[Campy]

MINI, on 29 January 2011 - 09:14 AM, said:

I have already given my views on Reviews. They are a necessary step to get to the Court. That is all they are. No one should go to review expecting to win. I don't, no matter how precisely and eloquently I state my case. Or how right I am. I think I have had two wins out of about 10 at Review. It is a bit of a different story at Appeal.

I must say though that the powers that be at Review, ie the Reviewer, have this wonderful way of saying that your case is dismissed ie you lost, but they have given ACC directions to follow!! Now there is an anomoly, how can you lose when the Reviewer is sending them away to do a task or two in a time limit and with clear instructions. Which is exactly what you wanted in the first place and means that you eventually win your entitlements.

So instead of dreading the review, we need to see it as a means to an end, a necessary evil.

[MINI]

Camp Mother, on 29 January 2011 - 12:17 PM, said:

[/size]

So instead of dreading the review, we need to see it as a means to an end, a necessary evil.

Well there is always that wee chance, but yes basically you always have the second chance of appeal to back you up.

Because of all the paper work etc x two, yes a necessary evil.

Mini

[Campy]

MINI, on 29 January 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

Well there is always that wee chance, but yes basically you always have the second chance of appeal to back you up.

Because of all the paper work etc x two, yes a necessary evil.

Mini

Thanks. I was feeling kinda depressed and after reading all the stuff on here, dreading the review. Why is the ACC so keen to have the review ASAP?

[mimi]

The Corporation’s declining claims is because New Zealand is a guinepig country, the only country on earth where Torts Law is replaced by business called Accident Compensation Corporation. This national Corporation is an ideal business that lives on mandatory tax payer’s funds. As a business the corporation’s duty therefore is to protect grossly reckless doctors and award butchery. NZ doctor’s are fully aware of this fact and they are even told of this fact by the representative from the HDC office that they both ACC and HDC protect reckless doctors. I have attended a lecturing in which HDC representative said that they protect doctors NOT the people of NZ and was giving examples what they say when declining claim.

Weak up NZ.

[not their victim]

DRSL also works on key performance indicators, so no matter how strong or solid your case is, if you havent become part of the 70% exit strategy, then you might be part of the 30% that get your entitlements back...wonder how thats done....early part of the year you win...end of the year you lose???

Nick Smith is still claiming that the drsl is a legal tribunal

I beg to differ

if the Reviewer (Judge) cannot and will not read expert medical evidence, that strongly supports your case, and the reviewer bases the decision on the unexpert lies and deceipt written by acc paid assessors, then you will be exited regardless

it cant be when the internal memo states that despite becomeing a crown entity, the government has sanctioned acc to continue to meets it KPI'S

therefore the reviewers, acc lawyers, and whole process is bought and paid for by acc! it is never independent

is drsl a fair and equitable "court system"

obviously not!

[not their victim]

and dont forget....the district court is now jammed with a backlog of cases

it may take you 2 years to get your case heard

in the meantime...your health, finances and emotional state deteriorates

time to take this tribunal (drsl) to the cleaners, cos we can!

[hukildaspida]

5 years on, does anyone have the figures for how many former ACC staff work at Disputes Resolution Services Ltd?

***, on 16 January 2007 - 08:05 PM, said:

Check this out!

http://www.parliament.nz/CmsSystem/Templat...arch=-672520499

12547 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (12 Sep 2006): If a claim is not dismissed, how long is the average wait a claimant has to undergo before their claim is heard through Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) in the last six years ?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I am unable to provide a full answer to the member�s question as Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) can provide the level of information the member has requested from February 2005 only. I have interpreted the member to mean matters that did not proceed to a review hearing when the member states �a claim is not dismissed�. For clarity, I am advised that DRSL use the term �dismissed� when advising parties to a review that a review decision has upheld an ACC decision. Such �dismissed� decisions have been included in the following statistics. For the period July 2005 to June 2006, the average time from when ACC receives notification of a request for review to a review hearing taking place is 109 calendar days. This can be broken down to an average of 18 calendar days for ACC to perform an administrative review, i.e. confirming or revoking its decision, then advising DRSL whether a hearing is needed. The balance is an average of 91 calendar days for the matter to go before a Review Officer. Additionally, I am advised that there is an average of a further 17 calendar days for DRSL to issue a decision.

12546 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (12 Sep 2006): How can a company owned by ACC, such as Disputes Resolutions Services Ltd (DRSL), provide a truly independent service for claimants or is DRSL really serving the needs of ACC?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I refer the member to my answer to question for written answer 12545 (2006).

12487 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): Is it true that approximately 70% of cases that go through Disputes Resolution Services Limited are decided in favour of ACC or otherwise withdrawn; is 70% a target for ACC as outlined on page 69 of the Annual Report 2005?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: Decisions where DRSL reviewers have decided that ACC has made the correct decision by law for the past 3 years are as follows: � 2003/2004 - 60.95% � 2004/2005 - 61.45% � 2005/2006 - 63.20% ACC has a target of 70% of ACC decisions being upheld on review. This is a target for quality decisions by ACC; it is not a measure of success for DRSL.

