ACCforum: Milestone Asbestos Payout Ordered - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Milestone Asbestos Payout Ordered

#1 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 August 2004 - 07:33 AM

Milestone asbestos payout ordered

12.08.2004
By REBECCA WALSH

A judge's decision over an asbestos-related death clears the way for hundreds of people to seek lump-sum compensation payments.

District court judge David Ongley has ordered the Accident Compensation Commission to pay compensation of nearly $100,000 to the estate of Auckland man Ross Lehmann.

The 79-year-old retired fitter and welder died in November last year, about a year after being diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.

In 1960, Mr Lehmann helped install a new boiler and piping, covered with asbestos, at the New Zealand Forest Products plant in Penrose.

He became ill more than 40 years later, in 2002.

New Zealand is in the midst of an epidemic of asbestos cancer deaths and thousands of people, particularly men, are expected to die over the next decade.

Despite that it lags behind other countries in dealing with asbestos-related claims.

The Wellington District Court decision is the first lump-sum award for asbestos victims diagnosed after April 1, 2002.

Lawyer Hazel Armstrong said it set a precedent for others diagnosed since then to claim lump-sum compensation.

"There is good reason for assisting these workers - they helped build New Zealand in the 1960s and 1970s," she said.

"Many asbestos victims worked in the construction industry. They were engineers, carpenters, labourers.

"The Government knew that lung cancer was caused by asbestos by the 1960s but chose to allow imports and its use by industry to continue."

Ms Armstrong, who had a "battery" of similar cases, said ACC should tell people with asbestos-related diseases that they were eligible for lump-sum payments.

"Instead ACC has been known to delay assessments and then it is too late because the person has died."

An ACC spokesman said lawyers were studying the decision.

He could not say whether the commission would try to overturn the decision, but it is understood an appeal is likely.

A spokeswoman for ACC Minister Ruth Dyson said she needed to read the decision before commenting.

ACC claimed lump-sum payments applied only when the person suffered injury or exposure after April 1, 2002.

But the lawyer for Mr Lehmann's widow, Dawn, argued lump sums applied from the date of treatment or when the person first became ill.

Mr Lehmann went to his GP in late 2002 with a cough. Tests confirmed he had asbestos-related lung cancer.

ACC accepted his claim in February last year, and in November, after a medical assessment, he was offered an independence allowance of $67.72 a week to compensate for his impairment.

He was not offered a lump-sum payment.

He died four days later.

Dawn Lehmann took the case to review, and in a reserved decision issued this week Judge David Ongley found that the reviewer's decision was correct and dismissed ACC's appeal against it.

Ms Armstrong said Mrs Lehmann, now 80, was not in the best health but was "very pleased" with the decision. A total of $98,500 had been deposited in a lawyer's trust account.

Mr Lehmann's son, John, said his father had worked hard all his life and served in World War II.

He was "disgusted" that his parents had been "put through the hoops" to get something to which they were legally entitled.

John Miller, a Victoria University specialist in ACC law, said the decision was "just". It was wrong to fight to deprive dying people of lump sums.

"It gives them some comfort in their remaining years to think their families are going to be provided for," he said.

He expected hundreds would apply for lump sums but that ACC would appeal against the decision.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...section=general
0

#2 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 August 2004 - 07:38 AM

ACC to decide on appeal over asbestos payout

12.08.2004 2.00 pm

The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) says it has yet to decide whether to appeal a judge's order to pay the victim of an asbestos-related illness $100,000.

Wellington District Court Judge David Ongley, in a reserved decision, ordered ACC to pay the estate of Auckland fitter and welder Ross Lehmann.

It was "far too early to say" whether ACC would appeal, because it was still looking at the decision, the corporation's media advisor, Fraser Folster, told NZPA today.

Mr Lehmann died aged 79 in November last year, a year after he was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.

He had helped to install an asbestos-covered boiler and pipes at the New Zealand Forest Products plant in Penrose in 1960, and was diagnosed with the disease in late 2002.

- NZPA

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory....section=general
0

#3 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 23 August 2004 - 09:57 PM

Taupo interest in asbestos case . . .
23 August 2004
By SUE HAWKINS

Dozens of people in Taupo and Turangi are weighing up the implications of a court case in which the ACC has been ordered to pay a lump sum to the estate of an Auckland man who died from an asbestos-related disease.

