ACCforum: 1982 Act S.60 Info / Rant - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1982 Act S.60 Info / Rant

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 10:37 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 19 April 2006 - 06:09 PM, said:

you will notice that the Act is clear that it is the Corporation considers anf that the corporation shall It is not when you consider or any one else.

60. Assessment of permanent incapacity---(1) Where an earner who
suffers personal injury by accident does not completely recover from his
incapacity due to the accident, as soon as the Corporation considersthat (so far as the consequences of the injury are concerned) his
medical condition is stabilised and all practicable steps have been
taken towards his retraining and rehabilitation, the Corporation shallreview his case and make an assessment in writing of---
(a) The nature and extent of his permanent incapacity; and
( Whether that permanent incapacity has resulted in a permanent loss
or diminution of his capacity to earn; and
� The percentage which that permanent loss or diminution (if any)
bears to permanent total loss of his capacity to earn; and
(d) The weekly amount of his permanent loss of earning capacity (if
any), which amount shall be the appropriate percentage (being
the percentage assessed under paragraph � of this subsection)
of his relevant earnings for the time being; and
(e) The weekly amount of earnings related compensation to be paid to
him initially after the making of the assessment in respect of
that permanent loss of earning capacity (if any), which amount
shall, subject to subsection (8) of this section, be 80 percent
of the weekly amount assessed under paragraph (d) of this
subsection, or any greater weekly amount that may for the time
being be payable to him in consequence of the injury in
accordance with section 61 of this Act---

and shall pay him earnings related compensation in accordance with the
assessment.

(2) For the purposes of an assessment under this section the
Corporation shall determine an earner's permanent loss or diminution of
his capacity to earn by comparing what he would have been earning in his
pre-accident employment at the date of assessment if the accident had
not happened, and what he is now capable of earning having regard to---
(a) The opportunities for employment (if any) which, in the opinion of
the Corporation, will reasonably exist for the injured person
(whether as an employee or a self-employed person); and
(Posted Image The degree (if any) to which, having regard to those
opportunities, his ability (or, in a case to which section 63 of
this Act applies, his potential ability) to derive earnings has,
in the opinion of the Corporation, been permanently diminished
by reason of the incapacity.

(3) In making its assessment under subsection (1) of this section, the
Corporation shall have regard to section 59 (3) and (8) of this Act and
the said provisions shall apply to such an assessment as if any
reference to temporary loss of earning capacity were a reference to
permanent loss or diminution of capacity to earn and permanent loss of
earning capacity.

(4) Subject to subsection (8) of this section, if at any time or times
after the making of an assessment under subsection (1) (e) of this
section, it appears to the Corporation that the capacity of the person
to earn has deteriorated as a result of the injury since the date on
which the assessment was made, or was last determined in accordance with
this subsection (as the case may be), the Corporation may determine that
the weekly amount of compensation for the time being payable under this
section shall be increased, as from the date of its determination, by
such amount as, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers
appropriate.

(5) The earnings related compensation for the time being payable to
the person under this section shall not be reduced by reason of any
increase in his earning capacity.

(6) Where an earner dies as a result of personal injury by accident in
respect of which he has cover, if the Corporation has not made an
assessment or determination under this section of the amount to be paid
to him in respect of permanent total loss of earning capacity, and if
any earnings related compensation is payable under section 65 of this
Act to any dependant of the deceased person, the Corporation shall
forthwith make an assessment in writing (which assessment shall be
deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been made at the date
of his death) of the weekly amount that would have been payable to him
under this section if he had not died but had suffered a permanent total
loss of earning capacity and the assessment had been made at the date of
his death under subsection (1) of this section.

