Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas Allegations of working while incapacitated
Posted 16 March 2007 - 01:36 PM
The case is very simple. ACC thought I was working in companies I owned that were managed. They relied on such information as my car was parked in the company car park without regard for the fact that I lived on the company premises in a sectioned off portion of the top floor of a high-rise building across the road from the Sheraton hotel.
These are highlights of the critical features only.
I was self-employed while at the same time being employed with Trigon Packaging Systems Ltd pre injury. Mechanical design engineer/project manager.
June 1989 strain injury go on ACC
December 1986 broken wrist while on ACC waiting for strain injury surgery.
ACC accept claim for both injuries and liability for ERC etc 1990
1990-ongoing Business interests continue without my being directly involved. I continue to seek meaningful involvement with residual capacity in accordance with S18 while incapacity for my pre injury continues S37.
1991 ACC advised that as I am permanently incapacitated with no possibility of returning to my pre injury occupation that should I become directly involved in my business interests and generate earnings they would not bother with the first 25% of my pre injury occupation earnings that would abate thereafter. (presumably under S60 as I was told they would not fund the reconstructive surgery nor provide occupational rehabilitation into a new occupation)
1991 ACC cancel claim (ERC and wrist surgery) after private investigator investigation.
1992 I win review hearings for both ERC and surgery.
1992 business interests continue and expand with by investing into my girlfriend's company while I think I had had the soft tissue reconstructive surgery and would return to my pre injury occupation after recovery.
1992 ACC instructs surgeon to perform wrong surgery without my knowledge. Surgery turns out to the ill-conceived nonconsensual experimental surgery that failed causing additional harm. ACC had instructed the surgeon to perform a salvage procedure that would guarantee no possibility of pre injury occupation and still would not provide vocational rehabilitation confirming the ongoing nature of a S60 decision without notifying me of the decision. The decision maker was John Orange one month prior to the well-known King versus ACC case. Making decisions in favour of the ACC but not notifying them hoping that the new Act would hide the decision. It was again confirmed that I was not to have any help from ACC for rehabilitation and would therefore self rehabilitate at my own cost rather than watch TV for the rest of my life.
1993 girlfriend's company expands and we move into commercial premises to live. ACC notified of my commercial interests and also fund a six-week business course as I did not have any management qualification or experience and thought that I might be able to utilize residual capacity in some other work activities while waiting for my recovery.
1993 hand turns purple requiring medical procedure to investigate the reason. During the procedure and medical accident causes a stroke and brain damage.
1994 My de facto wife and I went to China to meet her family and for her to enhance her business.
1994 I register a medical patent with a surgeon friend which resulted in an invitation to America (the Mayo Clinic) and Canada (an international surgeons conference) the Mayo Clinic suggested that given my wrist condition I would not be able to work with them on this project that suggested that I seek out a Chinese hospital to do this research for me and by the time that has been carried out my wrist might be better.
1995 ACC decide to provide an individual rehabilitation plan.
1995 My de facto wife now tired of waiting for me to recover and the lack of my contribution to her business (now second-biggest immigration consultancy in NZ and Chinese magazine) decides to leave me but as I had invested into her company and was a shareholder which had crippling overheads of which I was liable for, she couldn't take the company with her. I purchased her shares for one dollar and appointed the most senior consultant to manage the company.
1996 An ex ACC case manager who had also been an immigration consultant came to the company looking for me offering herself as the company manager. The ACC case manager and then current manager co managed the company but as I was not directly involved with the company activities it was unknown to me that they had set up separate companies and were embezzling both clients and funds. When they were discovered by the office manager they were dismissed. I was told that they would be a bloodbath and there was. The ACC private investigation now became more apparent. As I was incapacitated to address this management problem WINZ became involved in selecting a replacement manager. After a quick investigation he discovered gross dishonesty and carried out the dismissal and reconstruction.
