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

#1 User is offline   rippedoff 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 05

Posted 13 April 2006 - 07:00 AM

:D :rolleyes: :P HiYall;
the COMPANY in the ROYAL? NZ JEWDITIAREY F%^KUP is not exactley the best! Most of the screws cannot come up with a decent reason as to why they breathe, and at least 1/3-1/4 of ALL prisoners are SET UP! B) :rolleyes: :D

Who was/is it that spoke about ACC 'BENEFICIARIES' receive up to $1000.00+pw through 'Order in Council?'

Also about Section 60 for life?(YIPPEE!) and why ACCFILTH will not pay out anymore because it is not FINANCIALLEY BENEFICIAL? to them. <_<

If ACCFILTH keep trying to AVOID THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES by ILLEGALLY DENYING VALID PAYMENT, I may have to take NATURAL and COMMON LAW action against LOWLIFE GREER WHO THREW ME OVER 30 yards when he ILLEGALLEY RAN ME DOWN whilst I was legalley using a pedestrian Xing! :unsure: :wacko: :(
0

#2 User is offline   wayne1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 14 April 2006 - 10:42 AM

Section60 82act was suspended about 1987. I was working for ACC when the word came down from head office no more sec60 assessments. It enabled ACC to review the percentage of total disability and then calculate a permanant payment. This ment that claimants assessed at 100% recieved full ERC up until age 65 or death. This assessment could not be reviewed or reassessed by ACC. This means no medical certs no contact really with ACC at all.

It would be a good idea if reps of this forum brought up the idea of re-introducing this section back into the act. There is and will be a percentage of claimants that will never return to gainfull employment fact!!
0

#3 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2152
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 14 April 2006 - 11:36 AM

Greetings,
There was something of the like, prior to 1982...
not sure of the exact requirements... but if assessed that future work was not possible, due to injury or disabilty.
It was suggested to me by Dr. in 1980 and after 2nd accident in 1983.
A re introduction of sec. 60, would solve a lot of problems and COST. for both ACC and some claimants.
0

#4 User is offline   wayne1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 14 April 2006 - 12:59 PM

Claiments had to under go a comprhensive specialists review whom determined the % of permanent disability. Final decisiom was made by BMA. I had done a few of these back then.

This assessmant was also made 1972 act sec114

114 ASSESSMENT OF PERMANENT INCAPACITY

(1) In any case where a person who suffers personal injury by accident in respect pf which he has cover does not completely recover from his incapacity due to the accident, as soon as the Commission considers that (so far as the consequences of the injury are concerned) his medical condition is stablisied and all practicablle steps have been taken towards his retaining and rehabilitation, the Commission shall review his case and make an assessment in writing of -
(a) The nature and extent of his permanent incapacity; and
(B) The amount to be paid to him thereafter (subject to subsection (4) of this section), being 80 percent of his permanent loss of earning capacity (if any) due to the injury, or any greater weekly amount that may for the time being be payable to him in accordance with section 116 of this Act.
(2) In any case where a person dies as a result of personal injury by accident in respect of which he has cover under this ACT before the Commission has made an assessment under paragraph (B) of subsection (1) of this section of the amount to be paid to him, if any earnings related compensation is payable under section 123 of this Act to the widow or widower or any child or dependant of the deceased person, the commission shall forthwith make an assessment in writing of the amount that would therefore have been paid to him if he had not died but had suffered a permanent total loss of earning capacity and the assessment had been made under paragraph (B) of subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A copy of the assessment shall be given,-
(a) In any case where it is made under subsection (1) of this section, to the injured person:
(B) in this case where it is made under subsection (2) of this section, to the persons to whom the initial payments of compensation under section 123 of this Act will be made.
(4) The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council, specify the percentage by which amounts then payable in respect of permanent loss of erning capacity and fixed by or derived from an assessment under this section shall increase. Any such Order in Council may be made so as to come into force on the day to be specified therein in that behalf, being the date datee of the Order in Council or any other date, shether before or after the date therof.
(5) After the date of the assessment, the earnings related compensation payable to the person shall not be reduced by reason of any increase in his earning capacity, but by th Commission may make a further assessment under subsection (1) of this section if the condidition of the person has deteriorated as a result of the injury since the time of the last assessment.

It did and does allow for your dependants to be looked after in the event of your death resulting for your injury.

Yes it does stop all the bullshit.
0

#5 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2152
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 14 April 2006 - 01:19 PM

Greetings,
Thank You...
This is an issue I want to put forward... IF and WHEN the "Meeting" takes place... ???
0

#6 User is offline   wayne1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 14 April 2006 - 01:32 PM

If you entend to pursue under 1982 act sec 60 dependant partner received 60% of your ERC and dependant children the other 40%. This was until 65 or death and if she/he remarried a remarrage grant of one off payment of I think 3 years ERC
entitlement tax free. New act knoe for only max 5 years. Would like old way kept if you are going to persue. GOOD LUCK
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 April 2006 - 05:25 PM

If you go through the COG's minutes of last year you will see that hazel Armstrong will is doing something along these lines.