Keith Wilson, a former manager at Wairakei Power Station, says the last of the asbestos cladding on geo-thermal steam pipes was removed only in the last decade.

But he says there are probably any number of buildings around Taupo where there could be traces of asbestos, especially older ones where it was used as insulation in ceilings and decorative finishes.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of the lung which can develop up to 40 years later and usually kills the victim within two years.

Mr Wilson says while it is known many people working in the former NZED had been exposed to asbestos, there were also subcontractors and builders working in materials with asbestos in them around Taupo.

Early school prefabs used an asbestos board for walls and hot water cylinders often had asbestos insulation.

Mr Wilson says many former colleagues from his NZED days have died, some of them from lung cancers, and those who smoked were among the early deaths.

"It seemed to aggravate or hide the mesothelioma."

While a number of the former workers are now on a register and have regular medical checks, there have been some who have sued, but in many cases settled out of court.

One other landmark case involved a former resident engineer from Wairakei, Robin McKenzie, whose condition had been diagnosed before accident compensation legislation took effect.

He fought first for the right to sue the government for $2 million and then eventually settled his case out of court.

Mr Wilson says New Zealand is about 10 years behind other countries when it comes to acknowledging the danger from asbestos.

In the early 1970s English visitors he was showing around Wairakei told him you could not get away with using asbestos insulation in the UK.

"They said over there it was treated like a radioactive substance."

Mr Wilson says it has only been in recent years that suitable substitutes have been found for asbestos and then they still had to be made available in building materials.

http://stuff.co.nz/b...14a6014,00.html



WAITING GAME: Keith Wilson at the Wairakei borefield where steam pipes were once insulated with asbestos, a task carried out by the local work force. Many of them are part of a monitoring programme where a close watch is kept to see if they experience any lung changes.
*** BOLD/Taupo Times

Attached File(s)


0

#4 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 August 2004 - 12:44 AM

ACC To Pay Asbestos Claim
28/08/2004 07:50 PM
NewstalkZB

The Accident Compensation Corporation says it will pay $100,000 to the estate of asbestos victim Ross Lehmann, but they are appealing the legality of it.

Ross Lehmann was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung-cancer in 2002, more than 40 years after he was exposed to the deadly substance. He received some ACC compensation for medical costs, but was never offered a lump sum payment.

Mr Lehmann died last year.

Earlier this month the Wellington District Court ruled that Mr Lehmann was entitled to a lump sum payment and ordered ACC to pay it.

ACC is appealing for a clarification of the law. They say parliament never intended for lump sum payments to be retrospective.

The Corporation says it will also cover defence costs, as they do not believe Mr Lehmann's widow should be disadvantaged by the misinterpretation.

http://xtramsn.co.nz...3645743,00.html
0

#5 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 August 2004 - 12:46 AM

if acc take that stance, then in my opinion, the manufacturers supplying toxic/dangerous substances should still be able to be sued,


acc has definitely lost its way, no humanity.
0

#6 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 August 2004 - 11:03 PM

How low can New Zealand Go?


watch this video clip and make up your own mind.

This from TV1 news 29 August 2004.


761kb .wmv windows media video file.

click link to download

ACC Challenges Asbestos payout
0

#7 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 August 2004 - 11:39 PM

Dismay at ACC appeal
ACC to appeal Wellington District Court ruling forcing corporation to pay lump sump to asbestos victim's estate
29 August 2004

There is dismay that ACC has decided to appeal a Wellington District Court decision forcing the corporation to pay a lump sump to an asbestos victim's estate.

The Accident Compensation Corporation was ordered to pay $100,000 to the widow of Auckland man Ross Lehmann, who died of lung cancer last year.

But now they are appealing to get the law clarified.

Victoria University law lecturer John Miller says the court's decision was just, and lump sums are the only way to go.

He believes ACC is appealing just to prevent further claims for lump sum compensation.

John Miller says the appeal is likely to come to nothing, as the law is sound in this case.

But he says ACC is worried only about saving money.

Mr Miller says the corporation needs to look at the bigger picture and realise it is dealing with dying people.

http://home.nzcity.c...lt.asp?id=42662
0

#8 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 August 2004 - 08:27 AM

ACC challenges asbestos payout

30.08.2004
By REBECCA WALSH

The ACC will appeal against a court decision awarding $100,000 to the estate of an Auckland man who died of asbestos-related lung cancer.

