our old friends at the fraud squad may be looking over your shoulder.
ACC or third party provider arranged work trials are a different kettle of fish altogether. Claimants on ACC-funded work trials can be a source of cheap labour for unscrupulous employers - always keep that in mind.
ACC has a special form it uses to work out abated weekly compensation, claimants on part-time work will have their weekly compensation cut back by the amount of part-time earnings and may receive make up pay up to the level of their preinjury earnings but cannot earn more than the latter amount.
I am generalising here, but I can't understand why most claimants who do have some level of work capacity, no matter how small it may be, do not attempt to enter the workforce on a part-time basis, there are definite financial and psychological advantages in attempting to perform part-time work.
If you are fortunate enough to have a good case manager, (as scarce as hen's teeth) he or she should assist you into part-time work and should also go so far as to arrange a worksite assessment to see if there are any aids you may require or will assist you in with the job. Don't forget though, that any attempt to re-enter the workforce must be approved by your GP and must be entered into an updated IRP after consultation with ACC, your GP, your employer or future employer and yourself. Of course I am assuming that claimants have had or are undergoing vocational rehabilitation.
By not having the deal signed and sealed beforehand, claimants leave themselves wide open to allegations of improper conduct. Our old friends at the fraud squad may be looking over your shoulder.
ACC or third party provider arranged work trials are a different kettle of fish altogether. Claimants on ACC-funded work trials can be a source of cheap labour for unscrupulous employers - always keep that in mind.
#4
roamy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 14-October 03
Posted 06 February 2006 - 05:21 PM
watcha, i would guess the reason more claimants don't do a limited amount of part time work is, it may entice cm to use it as leverage to claim greater work ability, push up hours, bring on more ioa/ima, etc..I think basically some claimants are fearful of it for the above reasons.Whether this fear is justified or not i don't know, but i could understand it.cheers roamy
#5
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 06 February 2006 - 06:25 PM
the Answer to the above is as I understand it.
Compensation = $700.00
Earnings in part time work = $250.00
Abatements on the $250.00 = $91.34 which is made up of $0.24 in every $ between $64.73 and $103.51 $0.56 in the $ above $103 51.
Acc would be paying $608.66.
Your take home pay from both would be $858.66. (before Tax)
the total amount will go up until it obtains your weekly earnings as calulated under clauses 33 to 45 or 47
Abatement is in the legislation under clause 49 to 51.
No abatements happen until you are earning above $64.73
Compensation = $700.00
Earnings in part time work = $250.00
Abatements on the $250.00 = $91.34 which is made up of $0.24 in every $ between $64.73 and $103.51 $0.56 in the $ above $103 51.
Acc would be paying $608.66.
Your take home pay from both would be $858.66. (before Tax)
the total amount will go up until it obtains your weekly earnings as calulated under clauses 33 to 45 or 47
Abatement is in the legislation under clause 49 to 51.
No abatements happen until you are earning above $64.73
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: 1381
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 06 February 2006 - 06:33 PM
Greg the 92 Act has different calulations than the 2001. I don't know about the 98 Act but easy for you to check (98 Act is clause 24)
your second question looks like that it could come under the 72 or 82 Act where there was a provision that the ACC could do what you have explained.
Haven't seen anything in the 2001 Act. Back payment should be paid under the relevant Acts.
your second question looks like that it could come under the 72 or 82 Act where there was a provision that the ACC could do what you have explained.
Haven't seen anything in the 2001 Act. Back payment should be paid under the relevant Acts.
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
fairgo
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 15-September 03
Posted 06 February 2006 - 07:56 PM
I fully endorse watcha's comments. ACC however seem to believe it is "all or nothing" when it comes to employment. As I have stated on here previously I was told by various case managers that "It would be easier for us if you didn't work. All this abatement just takes so long" AND when going through the old Work Cap testing " The fact that you work doesn't help your case you know." AND this little gem written by a branch manager in explaination to the complaints department as to why my reinstated ERC had not been paid for over six months after winning a court case "It appears Mrs XXX earns enough as it is."
Fortunately I believe for me, I have continued to work part time and even with all the hassle it brings at times I am still in a better position than if I had not been working part time. I know full well that not everyone is able to do part time work or even voluntary work on a regular basis BUT if you can..... even an hour or two (and of course it doesn't worsen your injury) the benefits financially (if it is paid position), psychologically, and most important I believe, socially are one of the best forms of rehabilitation we can do for ourselves.