Those questions that I posted from Hazel Armstrongs office is a survey of claimant that would be better off if section 60 (my case 114 ) was paid.

wayne the reason why the head office sent a memo to stop the paying of section 60 was that claimants were getting section 60 and then doing there own Vocational Rehabilitation.

the case manager was failing to apply the Act and Goverment of the day were getting it in the neck. this is no different today there is no Vocational Rehabilitation and therefore if this section is ever returned it will only stop the case manager from applying the assessments for Vocational Independance.

At present I think that if the ACC or goverment attempt to reinstate a section 60 it will be irrsponcable and covering up the past.

before any legislation is brough in the case management needs to be looked at seriously
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 April 2006 - 05:27 PM

the last time that I applied for mine was in 1992 but the Corporation has done nothing to apply this section of the Act except to mislead the courts.
0

#9 User is offline   wayne1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 15 April 2006 - 09:46 AM

I was employed by ACC at that time. Section 60 assessments were only done after all rehab options had been pursued. Back then you had rehab officers responsible for rehab only. They were on the whole very good.

The problem is not with case managers ( I know some are arseholes ) its with policy. As I said back then you had specialist rehab officers who did everything possible to return a person back then. You had work trails make up pay and all medical reviews was done by a specialist relating to the injury. None of these bloody occupational physicans doing clinical audit by file reiews.

ACC has to return to past policy to make this system work with fairness to all.

DOPPELGANGER. Have you checked the base calculation for your 114 back then it was internal policy to restrict 114/60 assessments as low as you could. I represented a group of workers where their orginal assessments were incorrect and reassessments were made and back pay paid.
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 15 April 2006 - 04:44 PM

Wayne, I know that they had rehab officers but in my case the case manager decided to inform some incorrect information to the rehab officer. this resulted in a lot of confusion and in the end did not want to deal with me. That was 11 years after the Accident.

I still have not had the assessment but the ACC lawyer blabed a figure out in court. they can start with that figure but as that job was no suitable so will be looking at the later figure. this of course is back dated until 1981 when they should have supplied rehabilition when requested.

Wayne even you would be supprised at what the staff in Dunedin carried on with. There is just a court decision to get revocked as the decision is full of misleading information in which only staff from ACC could have carried out. the reviewer was trying to convict me of a crime when he had no jurisdiction. Think that the judge may have had a different decision than the one that I had.
0

#11 User is offline   wayne1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 15 April 2006 - 05:16 PM

Doppelganger

Ah Dunedin should of guest. Was sent up from Ingill back then to help out shit they were years behind understand now. If you need any info that may help sing out.

Go for interest from 28 days date 1981 as per High Court judgement AP29/01 Howley vs ACC.

Regards

Wayne 1
0

#12 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 15 April 2006 - 06:07 PM

.
0

#13 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2152
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 15 April 2006 - 08:38 PM

Greetings,
Here is a true story... My nasty experience with WINZ.
WINZ... They can be major gushers of the "bovine matter".
25th May 1997... My house burnt to the ground. Next day I went to WINZ for assistance, as all my son and myself had was what we stood up in...
The "Self Fornicator" behind the the desk, after getting the full details, that obviously needed urgent attention, LIKE NOW... says, you can have an appointment in 2 weeks with XXXXX... If My son had not physically hauled me out of there I would have wiped the floor with this "Gay Butt"...
Went to Whangarei, to a Friend, who went with us to WINZ there... her Case Manager.
S... hot... Got get quotes etc for clothes etc... at the same time organised via insurance, a large Caravan, to put on site... Accomodation allowance adjusted to suit.
All was cool... NZI usually sorts out thing pretty quick. BUT... Madame X. decided that all insurance monies. house and contents was her alone + $25 K. 10am morning after fire... ??? "Thats another story"...
Delays due to this kept us in the Caravan into winter...
We both got sick, and Friend put us up and looked after us...
Due Madam X's idiot behavior, Son's 6th form year was screwed majorly. Caravan was sent back and moved in with friend to share house and expenses.
great, economically all round.

Friend was at that time sorting out an"Enterprise Grant" from WINZ and the "Be your own Boss course"... which she didnt need. WINZ were being Total Arseholes in this...
They only gave half of what she should have got. Business was set up. and did reasonably well. Until the element of Jealousy manifested. A prominant figure in the the "processes" had an interest in another business of the same nature.
So A move... to a business that had closed... and reopened it and produced a significant success, some $ 10,000 + handed to owner as the 50/50 share. in 3or4 months.