(7) The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council,
specify a percentage or amount by which (subject to subsection (8) of
this section) the weekly amount for the time being of any earnings
related compensation assessed or determined in accordance with this
section (or of that compensation as for the time being increased in
accordance with this subsection) shall increase. Any such Order in
Council may be made in relation to all such compensation or to such
class or classes thereof as may be specified in the order, and may
prescribe any limitation as to its effect, whether by way of reference
to any persons or classes of persons, or the time at which an accident
has happened, or the date at which an assessment or determination under
this section has been made, or (in the case of an assessment made under
subsection (6) of this section) is deemed to have been made, or to the
purposes for which the increase is to apply, or by way of any other
specification, stipulation, condition, inclusion, or exclusion
whatsoever. The Order in Council or any part or parts thereof may be
made so as to come into effect on a date or dates to be specified
therein in that behalf, being either the date of the Order in Council or
any other date or dates, whether before or after the date thereof.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the weekly amount of
earnings related compensation that is, for the time being, payable to
the injured person, or, in a case to which section 65 of this Act
applies, would for the time being have been payable to him in accordance
with this section shall not exceed the maximum amount for the time being
prescribed for the purposes of section 59 (10) of this Act.
Cf. 1972, No. 43, s. 114; 1975, No. 136, s. 18; 1978, No. 36, s. 8


In my own situation the ACC excuse itself from making a decision of permanent incapacity on the basis that as my injuries were causing my incapacity to increase that my injuries had not yet stabilised for purposes of determining permit incapacity, despite the fact that the ACC had ordered up surgery of a salvage type that rendered any improvement a complete impossibility. The is the nature of the ACCs irrationality whereby at the time the ACC failed to issue any form of decision thus depriving me the right of appeal through the ACC scheme, another technique to temporise my entitlements permanently.

As previously stated by a former ACC staff member in 1987 the ACC direct their staff to not make any further section 60 decisions. Likewise this would ultimately permanently temporise a very large number of claimants entitlement.

The only way forward in this circumstance seem to be by way of judicial review of which Mr King did in 1993 when addressing the same branch manager that made the same decision against my claim one month before this fellow's ACC decision not to make a decision. He went to the courts on a judicial review which is a very costly exercise. The High Court judge directed the ACC to proceed with their decision under section 60 as that was a requirement. As the ACC now knew from the High Court that they were required to revoke their 1987 decision Not true make any permanent incapacity decisions, why then as the ACC fail to go through all of the claims were cover of which the ACC had not yet made a section 60 decision? Has the ACC then committed a massive insurance fraud against the claimant's having permit in capacities when producing the 1987 decision and not revoking of when knowing that that decision had no lawful basis?
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 10:39 AM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

This has been brought up again 10 years later.

The ground work has been done ;

Fair go "Posted 19 April 2006 - 06:00 PM
Just have to add a little bit in here.... I pursued the option of section 60 last year through John Miller. When push came to shove ACC decided that because I had agreed to continue to seek out positions that suited my injury my rehab was not complete..... even though ACC had closed my rehab file themselves. So as far as THEY were concerned THEIR input was complete.... but because I was motivated and continued to work as much as I was able, never more than 1/2 time BTW they were able to wiggle out of section 60.....LOL. Just goes to show that the system is terribly misguided....
Unless I took ACC through the high court I was stymied and because the time/ money/ stress is an issue I decided not to pursue the section 60 claim. ACC were very quick to point out that if I lost at high court I would be liable for their legal costs..... NICE.........


I guess you did not read her posting particularly the last two sentences. The ground work had not been done but rather an attempt had been made that failed.

The High Court decision that should have been presented to the court was King versus ACC 1993 which is where the ground work has been done for others to follow courtesy of the coverage and determination of Mr King.
0

#23 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 02:13 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 December 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

I guess you did not read her posting particularly the last two sentences. The ground work had not been done but rather an attempt had been made that failed.

The High Court decision that should have been presented to the court was King versus ACC 1993 which is where the ground work has been done for others to follow courtesy of the coverage and determination of Mr King.