1996 While this was going on ACC were playing their cards close to the chest pretending to provide an independent rehabilitation plan that a course like many others were in a. ACC agree that the surgery was wrong and further treatment is needed and as such cannot rehabilitate into a new occupation under S51. At the same time ACC are wishing that I take up a new occupation and I refuse wanting the prescribed surgery so I can return to my original occupation but reminded the ACC of all the various alternative activities I had been exploring (18 separate Iideas registered into companies to protect intellectual property in accordance with 1993 business course. A significant number of discussions took place regarding a variety of persons from the time of my injury whereby each material times the nature of discussion and intent would of course have been very different as the circumstances were changing ranging from being told I would return to work very shortly through to I would never work in my pre injury occupation again followed by I haven't actually receive the prescribed surgery which I won in the review hearing but when I do have that surgery I should be able to return to my pre injury occupation.
1996 I go to China in the hope that the project might get underway whereby my wrist would not be needed as I would only be giving verbal direction. While in China I also explore a number of other ideas & a provisional agreement in regards to an Internet project for when the peoples republic of china eventually have access to the Internet regarding artificial intelligence product database. The project remains on hold.
1996 ACC request I make a business plan of at least one of these ideas as part of my vocational rehabilitation. The idea I had in mind was 0800 0900 artificial intelligence employment consulting database in conjunction with the Internet as I had experience with the automation of information in the design of computer-controlled packaging machinery whereby I could utilise residual know-how. I funded perhaps $20,000 into the development of a software program whereby when complete I would possibly have a work capacity function with the assistance of voice software. I took on a business partner who had the necessary business experience, restraint and funding this company. In less than six months the company became profitable without my involvement and the partner abandoned me and my investment to set up a competing company.
1997 ACC informed of the first business plan failure then required I produce another business plan. This also involved an Internet-based artificial intelligence database involving product selection on an international level. The business plan was produced and presented to the ACC business consultant was followed by a thread of suspension if I don't produce a business plan even though it had already been delivered.
1997 being unable to suspend my entitlements the ACC then wanted me to be interviewed by their private investigator. The private investigator wanted me to answer yes or no to his questions which of course was an attempt confirm the Corporation's hypothesis that I was working and earning in my companies. Rather than answer yes and no I made reference to the information the ACC already had on file. The private investigator frustrated terminated the interview.
18 August 1997 the Corporation cancelled all entitlements and the claim (total declinature) under S73 on the basis that they alleged to possess information that I was working this can only mean that the Corporation believed I was no longer incapacitated and could return to my pre injury occupation relying upon S37A that does not have a clear decision-making criteria rather than alleging a capacity in a new occupation under S51.
I immediately asked to appeal and they said they were refused to give me the appeal forms as they discover they did not have any information that I was working after all and would I mind if my ERC continued and I would hold the private investigator interview again 20 October. I attended the interview and the private investigator started writing down answers to his own questions without my speaking. Of the information he did ask for and did receive there was no information inquiring into war describing work task activities at any material time. He asked questions regarding company ownership, shareholding directorship, signing lease agreements and other liabilities that company managers never under any circumstances would be required to sign. These activities of what I was engaged in were what is called it is read you to use of a director which is described as being exempt from ACC calculations, something of course the private investigator did not know of a mighty would not have relied upon that type of information. As the investigators notes could not be read I could not sign an it asked for a transcript which I would be in design if it contained what I said. I never received a copy until some years later.
At the end of October my entitlements stopped without a decision letter. I telephone inquiry I was informed that the August decision had been reinstated so they would provide me with a Review Hearing form which I submitted my application.
When my ERC stopped I immediately transferred to an invalids benefit as WINZ agreed that I had no capacity to work in any occupation more than 15 hours per week. WINZ had also provided the manager to the business I owned and was familiar with my circumstance. WINZ disagreed with the ACC who had disregarded the information given to them regarding interests over the years including right up to the present.
I received 4 days notice of the Review Hearing whereby the four days with the between Christmas and New Year preventing any possibility of legal counsel. Although I have requested the so-called "work" information at the material times that the ACC relied upon the Corporation refused to provide information claiming that they had protection of the information under the Privacy Act. The ACC failed to provide any information thus preventing the possibility of an appeal. The ACC did not go to the Review Hearing but provided the reviewer with a fraud file, asking the reviewer not to show it to me! I stated to the reviewer that of the ACC have not provided any work information for which they had based their decision on by default I must win. He agreed. So the adjourned but did not reconvene. In the meantime I was posted a statement from the landlord together with the lease agreement and two other unsigned statements produced by the private investigator was also did not provide any information about any work at any material time.