How many of you could deliver meals on wheels or volunteer at the local school or offer your services as a reader for the visually impaired or a library book deliverer? Unfortunately most case managers can't see the wood for the trees.
In answer to the abatement question there is a very definite formula which I don't have in front of me but I suggest you ring the 0800 number and ask for the current abatement rates. Also be aware that even though abatement doesn't kick in until a certain amount is earned each week you must still DECLARE it and inform ACC that you are working even if the amount is below the abatement level.
Fortunately I believe for me, I have continued to work part time and even with all the hassle it brings at times I am still in a better position than if I had not been working part time. I know full well that not everyone is able to do part time work or even voluntary work on a regular basis BUT if you can..... even an hour or two (and of course it doesn't worsen your injury) the benefits financially (if it is paid position), psychologically, and most important I believe, socially are one of the best forms of rehabilitation we can do for ourselves.
How many of you could deliver meals on wheels or volunteer at the local school or offer your services as a reader for the visually impaired or a library book deliverer? Unfortunately most case managers can't see the wood for the trees.
In answer to the abatement question there is a very definite formula which I don't have in front of me but I suggest you ring the 0800 number and ask for the current abatement rates. Also be aware that even though abatement doesn't kick in until a certain amount is earned each week you must still DECLARE it and inform ACC that you are working even if the amount is below the abatement level.
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
#9
gixxer
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 28-March 05
Posted 06 February 2006 - 10:08 PM
Be careful
I went back to work part time a couple of years ago and my CM told me I would continue getting my wages topped up ( to a maximum of 100% of before accident earnings). After 2 weeks of working 15 hour weeks my CM came to me and said 'We are going to stop your compensation as you can now work. Under the act as long as you can work, we don't have to pay you.'
I went to disputes and won - the reviewer said 'ACC logic was appalling' (his words I believe). The reviewer also said the act allowed 35 hours or less as an incapacipty to work but did not say what number of hours constitutes a capacity to work. From this ACC was told to back pay me lost earnings and that I would have to be able to work the same number of hours as prior to the accident to be consisdered to have a full capacity for work, In my case this decision says I have to be able to work 50 hours per week to be considered fully capable of work.
Since this has all happened I have stopped working again and I have never had another issue with ACC - I think once I won the dispute with them they put me in the "Too Hard Basket' and have left me alone.
Gixxer
I went back to work part time a couple of years ago and my CM told me I would continue getting my wages topped up ( to a maximum of 100% of before accident earnings). After 2 weeks of working 15 hour weeks my CM came to me and said 'We are going to stop your compensation as you can now work. Under the act as long as you can work, we don't have to pay you.'
I went to disputes and won - the reviewer said 'ACC logic was appalling' (his words I believe). The reviewer also said the act allowed 35 hours or less as an incapacipty to work but did not say what number of hours constitutes a capacity to work. From this ACC was told to back pay me lost earnings and that I would have to be able to work the same number of hours as prior to the accident to be consisdered to have a full capacity for work, In my case this decision says I have to be able to work 50 hours per week to be considered fully capable of work.
Since this has all happened I have stopped working again and I have never had another issue with ACC - I think once I won the dispute with them they put me in the "Too Hard Basket' and have left me alone.
Gixxer
#10
kiwiwine
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-July 04
Posted 07 February 2006 - 11:23 AM
I'm not sure if this still applies or not but about 10 yrs ago I wanted to try a home hobby - making and selling craft (unfortunately didnt happen tho). I spoke to my then CM and was told that if you earn't less than $9500 per year from a home craft business ERC wouldnt be effected- this was to do with the tax system of not taxing small hobby earners. I have no idea if this still applies - can anyone advise....
Kiwiwine
#11
greg
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 281
- Joined: 15-September 03
Posted 07 February 2006 - 01:32 PM
A question ;
"Is there a time limit for ACC. to claim back overpayments or corrections too
the financial records for that year held by IRD."
All IRD records are destroyed after 7 yr's I believe.
"Is there a time limit for ACC. to claim back overpayments or corrections too
the financial records for that year held by IRD."
All IRD records are destroyed after 7 yr's I believe.
