Posted 01 June 2006 - 09:00 PM
A reply to the Author would be needed to show that the requesting of consent each time is not unreasonable.
there are a few reasons
1. when the case managers request the claimant to attend a specialist , assessor or any provider, a claimant that sees what is being put forward to the assessors and providers is doublechecking that all relevant information is going to these assessors.
case managers could be proscuted if an exit was obtained if it was done purley on the given documents that was not all of the relevant information.
2. the consent form 167 is ambigious in what it is and the case managers abuse the prilave of having an open consent form.
3. the supplying of information from assessors can be interperated in many ways. claimants need to control the explaination and correct any information that they know is wrong before being filed in the ACC file.
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  A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners  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. "