1998 the reviewer did not make a proper decision but simply decided not to overturn the ACC's decision based on the probability that the Corporation had made a proper decision given that there was a fraud investigation.
I submitted an appeal to the reviewers decision in the ACC asked the registrar of the district court to delay may appeal rights indefinitely because they did not want to release the information they claim to have describing work. The ACC then issued to search warrants looking for the information. They took away five boxes of information. One box went to the Crown counsel and the rest they retained for 18 months were upon to boxes were returned. A substantial number of documents describing what I was actually going remains with the ACC 10 years later which continues to be the cause of the delay to my appeal. The Corporation likewise have not yet described work task activity at any material time. The type of work task activity must demonstrate a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation. The ACC have also changed my pre injury job title from mechanical design engineer/project manager to Chief Executive/Managing Director. The change in time was quite odd as pre injury I employed a manager who I funded through an MBA to run my company and when I was with trigon of course they had their own management structure while I got on with the business of being a rock surgeon.
1998-present legal aid has been provided whereupon the ACC still has failed to release either my warrant seized property or the reason for believing I can work on my pre injury occupation or specify with due particularity any other work at any material time thus demonstrating an attempt should the onus upon myself to disprove a negative.
1997-present this case is now New Zealand's long-standing case waiting for appeal.
1999 the seven-week criminal trial resulted in a conviction on the basis that the ACC have made a decision that I do not have ACC entitlements and therefore to apply for entitlement using a medical certificate is fraud. In regards to sentencing I asked for a calculation to demonstrate the liability so the ACC asked Dr Monash to produce a medical report that stated I had tricked the doctors and surgeons into providing medical certificates and that I had a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation. Dr Monash was not provided with any medical information nor did he carry out a clinical examination. Dr Emrys was funded by myself to do a standard assessment as to determine my capacity to return to my pre injury occupation which included a thoroughgoing over of the specialist medical reports, medical certificates, his own clinical examination and an examination of loss of paperwork describing my pre injury occupation. His report clearly states that I cannot return to my pre injury occupation and that I have not yet had my surgery that will enable a return. He went on to say that hypothetically I could work 30 hours per week in some other light activity that did not compromise my injury. This means I would have to have a light job that did not involve my right-hand and did not overtaxed is my brain injury of which I could do while taking the maximum dose of an opiate. This gives the ACC the opportunity to rehabilitate me perhaps.
2007 A new lawyer has become involved in good on an application for legal aid which was declined on the basis that the case has no merit. The appeal to the Review Hearing is set down for 26 March 2007. If the ACC do not release the work task activity at the material times and did not return the warrant seized items and while it does not get legal aid while I would only be able to present my medical condition and then resign so as my new lawyer does not get an adjournment he will not continue.
13 March 2007 I received a letter from WINZ dated 26 March 2007 suspending my invalids benefit.
Even though I was already suffering from PTSD from the original injury and another type of PTSD, which I do not wish to discuss resulting from 2000-2001, my distress level is now considerably increased. Thanks to the numerous kind folks who are provided food packages, photocopy paper and various other support.
Apparently the ACC were attempting to develop, and may have successfully developed, an entirely different form of exit strategy. In my case if they thought I was working and earning, without a capacity to work and earn in a sustainable way in either my pre injury occupation or a new occupation, they would have been better to calculate an abatement of earnings. The Corporation have never sought reparation nor calculated payment of earnings which appears to be a little odd given that Michael Spraggon had promised that they were attempting to make such calculations 2003.
As they have no information of either work or earning I can understand why they have not made a calculation. That being the case why hadn't I had my claim reinstated.
Posted 16 March 2007 - 06:54 PM
You have the support of many of the learned minds on the forum. We are thinking about the issue. You have provided the answer yourself:
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind
of thinking we used when we created them."
The next bit is the hard part ........
Posted 16 March 2007 - 07:18 PM
The ACC have created an incredibly complicated problem that is something very simple by attempting to shift the onus upon myself to prove that I was not working which in effect appears to require me to prove what I was doing for the whole time since 1990.