Meantime Son had scored an 8 week job experience course, which after 2+1/2 weeks the boss took him off the course and on to fulltime employment and pay...
this was early 1998, and he is still there, possibly will be workshop boss end of this year. At that time, age 17 his girl friend got pregnant... they are still together,with my grandaughter. Proud of this boy I is. He has weathered the shit better than I have... Support your kids, and they will do well.

Anyway Owner of shop and land did the dirty, after an early morning robbery/burgulary, where friend injured her knees.
A 6ft 14 year old with pistol in hand... Panic and flight, fell on concrete stuffing up both her knees... Moved out of there to a house and set up a shop in the Garage on the main highway... to sell off stock... PTSD. due to robbery and injury and the dirty stuff owner had done, was in my face... Business was shot and an application to WINZ was done for benefit, as usual ACC was waffling around, and niether of us knew much of how the system operated...Her ACC stuff is to go to court soon.
WINZ case manager, says no benefit, at that point, BUT if I included friend on my Invalids Benefit for 4 weeks, until things could be sorted and friend qualified, all would sorted out to satifaction... Yeah Right...
As a result nothing happened to sort out friends benefit for over 12 months...
I was forced to used what insurance monies I had put aside for furniture when house was eventually rebuilt...( April 1999)... Court had ordered house rebuilt and gave me the right to buy my X out... A lot of Humour in that story...

At that point, house to be finished, My leaving currant situation to go to my home,
the 2 WINZ employees were in the hot seat over what had been done in our case... These BITCHES were claiming we were in a relationship, and were refusing to sort out her benefit based on this Bullshit... We were friends, slept in different rooms...
Even the "investigator" they sent, saw what was real, with his own eyes.
Took these matters to a WINZ review... and part of it to appeal, got paid almost 4k of what I was forced to use of insurance $'s... the 2 Bitches suddenly did not work for WINZ any more... This was a kick in the Butt for Whangarei WINZ.
There have been many who for economic reasons share accommodation with the opposite sex, simply as friends / flatmates. Nothing more, who have been got at by
arseholes like those 2.
I have since helped sort out a few other similar situations.

In all the years I had to exist on a WINZ benefit, not once did I ever do anything illegal or try for more than I was entitled to. In fact I got by on less than I could have got out of the system.
0

#14 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 17 April 2006 - 03:11 PM

.
0

#15 User is offline   rippedoff 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 05

Posted 18 April 2006 - 08:39 AM

:P :D :rolleyes: HiYall;
Section 60 may seem all NICE AND FLUFFY, in ACCLIES, but you have to WATCH OUT for your 'FRIENDLY' CASE MONGREL, who will do EVERYTHING FEASIBLY AND UNFEASABLEY POSSIBLE to reduce your 'WAGES' to the level of the dole or less! B) :rolleyes: :wub:

They also LIE about laws from the 1991 Act to STOP COMPENSATION FOR CLAIMS PRIOR TO 1991!

TO ME THIS IS FRAUD TO THE XTREMETY!!!!
0

#16 User is offline   rippedoff 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 05

Posted 19 April 2006 - 11:14 AM

:P :wub: :) HiYall;
GEEZ! Wayne1, ALL REHAB OPTIONS PURSUED! :P :D :lol:

Does that consist of Russell WORTHLESS saying(LYING) to ACCFILTH that I could do a physical job for the MINIMUM WAGE, whilst I was making my own pathetic attempt at RE-TRAINING under my own steam? :(

Does it mean I should have taken the QUOTE from my LEFTISH, LABOUR MP, one MARGE SHIELDS, when I COMPLAINED about ACCFRAUD driving me broke and I could NEVER AFFORD A HOUSE IN THE TOWN I GREW UP IN, her comment was, YOU HAVE TO START SAVING SOMETIME! Real good idea, food and rent or pay for your own re-training and save for a house whilst MINUS THE BASIC LUXURIES of FOOD and ACCOMEdation! :) :wub: :rolleyes:

I was DUMPED IN THE GUTTER on Section 60 and LEFT TO ROT!! This is after ALL PROFESSIONAL WORK HAD BEEN DONE TO SCREW UP THE INSIDE OF MY HEAD AFTER SEVERE HEAD INJURIES!!! :P

After REALISING? I would NEVER BE PAID 80% of my previous wages as a CIVIL Engineer, I was FORCED to return to my previous earn as working as a HAMMER HAND on construction!

After that, I was RUN DOWN by SKUMMGREER, and have not been able to do ANY REAL WORK since!

If I was not run down, I would still be doing construction and I need to know if I can RIGHT OFF 80% of the ESTIMATED $50,000pa LOSS as a BAD DEBT against the EXCESS TAX I PAY FOR NOTHING under Section 60?

I HAVE TO PAY individual medical and health insurance LIVING IN AMERICA!

Any comments PLEASE!!!
0

#17 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

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

#18 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 15-September 03

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..........
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 19 April 2006 - 06:09 PM

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
(B) 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
(B) 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
0

#20 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:52 AM

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.........
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