[sauvblancgirl]

After being kicked off ERC again, my husband is now waiting to be assessed by WINZ for Invalidity Benefit.

Thanks

[Sparrow]

Bad news Blanchgirl and so sorry to hear it.
On an invalid benefit one can work up to 15hrs a week and no benefit cut. Also it is worth a few more coins..
Makes yer sick when yer see Jan White pocketing her over half million$ and tough love applying to claimants.
And speaking of Aunty Jan, havent heard a thing from her for ages, is she still here or in Brissy on the beach somewhere? Having been flown by ACC home of course!

Who was th e toady who kicked hubby off???

[sauvblancgirl]

Sparrow, on Oct 12 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

Bad news Blanchgirl and so sorry to hear it.
On an invalid benefit one can work up to 15hrs a week and no benefit cut. Also it is worth a few more coins..
Makes yer sick when yer see Jan White pocketing her over half million$ and tough love applying to claimants.
And speaking of Aunty Jan, havent heard a thing from her for ages, is she still here or in Brissy on the beach somewhere? Having been flown by ACC home of course!

Who was th e toady who kicked hubby off???

Ironically, the ACC-appointed specialist backed us up. The BMA seems to have accepted the specialists diagnosis.

We also have a couple of other specialists who agree .

It seems it was the TCM who made the decision to kick us off.

Waddie is handling our review again. Was today. ACC turned up late. Submission hadn't been sent to Waddie, ACC had made no copies for us - had to wait till reviiewer faxed copy to Waddie, and made copies for us.

We're hopeful.

[Sparrow]

OOH typical eh! How can a TCM make a decision like that! They are powerful animals these TCM's!
good luck and it would have been reasonable to delay the hearing!

[jocko]

Sickness benefit if you cannot work over 30 hours a week. Invalids benefit as stated 15hours. Please read my post Are ACC and the Government legally compromised. If you have a copy of the act check out section 109. When he is assessed for the Invalids Benefit get the doctors assessment and take it to ACC. The WINZ doctor is "An approved vocational assessor" in the terms of the act.
Under section 109 if ACC has reason to believe you have lost vocational independence. They MUST reassess you. Your man is a perfect example of what I am trying to promote. He is assessed by ACC as fit for work then promptly reassessed by WINZ as unfit.

[jocko]

109 When claimant's vocational independence to be assessed

(1) The Corporation may determine the claimant's vocational independence at
such reasonable intervals as the Corporation considers appropriate.

(2) However, the Corporation must determine the claimant's vocational
independence again if---

(a) the Corporation has previously determined that the claimant had---

(i) vocational independence under this section; or

(ii) a capacity for work under section 89 of the Accident
Insurance Act 1998; or

(iii) a capacity for work under section 51 of the Accident
Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992; and

( the Corporation believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing,
that the claimant's vocational independence or capacity for work may have
deteriorated since the previous determination.

(3) The claimant may give the Corporation information to assist the
Corporation to reach a belief under subsection (2)(.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 89

[jocko]

TCMs are not powerful they are airheads as is clearly being demonstrated in this case

[happy1]

No TCM`s are just another layer of greedy overpaid beauacrats employed solely to deny entitlements

[MINI]

Sabgirl

And dont forget the 'Martin ' case. You have the ACC medio agreeing with you, so ask what legal ground the TCM using.

This needs to go past Review by the sounds of it.

No Judge will over rule the Martin case, ie you have a report that the BMO agreed with, but TCM did not. Usually the TCM will not over ride the BMO unless there is something legal/technical, they think stops you. What is it???

If need be, between Review and Appeal, go get specialist opinion. Sounds too whacky to be left in Reviewer hands.

Good Luck
Mini

[jocko]

Choose another assessor. One of your own. Then ask ACC to pay for a reassessment, done by your specialist under Section 109. At mediation 3 weeks ago,we asked ACC to pay to have a medico/legalreport done by a widely accepted specialist to clears things up. They refused of course. But the fact we asked is on record for a reviewer or judge to consider in future.

[jocko]

( the Corporation believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing,
that the claimant's vocational independence or capacity for work may have
deteriorated since the previous determination.

(3) The claimant may give the Corporation information to assist the
Corporation to reach a belief under subsection (2)(.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 89

[MINI]

Maunga

If you have withstood three of these assessments, Doesnt this increase your chances of the fourth being upheld, unless of course they think you have gained vocational independence.

Please make sure all your medical, IA and specialist assessments are up to date, cause they need to get past the 'Martin' case this time around.

This has to be in your favour and a waste of money for them. I would let them know that I intend using that case.

You will find most of the CM never have time to read case law or even understand it. Most have medic backgrounds not legal. You have an advantage being on the forum which gives you most of the updates in the case law.

Go well
Mini

[sauvblancgirl]

Just to clarify, hubby has been kicked off because they claim that his chronic pain syndrome is due to the mild degeneration of his spine and not the result of the injury. (Previous review was because they claimed he had shingles, so his problem was illness not injury, despite blood tests etc proving he never had shingles).