If I provide a blow by blow the history of my life the judge is going to go to sleep. My appeal should be a surgical response to the ACC blunderbuss attack on my reputation and entitlements
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Posted 16 March 2007 - 07:58 PM
I like to say that;
"Ignorance is bliss but awareness is ecstacy ( and agony)."
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and power corrupts.
ACC has become an out-of-control power-happy freak.
Injured people are suffering and being worsened by the ACC.
I have no explanation for this abomination. It is called ACC.
Posted 17 March 2007 - 01:23 AM
Secondly I did not work for the companies that were functioning accept that best some minor activities such asproviding or purchasing office equipment, opening a bank account with a guarantee, signing a lease agreement and so forth which activities that were fragmented and occasional. For those types of things I put my hand up but the ACC told me those things do not count which the Review Hearing 1992 confirmed.
The ACC were always informed about my business interests. In 1991 ACC cancelled my ERC and surgery because they thought I was working in a company I owned. The reviewer corrected the ACC's thinking, that owning a company does not mean you are working and that ideas about a company you own or ideas for new companies and investments is none of the ACC's business. The issue was one of rehabilitation so as to be an earner (self-sufficient). Nevertheless the ACC were informed orally as I was unable to write so I did not have it in writing. I did see them take notes that they did not for the notes on my file. My case manager Eric Chung most certainly made notes and place them in a Manila folder but all his notes have disappeared. By 1996 1997 I was using voice software and ACC had information in writing from me.
Williscroft and his team were giddy with excitement thinking they had hit the mother load when they got hold of an ANZ international funds account thinking that it was my bank account when in fact it was the ANZ's own bank account. How stupid can such senior ACC staff be instantly believing what they want to believe despite the words on the piece of paper? They did search warrant on a friend's bank account who did a $50 million deal with an electronics company in Christchurch and received $50,000 commission thinking I was involved. This fellow was worth and eight figure sum! I later lived in a nice house that a wealthy person left vacant for six years for cheap rent so as to have someone look after it. The fellow that owns it also has more than 800 staff. Somehow the ACC think had once you have an injury your only friends it should be poor people. Needless to say as a result of the ACC's investigation I have lost all my friends.
If I had not informed of the ACC and the information was not on my file yes they could have charged me with failure to provide them with information. The fact is that they did have the information and more. People on this site are very well where that I am inclined to be verbose. ACC of course discourage anybody providing them with information for two reasons. One they have to do more work and two it prevents them from making any answ old silly decision they to their liking.
The ACC cannot claim an overpayment! There has been no work identifiable by them to allege a reduction in their liability and there has been no earnings of any description no matter what form one might think earnings had taken place. Quite the contrary it is proof beyond reasonable doubt that I had put personal money into my companies and taken none out while at the same time not even working for the companies.
The district court judge that judged me not be entitled to ACC that did so because I had an empire of companies also got it wrong with Mrs Browns decision. His decision was overturned one day before he made a decision about me on the same point of law. Mrs Brown purchased a cafe and was working two hours per day while incapacitated. In other words she should not have been working. As she did not have a capacity to work , and more importantly did not earn, as such she could not achieve a pecuniary advantage as she was incapacitated to earn no matter how hard he tried. She did not earn because she could not earn even though she tried. In a person has a back injury they can take pain medication and try to work without pain but all they do is destroy the remaining structures. Also while on pain medication they make stupid decisions. All that happened was that ACC's nose was put out of joint because of what she didn't tell them. I think she was still charged for the not telling part. In my case I did tell them as much as they would listen to but I WASN'T WORKING. This is a case of one hand (case manager) not knowing what the other hand (investigation team) was doing. They like to keep it that way because the facts get in the way of their investigation.
From 1997 until 2003 the ACC still had not calculated reparations despite still claiming an overpayment even though there is no evidence to suggest an overpayment. From the attached letter you can see that the regional manager was still promising to arrange a calculation so as I may address the matter in court. This and other information is like pulling teeth. I still do not have a calculation of reparation which of course cannot be done unless you do an abatement of earnings calculation or similar. ACC do not want to release any information that led them to believe their liability to me had ended while I still remain incapacitated not only to work on my pre injury occupation but any other occupation.