The corporation said it would pay a lump sum of $100,000 to the estate of Ross Lehmann but would seek clarification of the law in the High Court.

Hazel Armstrong, the lawyer for Mr Lehmann's widow, Dawn, said that meant Mrs Lehmann would have to pay the money back if ACC was successful in its appeal.

Yesterday, Mrs Lehmann, 79, said the ACC decision was disgusting and unfair.

"All I want to do is get it settled and live the life I have left in peace without this stress and strain.

"It's just horrible. It's hard enough having to lose your husband after nearly 54 years."

In 1960 Mr Lehmann, a fitter and welder, helped install a new boiler and piping, covered with asbestos, at the NZ Forest Products Plant in Penrose.

He became ill more than 40 years later and died last November.

ACC had accepted his claim and offered an independence allowance of $67.72 a week to compensate for his impairment.

He was not offered a lump sum. He died four days later, aged 79.

Earlier this month Judge David Ongley ordered a payment of nearly $100,000 to Mr Lehmann's estate.

The Wellington District Court decision was the first lump-sum award for asbestos victims diagnosed after April 1, 2002.

ACC wanted to pay lump sums only to people suffering injury or exposure after that date.

Ms Armstrong had argued that lump-sum payments applied from the date of treatment or when the person first became ill.

New Zealand is in the midst of an epidemic of asbestos cancer deaths and many more such cases could follow.

A spokesman for ACC said the corporation would seek clarification of Judge Ongley's interpretation of the law.

"ACC and its independent legal advisers believe the law is drafted appropriately and that the district court judge may have made an error in law."

It would pay the legal costs incurred by Mr Lehmann's estate in defending the appeal.

Ms Armstrong said ACC should "just pay it and put it behind them".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...section=general
0

#9 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:23 PM

Compensation for Asbestos Victims
Wednesday, 22 September 2004, 4:07 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Council of Trade Unions

22 September 2004

Unions Take Case to Government Over Compensation for Asbestos Victims

“The Council of Trade Unions will take up with Government the inadequacy of compensation for asbestos victims,” CTU president Ross Wilson said today.

“The James Hardie inquiry in Australia has raised serious questions about the adequacy of compensation under ACC in New Zealand for victims of asbestos and other occupational diseases,” he said.

If ACC succeeded in its appeal in the Lehmann case to deny asbestos victims of lump sum compensation, the ACC scheme would not meet the international minimum standards required by International Labour Organisation Convention 42.

“The ACC scheme then becomes nothing more than a shield to protect companies like James Hardie from common law liability for damages.”

Even if the Lehmann decision was confirmed, the Australian awards being discussed highlighted the relatively low level of lump sum compensation under ACC.

“It is unacceptable for ACC to breach international legal requirements by denying asbestos victims fair compensation.”

There were also issues which arose out of the failure of Government agencies to implement recommendations of the report of the 1991 Asbestos Advisory Committee, Ross Wilson said.

http://www.scoop.co....0409/S00215.htm
0

#10 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:26 PM

and then comes the huge issue of chemical poisoning:

Quote

If ACC succeeded in its appeal in the Lehmann case to deny asbestos victims of lump sum compensation, the ACC scheme would not meet the international minimum standards required by International Labour Organisation Convention 42.

“The ACC scheme then becomes nothing more than a shield to protect companies like James Hardie from common law liability for damages.”


There are many chemically injured people across nz, with members in several countries whom too have had an exceptionaly difficult time dealing with ACC and their clear intent of denial,delay,decline.
0

#11 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:34 PM

Australian asbestos case 'has implications for NZers'

22.09.2004

A case going through the Australian court system involving a New Zealander with asbestos-related lung disease is thought to have implications for possibly hundreds of people in this country.

Sydney lawyer Graeme Little today said his client had been exposed to asbestos while working in Kawerau and Kinleith in the 1960s.

He had moved to Australia in the 1990s and been in good health until about the year 2000 when the symptoms of his lung disease, due to asbestos inhalation in the 1960s, had become apparent, Mr Little told National Radio.

His client had sued James Hardie in New South Wales where the company had its head office, alleging the company owed him a duty of care as the supplier of dangerous materials without any warning as to the dangers from their use.

The matter was a precedent-setting test case that was now before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mr Little said.

"We imagine there could at least be dozens, if not hundreds, (of similar cases) from the very heavy use of insulation products in the timber mills and power stations in New Zealand in the 60s, and 70s for that matter."