I followed what real legals suggest ;

MG

Posted 19 April 2006 - 02:28 PM
From my reading of old ACC files, talking with older claimants, and general research, I think Wayne1 is mostly right - the system did work better under the 1982 Act (although ACC undermined it towards the end. See the "King" case from 1997). The thing that most saddens me is, with the vast strides in medical science over the last 20 years, particularly in rehabilitation medicine, claimants are worse off now than they were then. This is because ACC sees itself as a police force and takes an adversarial approach to claimants, rather than trying to help them. It's time for a clean out at the top, followed by rebuilding according to principles of fairness and justice. Pigs might fly, too, but I think it is worth each of continuing to fight for that ideal. If we stick together they can't beat us. United we stand, divided we fall. The divide and rule strategy explains a lot about our country's hisptry in the last 22 years.
0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 02:55 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

I followed what real legals suggest ;

MG

Posted 19 April 2006 - 02:28 PM
From my reading of old ACC files, talking with older claimants, and general research, I think Wayne1 is mostly right - the system did work better under the 1982 Act (although ACC undermined it towards the end. See the "King" case from 1997). The thing that most saddens me is, with the vast strides in medical science over the last 20 years, particularly in rehabilitation medicine, claimants are worse off now than they were then. This is because ACC sees itself as a police force and takes an adversarial approach to claimants, rather than trying to help them. It's time for a clean out at the top, followed by rebuilding according to principles of fairness and justice. Pigs might fly, too, but I think it is worth each of continuing to fight for that ideal. If we stick together they can't beat us. United we stand, divided we fall. The divide and rule strategy explains a lot about our country's hisptry in the last 22 years.


You have got to be kidding

Did you actually read what MG wrote?
Is completely full of nonsense. What can case in 1997?
It is just an endless diatribe of claptrap with no meaningful legal argument whatsoever.
You are not seriously putting MG up as a "real" legal???
This is just one of many examples that demonstrate what not to look for in a legal professional.
0

#25 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 03:16 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 December 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

You have got to be kidding

Did you actually read what MG wrote?
Is completely full of nonsense. What can case in 1997?
It is just an endless diatribe of claptrap with no meaningful legal argument whatsoever.
You are not seriously putting MG up as a "real" legal???
This is just one of many examples that demonstrate what not to look for in a legal professional.


So now you claim Miller law didn't do the ground work for Fair go?.

MG is qualified , but then again you are Not.

This is the type of incorrect advice Mr Thomas provides and then
wonders why older posters refuse to believe anything he posted .

You bring it on yourself Mr Thomas.
0

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 03:56 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

So now you claim Miller law didn't do the ground work for Fair go?.

MG is qualified , but then again you are Not.

This is the type of incorrect advice Mr Thomas provides and then
wonders why older posters refuse to believe anything he posted .

You bring it on yourself Mr Thomas.


For goodness sake read what he wrote and then pass judgement
0

#27 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 04:29 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 December 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

For goodness sake read what he wrote and then pass judgement




So you are saying again , "Millar law did not do the ground work" for Fairgo.?

work it out yourself ??

We all know you hated MG. because he proved you incorrect about acc "LAW" so
many times that he just gave up correcting you on ACCforum.org and left.

Also there are others whom don't post any more for the same reason.
1

#28 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 04:50 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

So you are saying again , "Millar law did not do the ground work" for Fairgo.?

work it out yourself ??

We all know you hated MG. because he proved you incorrect about acc "LAW" so
many times that he just gave up correcting you on ACCforum.org and left.

Also there are others whom don't post any more for the same reason.


I have no regard for any of the individuals involved. If someone wants to use a nom de plume I respect that and have no particular interest when a non-prescription person makes any kind of statement of fact. I don't know who MG is and as they don't want to use a real name I don't particularly care. I certainly don't have any feelings for the individual one way or the other and I certainly would not hate anybody so please do not try and make false statements in my name as I find it deeply offensive.

You are the one claiming various qualifications in such without regard for what is actually being written which I find rather immature and foolish.

I don't know what Miller law has to do with this conversation or for that matter fairgo. If Miller law does not want to make any postings on this site I quite understand that. However I do not see any connection between Miller law and any comment concerning the advantages or disadvantages regarding section 60, the topic of this thread.