#12
roamy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 14-October 03
Posted 07 February 2006 - 03:20 PM
Wierd humourist, the situation you describe sounds very familiar.Not so much for the details regarding overpayments/debt, but a particular c.m actively making life difficult for a claimant.Because c.m's have a lot of power , if they are so inclined (and it is true a lot are) they are able to do all sorts of nasty things just to spite a claimant-this board is littered with examples-.It seems to depend a lot on luck, if you get a c.m that loves to play games and make your life misery, or one that makes some real effort to assist you.It is another example of the completley random and illogical approach acc - via their c.m's-have to case management.If you have exactly the same claim and 2 different c.m's , you can be sure your claim will be handled differently by both.This is due partly to the screening of c.m's, the kpi's , the branch manager and sadly, what side of the bed your c.m got out of.
I, like a lot of you, have had many c.m's.The range of treatment has varied vastly.There is little consistency, and a lot of room for personal vindictiveness, incompitence and frankly hate.This is the real code of claimants rights.You will be treated any way your c.m see's fit.It is for this reason i can see why many claimants are reluctant to engage in any part time work, as much as they may like to.cheers roamy
I, like a lot of you, have had many c.m's.The range of treatment has varied vastly.There is little consistency, and a lot of room for personal vindictiveness, incompitence and frankly hate.This is the real code of claimants rights.You will be treated any way your c.m see's fit.It is for this reason i can see why many claimants are reluctant to engage in any part time work, as much as they may like to.cheers roamy
#14
Tomcat
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 848
- Joined: 14-September 03
Posted 07 February 2006 - 07:11 PM
Greetings,
ACC love the fact that IRD "supposedly only keep records for 7 years".
Especially in cases of back pay that goes back in excess of 7 years... Convenient for them, loss for claimant, unless you can get info from elsewhere. not easy when its 26 years old.
Found that out thru currant back pay processes... Even tho ACC has records, which they have denied having, little bits and pieces show someone is lying... As they have details on my files, and their internal memo's, show they have chosen not to pay what should be paid, as their records say they should.
IRD... If they think you owe them, they will find records, that go back much more than 7 years... Count on it.!
ACC love the fact that IRD "supposedly only keep records for 7 years".
Especially in cases of back pay that goes back in excess of 7 years... Convenient for them, loss for claimant, unless you can get info from elsewhere. not easy when its 26 years old.
Found that out thru currant back pay processes... Even tho ACC has records, which they have denied having, little bits and pieces show someone is lying... As they have details on my files, and their internal memo's, show they have chosen not to pay what should be paid, as their records say they should.
IRD... If they think you owe them, they will find records, that go back much more than 7 years... Count on it.!
IT IS NOT WISE TO STOMP ON THE SLEEPING TIGERS TAIL.
THATS THE WAKE UP CALL FOR DINNER
THATS THE WAKE UP CALL FOR DINNER
#15
niceguyXXOO
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 20-September 04
Posted 07 February 2006 - 08:39 PM
Thanks for all the info everyone, most interesting indeed. Seems as though doppelganger's calculations are the ones to go by, after getting further info from ACC. For those interested, apparently there is a" Fact sheet "available form ACC about it all.
#16
flowers
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 25-March 04
Posted 08 February 2006 - 05:35 AM
I think the thing here seems to be that the whole thing is so complicated that no one really understands it especially ACC staff. So because they are confused and driven by KPI's with regular doses of team spirit (policy training) sessions.
Because the beast (ACC) is what it is, it acts like a service organisation but has the raptors instinct for fiscal surplus as opposed to easing an injured soul back into some semblence of normality.
Instead of making things easy it is either bogged down in paperwork and involves considerable hassle often involving more in costs than gains, add to that the all the other difficulties one experiences in getting entitlements and the shameless use of the IRP supported by highly suspect APPROVED ASSESSORS and PROVIDERS to complete a legal exit document. It is little wonder that there are a lot of people "BAD MOUTHING ACC".
Officially this is as mandated by the act but ACC appears to be using the act and policy to avoid providing proper rehabilitation and to, by way of paper rehabilitate the invalided into picking up their beds whilst pouring water up their noses at rehab clinics some of which are owned or operated by employees and and/or their family and march off to the winz office.
After many years of this and perhaps a couple of courtcases down the track and having been through the full gammut of how ACC administers the act it is very difficult to trust anything ACC says or does.
Like always actions speak better than words and its all been bad so far.
Because the beast (ACC) is what it is, it acts like a service organisation but has the raptors instinct for fiscal surplus as opposed to easing an injured soul back into some semblence of normality.