Wellington lawyer Hazel Armstrong, who represents clients in asbestos-related cases, told NZPA today that the NSW case was being keenly watched in this country.

"It has amazing implications if he's successful," she said.

If the NSW decision went in favour of Mr Little's client Ms Armstrong expected reaction to be swift from people affected by asbestos-related illness on this side of the Tasman.

New Zealanders should also be closely watching a case in this country in which the Accident Compensation Corporation was seeking judicial clarification of a judge's interpretation of the law.

In a reserved decision last month Wellington District Court Judge David Ongley ruled that ACC must pay almost $100,000 after Ross Lehmann's widow, Dawn Lehmann, successfully argued that qualification for lump sums applied from the date of treatment, or when a person first became ill.

Mr Lehmann was 79 when he died in November last year, a year after being diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.

ACC had said lump sums could be given only to people who had been exposed or injured after April 1, 2002.

Ms Armstrong said she had been told the $98,500 cheque from ACC should be arriving in the next few days.

She expected the matter to go before the High Court in Wellington sometime this year or early next year.

Previously Ms Armstrong said there could be dozens of cases similar to Mr Lehmann's.

Mr Little said additional arguments in his client's case were to be heard on February 23 next year.

"We're hopeful they will decide that Australian law is the applicable law because that was the place of manufacture and place from where the product was dispatched," Mr Little said.

"... New Zealand law, we say, prevents action in New Zealand, but says nothing about preventing action overseas."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...section=general
0

#12 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:37 PM

Quote

"We're hopeful they will decide that Australian law is the applicable law because that was the place of manufacture and place from where the product was dispatched," Mr Little said.

"... New Zealand law, we say, prevents action in New Zealand, but says nothing about preventing action overseas."


Hey might that mean the chemical products we are poisoned by that are produced by companies with their head office and production facilities overseas, then could the substantial ACC deceit toward the injured, shown clearly in the ACC files on claimants, be used in court cases overseas to identify the incredible harm from both the chemical and the ACC system of denial and mean fisted behaviour?
0

#13 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 September 2004 - 11:22 PM

Rmember the guy with the Makita sander that blew up and badly injured him? ACC has to pay costs if you wish to sue overseas.
0

#14 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 23 September 2004 - 07:16 AM

NZ link in Australian asbestos case

23.09.2004

A court case in Australia involving a New Zealander with asbestos-related lung disease is thought to have implications for hundreds of people in New Zealand.

Sydney lawyer Graeme Little said his client was exposed to asbestos while working in Kawerau and Kinleith in the 1960s.

He moved to Australia in the 1990s and had been in good health until about 2000 when the symptoms of his lung disease, caused by asbestos inhalation in the 1960s, became apparent, Mr Little told National Radio yesterday.

His client sued James Hardie in New South Wales, where the company had its head office, alleging it owed him a duty of care as the supplier of dangerous materials without any warning as to their dangers.

The matter was a precedent-setting test case that was now before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mr Little said.

"We imagine there could at least be dozens, if not hundreds [of similar cases] from the very heavy use of insulation products in the timber mills and power stations in New Zealand in the 60s, and in the 70s for that matter."

Wellington lawyer Hazel Armstrong, who represents clients in asbestos-related cases, said the NSW case was being keenly watched in New Zealand.

"It has amazing implications if he's successful," she said.

If the NSW decision went in favour of Mr Little's client, Ms Armstrong expected a swift reaction from people affected by asbestos-related illness on this side of the Tasman.

She said New Zealanders should also be closely watching a case in which the Accident Compensation Corporation was seeking judicial clarification of a judge's interpretation of the law.

Wellington District Court Judge David Ongley ruled last month that ACC must pay almost $100,000 after Ross Lehmann's widow, Dawn Lehmann, successfully argued that qualification for lump sums applied from the date of treatment, or when a person first became ill.

ACC had said lump sums could be given only to people who had been exposed or injured after April 1, 2002.

Ms Armstrong expected the matter to go before the High Court in Wellington sometime this year or early next year.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...storyID=3593886
0

#15 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 23 September 2004 - 02:25 PM

Asbestos Warning For Renovators
23/09/2004 08:12 AM
NewstalkZB

There is a fresh reminder for home renovators to beware of hidden asbestos.

New Zealand Building Industry Federation says any house constructed before 1983 could have affected tiles, fittings or walls.