Quite clearly the posting that you referred to fail to actually address section 60 but rather indulged in some kind of ranting binge which is of course not What you would expect from a trained legal professional Which would lead me to conclude that the person does not actually have any legal training whatsoever, otherwise they would not have shredded their own reputation by writing such drivel expecting it to be accepted as legal commentary.

You should learn to be a little bit more discerning.
0

#29 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:12 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 December 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

I have no regard for any of the individuals involved. If someone wants to use a nom de plume I respect that and have no particular interest when a non-prescription person makes any kind of statement of fact. I don't know who MG is and as they don't want to use a real name I don't particularly care. I certainly don't have any feelings for the individual one way or the other and I certainly would not hate anybody so please do not try and make false statements in my name as I find it deeply offensive.

You are the one claiming various qualifications in such without regard for what is actually being written which I find rather immature and foolish.

I don't know what Miller law has to do with this conversation or for that matter fairgo. If Miller law does not want to make any postings on this site I quite understand that. However I do not see any connection between Miller law and any comment concerning the advantages or disadvantages regarding section 60, the topic of this thread.

Quite clearly the posting that you referred to fail to actually address section 60 but rather indulged in some kind of ranting binge which is of course not What you would expect from a trained legal professional Which would lead me to conclude that the person does not actually have any legal training whatsoever, otherwise they would not have shredded their own reputation by writing such drivel expecting it to be accepted as legal commentary.

You should learn to be a little bit more discerning.


Typical response from Mr Thomas , won't or can't produce facts again. We are all expected
to believe his version only is ever correct. Again Mr Thomas references are wrong as
Millar law did present a case for a section 60 , but common sense prevailed and they
agreed this would not be a good idea to continue.

Why do you continue to claim Millar law were wrong in law about this section 60 case about Fairgo ?..
0

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:47 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

Typical response from Mr Thomas , won't or can't produce facts again. We are all expected
to believe his version only is ever correct. Again Mr Thomas references are wrong as
Millar law did present a case for a section 60 , but common sense prevailed and they
agreed this would not be a good idea to continue.

Why do you continue to claim Millar law were wrong in law about this section 60 case about Fairgo ?..


I am not interested in your ongoing personality attacks.

There is only one version and that is the ACC legislation. Everything else is irrelevant.

The law has represented a large number of cases dealing with section 60. ACC are aware, as is Miller law, that under the 1982 act There was no legal remedy under the act to address the ACC delay of process to make a decision in accordance with the timing described by the act. This meant a more expensive judicial review. As the ACC had adopted this tactic more recently the legislation has included a delay of process remedy under the judicial remedy section of the act. This has nothing to do with common sense by simply as a matter that is proportional to the claimants financial preparedness to do legal battle.. The starting point for a judicial review would be at least $10,000 of which the ACC would cause to quickly escalate.. I have had this discussion with John Miller in regards to my own case. As I did not have enough money to go ahead we did not go ahead. That has nothing to do with common sense but is simply a budgetary restriction.

At no stage have I ever claim Miller Law to be wrong in law. Please remove this from your postings as it is quite offensive to us both I am sure.

Let us just go back to the legislation and discussed ways in which we may enforce that legislation as there is no need for these personality attacks.
0

#31 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:54 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 December 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

I am not interested in your ongoing personality attacks.

There is only one version and that is the ACC legislation. Everything else is irrelevant.

The law has represented a large number of cases dealing with section 60. ACC are aware, as is Miller law, that under the 1982 act There was no legal remedy under the act to address the ACC delay of process to make a decision in accordance with the timing described by the act. This meant a more expensive judicial review. As the ACC had adopted this tactic more recently the legislation has included a delay of process remedy under the judicial remedy section of the act. This has nothing to do with common sense by simply as a matter that is proportional to the claimants financial preparedness to do legal battle.. The starting point for a judicial review would be at least $10,000 of which the ACC would cause to quickly escalate.. I have had this discussion with John Miller in regards to my own case. As I did not have enough money to go ahead we did not go ahead. That has nothing to do with common sense but is simply a budgetary restriction.

At no stage have I ever claim Miller Law to be wrong in law. Please remove this from your postings as it is quite offensive to us both I am sure.