12488 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): What percentage, if any, of Disputes Resolution Services Limited reviewers are former ACC employees, for the current year and in the last four years?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I refer the Member to the attached table which shows the number of Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) reviewers who were formerly employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation, for the past five years. Prior to the establishment of DRSL in 1999, all reviewers and support staff were employees of ACC. At the time DRSL was established, those staff moved to DRSL.
View attachment [PDF 4k]

12489 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): How many, if any, of the 2432 claimant reviews that were dismissed in 2004 - 05 were dismissed for reasons of jurisdiction?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: When a review application is received, a reviewer determines if the review lodged falls under the statutory provisions of the Act. The reviewer then decides if the review application presented meets those provisions and, if not, will decide that there is no jurisdiction to hear the matter presented before them. Decisions with regard to jurisdiction are not dismissed, they are not heard. In such circumstances, DRSL will provide all parties to the review a formal written decision, which contains advice of the right to appeal to the District Court In 2004/2005, reviewers found that they had no jurisdiction for 406 reviews.

12486 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): Will the Minister support any call for a completely independent disputes resolution organization in order to ensure there is no conflict of intent with ACC?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I consider the current statutory review process, managed by Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL), to be appropriate and to meet the requirements for independence outlined in Part 5 of the IPRC Act 2001. You will note that there are specific sections in this Part of the Act that protect the decision making of the reviewer from external influence. I do not consider there to be a conflict of interest between DRSL and ACC. As such, I do not feel it is necessary to introduce a new dispute resolution organisation to manage ACC reviews.

16923 (2004). Hon Tony Ryall to the Minister for ACC (18 Nov 2004): What are the qualifications of each of the current Dispute Resolution Services' reviewers?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: Section 9(2)(a) of the Official Information Act governs ACC�s ability to release personal information regarding each individual. Consequently, I am unable to release the personal information of the reviewers without their individual consent. The following information summarises the qualifications of reviewers at Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL). � There are 24 reviewers who are permanent employees of DRSL, one reviewer who is a casual employee and two reviewers who are contracted to conduct ACC reviews. � 25 have tertiary qualifications and two do not. � 17 have tertiary legal qualifications � LLB, LLB (Hons) or LLM � 14 of whom have been admitted as barristers and solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand or its equivalent in overseas jurisdictions. � 17 reviewers have tertiary Arts or Science Degrees � including BA, BA (Hons), MA or BSC � 11 of whom also have tertiary legal qualifications. � 7 have completed Graduate Diplomas in Dispute Resolution studies, and 6 have graduated from those studies. The 7 Reviewers with Graduate Diplomas and 4 others are Associates of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand. � As well as the above, several Reviewers have other qualifications including Rehabilitation, Teaching, Nursing, and Psychology. � The 2 staff who do not have tertiary qualifications have 16 and 25 years ACC scheme experience respectively

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

[hukildaspida]

Anyone on here care to apply for this position?
Who is on the DSRL board?

http://www.seek.co.n...entral/22614302


CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Executive Appointments (Wellington) Limited - More jobs by this advertiser

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) is a specialist dispute resolution company with proven systems and experience. It provides complaint resolution services (including mediation, facilitation, and adjudication) to resolve disputes between organisations and the people with whom they come into contact.

Established in 1999 to provide independent dispute resolution services for the ACC, it became an independent Crown entity company in June 2011. This was a significant move for DRSL, marking the end of its twelve year history as a subsidiary of the ACC, and the beginning of a new phase in the company’s progress. DRSL resolved more than 11,000 complaints nationwide last year, and there are significant opportunities for further growth. With offices in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, the company has a staff of approximately 120 highly qualified professionals and client focused advisors/administrators.

Reporting to the Board and based in Wellington, the Chief Executive will be responsible for bringing strong and innovative leadership to the organisation. Also critical will be the provision of high quality strategic advice and ensuring DRSL delivers on its goals at a challenging and exciting time. The appointee will be working in a change environment and will need to demonstrate adaptability, resilience, be politically astute, and able to successfully leverage opportunities for new business.

Experience and capabilities sought include:

Recognised general management experience with a track record in enhancing the performance of professional services and customer orientated businesses;
Demonstrated people leadership skills, including providing vision and direction, building high performance and developing people capability;
Proven track record in business development supported by astute and highly effective negotiation skills;
Developing and sustaining strategic relationships across a range of commercial and government clients and stakeholders;
An awareness and confidence in leading and operating in the New Zealand political environment.

Expressions of interest and applications should be directed to Grant Pryde or Helen Steven at Executive Appointments by 5pm Wednesday, 18 July 2012. Email recruit@eawgtn.co.nz Tel +64 4 499 8230.

29 Jun 2012

Location:
Wellington Wellington Central
Work type:
Full Time
Classification:
CEO & General Management CEO