A reviewer required the Corporation to carry out all assessments for my social rehabilitation early last year. The home help was assessed at seven hours per week and the other assessments still have not occurred yet. I might add that as I don't even have the seven hours a week home help yet either.
I am using a borrowed computer to type this and the hospital and angry at me for continuing to use my voice software because of the damage I have to my lungs, which last year they thought was lung cancer. We are now getting to the bottom one really is and I would appear that an outside agent as instigated a DNA change. PTSD as people will no doubt so much chemistry into a system it is almost as if you are compulsive obsessive and cannot stop no matter what the pain. 2 a.m. would indicate I should probably take another sleeping pill as the first one doesn't seem to have made any effect on me. I read this again in the morning and see if I write. When you see me write rubbish it is probably the medication.
How do I get the ACC to make the calculations based on the alleged work so as to make an overpayment calculation. Of course they are aware that the most moment they pulled out one of the guestamations it will get shot full of holes with uranium enriched facts. And the person holding THEIR hand up is likely to get IT shot off.
Number of downloads: 3
Posted 17 March 2007 - 06:15 PM
you are not reading my postings. I was not working.
ACC cannot get a discount from ERC simply because someone owned a company that makes profit. What the company does has got absolutely nothing to do with the ACC. Read such cases as Donaldson, Brown etc.
The ACC have acknowledged that this case has nothing to do with earnings of either myself or the companies I owned. Please also read the above letter acknowledging that the abatement of earnings calculation has not yet taken place. They cannot calculate abatement of earnings when he was no work or earnings.
The police went the manager's home at three o'clock in the morning with guns! Passports and computers were returned. The police made a decision not to charge him that he was later charged for bribing internal affairs officers when purchasing passports for large amounts of money some years later. Remember he was had set up his own immigration company while pretending to manage the company I purchased from my part DEfacto wife.
Posted 17 March 2007 - 06:21 PM
or you will commence legal proceedings.
I know of an advocate who did this and after about 5 letters ACC couldn't provide their figures
so they went away.
Posted 17 March 2007 - 06:45 PM
Good idea but "Been there done that".
Also look at the letter above from Spraggon 2003 they never had any information to make any calculations and still haven't made calculations. Bureaucracy gone mad with power and without any accountability to the regional manager who should have known better.
Posted 17 March 2007 - 07:19 PM
The following month from the cancellation of my claim it was discovered that an additional ligament had ruptured as result of my attending to produce business plans in accordance with the ACC ultimatum. The workload of doing that was too great. The rupture of this additional ligament also tipped the balance whereby I now require very strong pain medication. The ACC ultimatum caused me actual physical harm. I am now being treated for voice strain injury which is aggravated yet another condition which results in about 10 or 12 hospital visits per year. Technically I should not be making contributions to the site or even preparing my own exhibits as I am knowingly aggravating an injury.
Even though I can do somethings that does not mean I should be doing things. For example I can drive while inebriated with my pain medication but I should not because it is illegal. You will hear this argument with regards to drinking and driving. The police now carry a detection kit to test pupils of those on medication. We can now look forward to being arrested if we are caught.
The ACC alleged that the companies I owned had an income of $1.3 million. Their own accountant confirmed that none of that money was earned by myself and that every dollar had been accounted for by chartered accountants to the exclusion of my involvement in the earning or management. The $1.3 million was of course wrong.
The ACC have never carried out any work capacity assessments of any description and do not even know the work task activities of my pre injury occupation so as to make comparison. The ACC simply asked the opinion of private investigators who in turn asked the opinion of people who were stealing from my companies, gutting those companies in order to set up their own companies knowing that as I was not working and as companies I would not notice. The office manager discovered the theft when setting up a computer program for my rehabilitation project/business plan directed by the ACC.
Posted 17 March 2007 - 09:18 PM
Posted 17 March 2007 - 11:32 PM
The ultimatum to produce business plans was beyond my capacity and caused an additional injury.
The ACC cancelled entitlements and the claim (total declinature) alleging that I was working but refused to provide the any information for the appeal.