Let us just go back to the legislation and discussed ways in which we may enforce that legislation as there is no need for these personality attacks.

0

#32 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:58 PM

again you offer nothing to support your claim .?

Why do you continue to claim Millar law were wrong in law about this section 60 case about Fairgo ?..

you are wrong so just go away and think.?

State " Millar law" correctly advised Fairgo about section 60 .?
0

#33 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 06:29 PM

yet again this proves , Mr Thomas will never admit he is ever wrong.?

"At no stage have I ever claim Miller Law to be wrong in law. Please remove this from your postings as it is quite offensive to us both I am sure."

I consider "Millar Law" to be an accurate version of current ACC Law.

Mr Thomas says no . I know better than everyone.

"Let us just go back to the legislation and discussed ways in which we may enforce that legislation as there is no need for these personality attacks."

There you have it , 'Miller Law" version must be wrong?.
0

#34 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:09 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

again you offer nothing to support your claim .?

Why do you continue to claim Millar law were wrong in law about this section 60 case about Fairgo ?..

you are wrong so just go away and think.?

State " Millar law" correctly advised Fairgo about section 60 .?


I have made no comment regarding Miller lawAnd section 60 in relation to any fair go case. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It seems to me that you have simply generators some type of imagine ready scenario and are engaging in some kind of bully tactics against me. Please stop it.
0

#35 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:11 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

yet again this proves , Mr Thomas will never admit he is ever wrong.?

"At no stage have I ever claim Miller Law to be wrong in law. Please remove this from your postings as it is quite offensive to us both I am sure."

I consider "Millar Law" to be an accurate version of current ACC Law.

Mr Thomas says no . I know better than everyone.

"Let us just go back to the legislation and discussed ways in which we may enforce that legislation as there is no need for these personality attacks."

There you have it , 'Miller Law" version must be wrong?.


Please stop telling these most outrageous lies as it offends both Miller law and myself. No comment has been made about Miller law and I have absolutely no idea where you have got this loopy idea from except from the fact that your behaviour is consistent with fewer irrationality of the past. Please stop this disgraceful behaviour.
0

#36 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:27 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 December 2016 - 07:11 PM, said:

Please stop telling these most outrageous lies as it offends both Miller law and myself. No comment has been made about Miller law and I have absolutely no idea where you have got this loopy idea from except from the fact that your behaviour is consistent with fewer irrationality of the past. Please stop this disgraceful behaviour.


How can repeating your claim that "Millar Law " is wrong .

Yet you promote such judgements;
Alan Thomas

Advanced Member
PipPipPip
Remove Friend PM this member
Group:Members
Posts:6293
Joined:10-June 06
Posted Yesterday, 07:10 PM
Tommy
looking amongst my archive material on the computer is of course within my physical capacities at the moment and the key phrase at the end of this judgement is as follows:
" the basis upon which the appellant's loss of job opportunities is to be assessed for the purpose of making the necessary comparisons between his relevant earnings, the earnings he would have received had it not been for the accident and his present earnings."

So as you can see the payment is not based on a percentage of the historical earnings but rather a calculation of the projected earnings (The earnings he would have received had it not been for the accident)

Judgements such as this and others is what your previous legal counsel should have a praise themselves of before beginning to plan a strategy for your case.
Decision No. 236/92
of the Accident Compensation Act 1982
of an appeal pursuant to s.107 of the Act
HALLIDAY ARTHUR LEWIS of Auckland
(Ref: ACA 142/88)
Appellant
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY
District Court Judge A W Middleton
HEARING at AUCKLAND on the 11th day of June 1992
APPEARANCES
J G Ussher for appellant K W Reid for respondent
DECISION
The issue in this appeal is the Corporation's refusal to undertake an assessment under s.60 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982.
The facts which give rise to the appeal are that the appellant initially injured his back on 31 December 1983 and thereafter suffered some exacerbations. At the time of the accident the appellant was employed as an agency manager in the Phoenix

Alan Thomas

Advanced Member
PipPipPip
Remove Friend PM this member
Group:Members
Posts:6293
Joined:10-June 06
Posted Yesterday, 07:17 PM
Tommy this decision will assist you gain an appreciation as to the nature of the ACC behaviour during the transition between the 1982 legislation and the 1992 legislation. In essence if the ACC have not carried out the section 60 assessment and issued a decision then you are still entitled to have that assessment and decision. ACC do not escape their duties and benefit from their own negligence. As you can see the ACC decision not to carry out an assessment and make decisions is a very very serious breach. In my opinion this breach is insurance fraud given the awareness that the ACC were depriving claimants of a pecuniary advantage.