Instead of making things easy it is either bogged down in paperwork and involves considerable hassle often involving more in costs than gains, add to that the all the other difficulties one experiences in getting entitlements and the shameless use of the IRP supported by highly suspect APPROVED ASSESSORS and PROVIDERS to complete a legal exit document. It is little wonder that there are a lot of people "BAD MOUTHING ACC".
Officially this is as mandated by the act but ACC appears to be using the act and policy to avoid providing proper rehabilitation and to, by way of paper rehabilitate the invalided into picking up their beds whilst pouring water up their noses at rehab clinics some of which are owned or operated by employees and and/or their family and march off to the winz office.
After many years of this and perhaps a couple of courtcases down the track and having been through the full gammut of how ACC administers the act it is very difficult to trust anything ACC says or does.
Like always actions speak better than words and its all been bad so far.
#17
Hatikva
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 12-June 05
- LocationWop Wops
Posted 08 February 2006 - 05:45 AM
Quote
So NO it doesn't pay to be honest or industrious. Certainly my continuing to work (albeit part time following initial injury) for a few years after injury was a mistake because ACC only pay 80% of gross earnings at time of total incapacity. Instead of soldiering on like a good little protestant, I should have quit altogether and got 80% of FULL TIME earnings.
So whenever a fool deigns to call me a bludger, I tell the idiots they don't know what they're talking about. If I had a wand I'd cast a spell on them so they end up on ACC, to live alone and to be inflicted with the worst CM possible and then I'd sing to them... "hey ho, hey ho, a bludging we will go"
So whenever a fool deigns to call me a bludger, I tell the idiots they don't know what they're talking about. If I had a wand I'd cast a spell on them so they end up on ACC, to live alone and to be inflicted with the worst CM possible and then I'd sing to them... "hey ho, hey ho, a bludging we will go"
So very true...
However - I would like to correct the misconception of 80% of earnings - there is a ceiling on the amount that ACC pay - it is NOT 80% of earnings - there is a cap on the weekly amount! For those of you who were paid a weekly amount from ACC, calculate the 80% amount for your pre-injury weekly rates of pay. If you were in a higher earning capacity - you will find that the amount ACC gave you was far less than 80% of your earnings.
For me, the net weely amount received from was about 60% of one day's gross earnings (and the silly buggers can't understand why I'm so pissed off about not being able to go back to my contracting ... now we're down to $200/week for two people on invalid's benefit (for everything). That would have been two-three hours work before this mess with ACC.
ACC can't comprehend that I would far rather work than be here ... fighting for treatment, help, assistance, in pain, forced to retrain in some capacity whch is a slow process when you have head/brain injury, can't write, etc etc etc.... Oh yes - can't stand for extended periods of time, short term memory stuffed so working as clerk in store out ... can't stand for extended periods of time either .. etc etc etc.
Know the frustration of keeping up professional registration => one expired, others about to ... Thanks ACC.
Latest missive from ACC - they've already CLOSED the two injuries that I had in January 2006. One (dislocation) according to their own directives takes 8 weeks.
Does the crap ever end?
Kia Ora!
#18
Tomcat
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 848
- Joined: 14-September 03
Posted 08 February 2006 - 06:12 AM
Greetings,
Well said flowers...
I feel sorry for for "them", as the day will come when it all rebounds big time...
That is no "pipe dream"... It will happen...
What I find very hard to understand is that the most "Cost effective Measure" that
ACC can implement is... Proper and Correct Rehabilitation.
Not the huge $ waste on fighting the realities of Claimants injuries and disabilties.
I believe that the whole process of assessing and rehabilitating Injured persons should be under the control of the Health system...
This is what we should be "pushing" for... It is something to consider seriously.
Well said flowers...
I feel sorry for for "them", as the day will come when it all rebounds big time...
That is no "pipe dream"... It will happen...
What I find very hard to understand is that the most "Cost effective Measure" that
ACC can implement is... Proper and Correct Rehabilitation.
Not the huge $ waste on fighting the realities of Claimants injuries and disabilties.
I believe that the whole process of assessing and rehabilitating Injured persons should be under the control of the Health system...
This is what we should be "pushing" for... It is something to consider seriously.
IT IS NOT WISE TO STOMP ON THE SLEEPING TIGERS TAIL.
THATS THE WAKE UP CALL FOR DINNER
THATS THE WAKE UP CALL FOR DINNER
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1