President John Pfahlert is urging renovators to go straight to the experts if they have any suspicions their property may be affected.

He says all building materials currently used in New Zealand are asbestos free.

The warning comes amidst fresh legal action against Australian building supplier James Hardie.

Australia's Securities and Investments Commission has begun investigating possible breaches of the law by the company, a day after a six-month inquiry into its handling of asbestos compensation released its report.

The report alleges that James Hardie CEO Peter Macdonald broke the corporations law by 'engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct'.

A test case is currently before the New South Wales Court of Appeal to see whether New Zealanders can sue Australian building manufacturer James Hardie for products they sold containing asbestos.

Meanwhile lawyer Hazel Armstrong is calling on the ACC to drop its appeal to the High Court over a lump sum payment to an asbestos victim.

In August the district court awarded the widow of Ross Lehmann a lump sum payment of $98,500.

The ACC has appealed, saying its guideline recommend a payment of only $4000.

Ms Armstrong says she is surprised the Government has not intervened. She believes both James Hardie and the New Zealand government are liable so both should pay.

She says in Australia victims have received up to $298,000 in compensation.

If both cases are successful hundreds of New Zealanders could sue James Hardie in the Australian courts and receive large ACC lumps sum payments in New Zealand.

http://xtramsn.co.nz...3712980,00.html
0

#16 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 23 September 2004 - 02:41 PM

A tour of the fibro jungle with a doomed man
By Stephen Gibbs
September 23, 2004


Ivan McMurray sees fibro everywhere he looks. Heading west along the M4 he can point to fibro houses, factories, fences, roofs: "There ... there ... there ... there."

Where he sees a fibro structure, Mr McMurray sees asbestos inside the walls, and wherever there is asbestos, he sees undelivered sentences of death.

In yesterday's glorious spring sunshine, to Mr McMurray, Sydney's industrial streets and working-class suburbs just looked like death warmed up.

"You've just got to turn a corner and you see it," the 63-year-old said. "There's people living in them, working in them, that just don't know. Auburn, Lidcombe, all the older industrial suburbs; you go through Mascot, Rosebery, all those sort of places, even out as far as Taren Point, Sutherland ...

"In the course of a day you'll go past 200 of them. Other people don't notice them. I notice them, but other people don't."

Here are the still silent, unknowing victims of what Mr McMurray cannot quite see but knows is going on - the asbestosis legacy of putting a carport on the side of a house, or hanging a picture on a fibro wall.

"You only need one of these specks of dust. And the horrible thing about it, it doesn't start then. It starts 20, 25 years down the track, when you've forgotten you put the picture up, when you've forgotten you even lived in that house."

It equally troubles Mr McMurray when he sees asbestos being ripped down and out with no compliance to regulations.

"I've forgotten how many fibro houses I've seen Thursday afternoon and come back Friday lunchtime and they're demolished. I've seen it in Guildford, Merrylands. I've seen it in Blacktown, Smithfield, Granville ... all fibro suburbs."

The Herald first spoke to the former refractory bricklayer at the end of July, when a bundle of submissions to the James Hardie inquiry was released. Then, he was facing tests to determine whether he had mesothelioma on top of asbestosis. He still doesn't know for sure, because surgeons believe his lungs could not cope with even the slightest invasion for biopsies. But his level of incapacitation has been reassessed at 30 per cent, and his fortnightly pension increased from $129 to $195.10.

Back and forwards he keeps going from Merrylands to the Dust Diseases Board, two heart specialists, a thoracic surgeon and his GP, assembling reports so a dollar value can be put on not being able to breathe. He has also begun speaking out publicly against James Hardie Industries. Mr McMurray has told his story to Blacktown, Holroyd, Auburn and Penrith councils as each considered bans on Hardie products. He addressed about 50 construction union members on an unsafe housing demolition site, and they walked off the job.

"I don't want to see them get away with it," he said of the company, whose products he handled for two decades. "They've stuffed so many people's lives and they're continuing to do it with gay abandon."

On Tuesday, the head of the NSW Government inquiry into James Hardie, David Jackson, QC, found the company knew it had not set aside enough money to compensate future victims of asbestos when it set up a charitable foundation in 2001.

"As Jackson said in his report, they've made all their profits and built their shareholder base out of asbestos," Mr McMurray said.