[doppelganger]

now you might want to take this fropm the decision Heaslip v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 233 (16 October 2007)

INVALIDITY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT'S DECISION
The appellant submits that the respondent's decision to be invalid, because it
1. Was made too long after the appellant made his claim.
2. Did not weigh the balance ofprobability.
3. Required an unreasonable standard of proof.
4. Was made by a person without medical expertise.
5. Gave no parameters for success.
6. Was based on "research" carried out by an employee.
7. Has never revealed the terms of the research; abilities ofthe
researcher; methodology employed; or conclusions reached.
8. Excluded the appellant from the process.
9. Refused to inform the appellant of the basis for its conclusion even
when directly requested to do so.

But what I really like is

4. No x-rays or MRI' s are held by the appellant. Judge Middleton's Decision
1. The appellant submits that in the light ofACC having revealed, for the first time to the
appellant, that their original decision was made on the basis that: "Mr Ormsby has made a full
recovery from his broken neck" the Middleton decision is clearly flawed, since the appellant is
not known as Mr Ormsby and has never had a broken neck.
2. It follows that all subsequent reviews were also flawed in not finding these errors.
3. To this hearing, after arguing for 20 years that "the 1982 accident uncovered an underlying
bone disease", ACC chose not to restate this view [presumably in light of the medical evidence
that "there is no bone disease"]. Instead, ACC offered, for the first time, the opinion that the
cause of the appellant's condition was a 1958 accident.
4. This has been the first occasion that ACC recognised that the appellant's condition has
originated from a traumatic accidental injury, albeit the wrong one .

Not only is it the wrong injury it seans to be the wrong person.

And for those who are interested

VALIDITY OF ONLINE EXPERT TESTIMONY
The appellant submits that recent enquiry of the academic librarian at the University ofWaikato
Library confirmed that material obtained online carried the same academic weight as textbook
sourced information, for higher degree research, with merit resting on the work's insightfulness.
Accordingly, the appellant includes an article originating from the San Francisco Spine Institute as a
world-class authority.
For clarity, the appellant has numbered the article in the margin. These numbers correspond with the
numbering in the appellant's commentary [below]:


I give you all that want to read this decision, it is a long decision with lots to say.

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2007/233.html

[jocko]

Just to clarify, hubby has been kicked off because they claim that his chronic pain syndrome is due to the mild degeneration of his spine and not the result of the injury. (Previous review was because they claimed he had shingles, so his problem was illness not injury, despite blood tests etc proving he never had shingles).....
You should get an independent report done.

[sauvblancgirl]

We've had three.

How many do we need?

Even their own BMA agreed with the specialists opinion.

[Maraqita]

doppelganger, on Oct 21 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

You should read the case Heaslip v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 233 (16 October 2007) and you would know that some have already received extra financial reward for ACC case manager misdemenour. I think that this from the decision is extra above there entitlements.
setting up the CM will show that he is committing fraud and costing the tax payer large amounts.

This forum's very helpful. Thanks!

doppelganger, on Oct 14 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

now you might want to take this fropm the decision Heaslip v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 233 (16 October 2007)

INVALIDITY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT'S DECISION
The appellant submits that the respondent's decision to be invalid, because it
1. Was made too long after the appellant made his claim.
2. Did not weigh the balance ofprobability.
3. Required an unreasonable standard of proof.
4. Was made by a person without medical expertise.
5. Gave no parameters for success.
6. Was based on "research" carried out by an employee.
7. Has never revealed the terms of the research; abilities ofthe
researcher; methodology employed; or conclusions reached.
8. Excluded the appellant from the process.
9. Refused to inform the appellant of the basis for its conclusion even
when directly requested to do so.

But what I really like is

4. No x-rays or MRI' s are held by the appellant. Judge Middleton's Decision
1. The appellant submits that in the light ofACC having revealed, for the first time to the
appellant, that their original decision was made on the basis that: "Mr Ormsby has made a full
recovery from his broken neck" the Middleton decision is clearly flawed, since the appellant is
not known as Mr Ormsby and has never had a broken neck.
2. It follows that all subsequent reviews were also flawed in not finding these errors.
3. To this hearing, after arguing for 20 years that "the 1982 accident uncovered an underlying
bone disease", ACC chose not to restate this view [presumably in light of the medical evidence
that "there is no bone disease"]. Instead, ACC offered, for the first time, the opinion that the
cause of the appellant's condition was a 1958 accident.
4. This has been the first occasion that ACC recognised that the appellant's condition has
originated from a traumatic accidental injury, albeit the wrong one .

Not only is it the wrong injury it seans to be the wrong person.

And for those who are interested

VALIDITY OF ONLINE EXPERT TESTIMONY
The appellant submits that recent enquiry of the academic librarian at the University ofWaikato
Library confirmed that material obtained online carried the same academic weight as textbook
sourced information, for higher degree research, with merit resting on the work's insightfulness.
Accordingly, the appellant includes an article originating from the San Francisco Spine Institute as a
world-class authority.
For clarity, the appellant has numbered the article in the margin. These numbers correspond with the
numbering in the appellant's commentary [below]:
I give you all that want to read this decision, it is a long decision with lots to say.

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2007/233.html

sauvblancgirl, on Oct 16 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

We've had three.

How many do we need?

Even their own BMA agreed with the specialists opinion.

And the tax payer pays the assessors (some of whom are ex ACC CMs) but for what? To put you through the stress and inconvenience with very little real rehab, to make the CM's box tickers look good and to profit whom in the end???