KING v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
————— [unreported] —————

HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND, Auckland (M1738/92) 15 July 1993; 2 August 1993

Apparently Mr Thomas suggests all legals have never done research, even though some may have.

I notice my login is being played with , poor Mr Thomas is again exposed.

?.
0

#37 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:36 PM

hi ; read if you wish but don't trust anyone.
0

#38 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 08:10 PM

Advanced Member
PipPipPip
Remove Friend PM this member
Group:Members
Posts:6293
Joined:10-June 06
Posted 09 December 2016 - 05:09 PM
View Posttommy, on 09 December 2016 - 04:51 PM, said:
so as in 15807 as you related to the corporation as being fraudulent towards tommmy allan , i shall write a leter and advise of their unlawfullness as in in legislative terms.,towards tommy


Not a good way to get you money.

Ask for ACC to issue you a S60 decision and take it from there.
http://accforum.org/...im-alan-thomas/
0 +-


Should this poster offer advice or even hope when this is no Empathy, Ethics, Success.
Is there an agenda about going to review for what by law can't happen.
How many others may have been scammed? and for how long.?
0

#39 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 13 December 2016 - 07:30 PM

View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

Advanced Member
PipPipPip
Remove Friend PM this member
Group:Members
Posts:6293
Joined:10-June 06
Posted 09 December 2016 - 05:09 PM
View Posttommy, on 09 December 2016 - 04:51 PM, said:
so as in 15807 as you related to the corporation as being fraudulent towards tommmy allan , i shall write a leter and advise of their unlawfullness as in in legislative terms.,towards tommy


Not a good way to get you money.

Ask for ACC to issue you a S60 decision and take it from there.
http://accforum.org/...im-alan-thomas/
0 +-


Should this poster offer advice or even hope when this is no Empathy, Ethics, Success.
Is there an agenda about going to review for what by law can't happen.
How many others may have been scammed? and for how long.?


Firstly if Tommy has sent Mr Thomas any info about his ID please
inform ACC in regards to any section 60 requests..



Hopefully Mr Thomas has sent an apology to Millar Law for untruthful statement

Here it is again;

Alan Thomas

Advanced Member
PipPipPip
Remove Friend PM this member
Group:Members
Posts:6296
Joined:10-June 06
Posted Yesterday, 10:39 AM
View Postgreg, on 12 December 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:
This has been brought up again 10 years later.

The ground work has been done ;

Fair go "Posted 19 April 2006 - 06:00 PM
Just have to add a little bit in here.... I pursued the option of section 60 last year through John Miller. When push came to shove ACC decided that because I had agreed to continue to seek out positions that suited my injury my rehab was not complete..... even though ACC had closed my rehab file themselves. So as far as THEY were concerned THEIR input was complete.... but because I was motivated and continued to work as much as I was able, never more than 1/2 time BTW they were able to wiggle out of section 60.....LOL. Just goes to show that the system is terribly misguided....
Unless I took ACC through the high court I was stymied and because the time/ money/ stress is an issue I decided not to pursue the section 60 claim. ACC were very quick to point out that if I lost at high court I would be liable for their legal costs..... NICE.........


I guess you did not read her posting particularly the last two sentences. The ground work had not been done but rather an attempt had been made that failed.

The High Court decision that should have been presented to the court was King versus ACC 1993 which is where the ground work has been done for others to follow courtesy of the coverage and determination of Mr King.
http://accforum.org/...im-alan-thomas/
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users