"If they're prepared to take the profit, why shouldn't they take the opprobrium and pay the full damages - willingly; not be skull-dragged through the courts and hearings and tribunals?"

While Mr Jackson found grounds for criminal charges against senior executives including chief executive officer Peter Macdonald, Mr McMurray believed the report would not lead to satisfactory punishment for the guilty or comfort for the victims. "I don't believe things have changed one iota," he said. "There's that much squirming room left. The likelihood of anything punitive happening to that board is less than zero."

Today is Mr McMurray's last asbestos medical examination, a heart/lung stress test at St Vincent's, the results of which will go into a file with all the others to form a compensation claim. His health is "poor and deteriorating". He uses three puffers and takes 14 tablets each morning and night. He said he had "a mile of strength, but no staying power".

"I could pick you up and throw you over that wall, but I couldn't do it three times ... Out of a hundred, I'm 70 per cent worse than I was six months ago and I wasn't real crash-hot then. Punting on it, if I got to Christmas next year I'd consider I'd done extra well."

http://www.smh.com.a...5651401124.html

"You only need one of these specks of dust" ... asbestos poisoning victim Ivan McMurray with the latest X-ray of his chest, revealing a new lesion on his lungs. Photo: Kate Geraghty

Attached File(s)


0

#17 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 September 2004 - 10:03 AM

Ruling gives asbestos victims hope
Print Email Email Alert
Sep 22, 2004

The lawyer representing New Zealand victims of asbestos disease says Australian payouts could set a precedent for asbestos victims in New Zealand.

A special inquiry has found a building products firm at fault for claiming it had enough money in a fund to compensate thousands of asbestos victims.

The inquiry found James Hardie Industries should have set aside up to $2.3 billion for asbestos victims, instead of allocating just one seventh of that total when it set up a special compensation fund in 2001.

Victims in New Zealand get $67 a week from ACC and don't get lump sum payouts.

Lawyer Hazel Armstrong says New Zealand should pay out more in compensation so it's in line with Australia.

Armstrong says lump sum payouts could become more commonplace if a current legal battle at the High Court finds in their favour.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_health_story_s...3%3fformat=html
0

#18 User is offline   ANG :) 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-September 03

  Posted 10 October 2004 - 10:18 AM

:D

ACC seeks Lehman case clarification


ACC could face millions of dollars extra compensation claims unless High Court Ross Lehman case goes in their favour



10 October 2004

The Accident Compensation Corporation could be faced with millions of dollars worth of extra compensation claims unless a High Court case goes their way.

It is seeking clarification of an earlier decision by the District Court, which said the estate of Ross Lehman was entitled to a lump sum payment from ACC due to his asbestos related death.

This despite the fact he was exposed to the asbestos before the first of April 2002, the cut-off point for lump-sum payments.

ACC chairman David Caygill says with so much money at stake it is important the issue is clarified quickly.

He says the principal is also an important factor to take into account.

David Caygill says as unfortunate as it is to have to cause the Lehmans further stress it is important the corporation knows where it stands in the eyes of the law.

He says hundreds of claimants and millions of dollars could be at stake.


http://home.nzcity.c...lt.asp?id=43895
;)
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 October 2004 - 07:27 PM

have you noticed that the more the ACC fights the bigger the payouts become.

some idot does not realise that most people will not fight if payment is made before there is a despute. this is a bit brainless as most of these related cases are going to die and this causes a larger amount as the most important part of life is removed. you idot remove the emjoyment of life and this will cost you.

give back that enjoyment and the cost will drop instantly
0

#20 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 13 October 2004 - 11:18 AM

Last Update: Wednesday, October 13, 2004. 7:36am (AEST)
Study reveals most of asbestos-related lung cancers not diagnosed

A leading pathologist says lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos may be far more prevalent than previously thought.

Flinders University director of pathology Douglas Henderson says his research shows asbestosis, or scarring of the lungs, is not required to cause lung cancer.

He will present his findings to a Royal College of Pathologists conference in Brisbane this week.

Dr Henderson says lung cancers previously attributed to smoking may in fact have been caused by asbestos.

"The simple fact is we tend to grossly under-estimate the numbers of asbestos-related lung cancers," he said.

"In the United Kingdom, for example, when you look at compensation payments for lung cancer disablement we know they are under-recognising those asbestos-associated lung cancers by a factor of as least 10, that is 90 per cent of them are escaping recognition."

http://www.abc.net.a...10/s1218718.htm
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