Number of downloads: 2
Number of downloads: 2
Number of downloads: 2
Number of downloads: 3
Number of downloads: 3
Number of downloads: 2
Number of downloads: 2
Posted 18 March 2007 - 12:06 PM
from 1990 until the present there is a continual stream of medical experts reports confirming that surgery will have a probability of returning me to my pre injury occupation. ACC did not want to pay for that surgery because the surgeons would not guarantee the result. I won a Review Hearing 1992 to have the surgery. The ACC asked the surgeon to perform a salvage procedure instead which will also guarantee I could not return to my occupation. The surgeon changed his mind halfway through the surgery and then performed an entirely different procedure, a nonconsensual experimental procedure that failed, of which now needs to be undone so the original surgery can be done. Currently surgeons are a bit shy from Dobbing in their colleague as his activity was highly illegal and initiated by the ACC so the ACC are ducking for cover as well.
The current consensus of opinion about medical professionals is that I will have two obtain my medical treatment overseas and will have a probability of returning to my pre injury occupation.
Posted 18 March 2007 - 01:12 PM
2 separate surgeries, the first exploratory and attend to some other minor issues and the second to reattach the ulnar styloid process together with associated ligaments and carry out various other remedial treatment.
The North shore hospital quoted the ACC just over $6,000 for the first procedure. The second procedure will be a little bit more complex but not cost an excess of amount. There is about and 80% probability that I will be significantly improved with only about a 5% possibility that I might be worse and requiring an artificial joint which will also allow me to return to my pre injury occupation. It is probable that I may not be able to do the more robust activity but I'm confident that I am able to perform sufficient of my pre injury occupation while also relying upon voice software making up the difference which is the price of a reasonable computer and software.
In 1992 it would have cost $4000 all up for soft-tissue reconstructive surgery but the ACC were not happy that the surgeon would not give a hundred percent guarantee that I could return to work so wanted to limit funding to a salvage procedure which would save $1500.
Posted 18 March 2007 - 03:13 PM
Question have you ever done that Yes or No.
I never agreed to be an employment consultant nor 0800 0900 database manager. You are way offbeat regarding the concept of my proposal. As such, like many of your questions, there is no yes or no answer.
The judge has instructed the Corporation by way of a "directions order" that they disclose the "work at the material times"
The regional manager has acknowledged no information to make any calculation of reparation.
I do not wish to be rehabilitated into a different occupation. I wish to have the surgery as described by the 1992 Review Hearing decision so I may return to my pre injury occupation.
I owned an employment consultancy and described the software for the development of a skills data matching computer program as discussed with Bill Birch mp 1990, 1994 and others so as WINZ ACC and immigration would not continue to make mistakes they are making. As a project manager start selection which includes interviewing is a critical part of the job experience and skill set so I cannot say that I would not have the necessary know-how to be in employment consultant. Of course I do. The problem is I am physically incapacitated so that job is a nonstarter without surgery. If I can have the surgery I can go back to my original occupation!
Posted 18 March 2007 - 08:39 PM
The ACC made a full of bull dust but they are a multibillion-dollar Corporation who had given enormous power to idiots who cannot afford to get legal counsel to cover their ass. I had got you, no disrespect to you.
The transcript contains proof beyond reasonable reasonable doubt that ACC staff and private investigators committed perjury, no if that's all may bes but they will get away with it if they aren't taken to task in a criminal court and at this stage nobody has ever got ACC staff for the private investigators to answer criminal charges. The percentages are in their favour.
"Information by fax" the answer is that the ACC have withheld the information relying upon the Privacy Act in their favour. That another way of saying they want to claim is something is true but don't want to show the evidence because if they do it would prove that they had lied.
Posted 18 March 2007 - 10:52 PM
THE WITNESS: It could be useful to talk to me. I did not finish what I had to say. His Honour stopped me. The chart had not been shown together with the information in the icons.
18 HIS HONOUR: Okay. Who wishes to begin for the Crown.
19 THE WITNESS: A little -- just one little point on the
16.1320 icon side there is little boxes there that indicate
21 other documentation that is available in printed
22 form and so forth that I collected over the years.
23 That may be of some use.
24 HIS HONOUR: Okay. Thank you.
16.1325 THE WITNESS: I have just indicated that…….I did not finish what I had to say. His Honour stopped me.
26 HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Gray.