ACCforum: being cut off - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

being cut off degenerated

#1 User is offline   bella12 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 20-July 11

Posted 20 July 2011 - 05:38 AM

hi there i had an accident nov 99 where i fell down a bank and broke my neck and back in 3 places ,long story short had 3 spinal fusions my life has been hell ever since ,acc sent me to dr welsh in kapiti he reported my injurys are due to degeneration so acc have cut me off sound familiar lets get all the people together outside paliment and have a demonstration!!!
0

#2 User is offline   Mark 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 13-April 11
  • LocationHorowhenua

Posted 20 July 2011 - 08:32 AM

View Postbella12, on 20 July 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

hi there i had an accident nov 99 where i fell down a bank and broke my neck and back in 3 places ,long story short had 3 spinal fusions my life has been hell ever since ,acc sent me to dr welsh in kapiti he reported my injurys are due to degeneration so acc have cut me off sound familiar lets get all the people together outside paliment and have a demonstration!!!

Well I hope you are appealing the decision.

Best to get an experienced ACC Lawyer on your case straight away. ie J M Law..

You will have all your specialist decisions.. And your GP's backing at a guess.

Too very recent decisions should aid your argument.

MCGRATH V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (SC 127/2010) "ACC can not require someone receiving ERC to under go assessment for vocational independence unless there is a likely hood of achieving vocational independence. At the date the Corporation gave notice to Ms McGrath that she was required to undergo vocational independence assessment, the statutory condition that vocational independence was then reasonably in prospect was not met."

&

Lu v Accident Compensation Corporation "Mr Otto uses the phrase "in the absence of specific supporting evidence", that is, from a discography, he would remain with his opinion that the circumstances of the annular tear at L4/5 are of long-standing, and that the condition was simply unmasked by the injuring event.

The information which Mr Otto had for his first two reports was the MRI scan report which identified the old compression fracture at L1 and it then stated that the other lumbar discs were reasonably well hydrated. It then stated: "There is a small right paramedian annular tear at the L4/5 disc with mild bulging". From that evidence, Mr Otto has identified disc degeneration at L4/5 and which he says is a cumulative disc degeneration over a number of years.

As earlier noted, Mr Hadlow when examining the scan identified no degeneration, as had been the statement by the radiologist himself.

In those circumstances, I find that Mr Otto has not correctly identified the state of affairs when he had the opportunity of examining the MRI scan, and he has stuck to his tried and true assertion that degeneration is the cause.

In the present case, I find that his opinion cannot achieve a sufficient degree of probability, in the light of the opinions of Mr Hadlow and Dr Ng, and therefore it is a case where the respondent did not have sufficient information upon which it could determine that entitlements for the appellant could no longer continue."
0

#3 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 20 July 2011 - 10:31 AM

welcome to my world grrrr

get cracking, and get this into review, as soon as possible, get all your medical info, record and tape everything, go through your file including EOS notes with a fine tooth comb

acc are disentitling any long term claimants at the mo, and believe me, of there was a way of hanging a few criminal case managers out to dry I would wiliingly do it

trying to live on what winz provides, while some complete wanker/bitch at acc plays their little power games, so thay can get a bonus, makes me sick!!!


what happens when my neck gives out, and im in a wheelchair for the rest of my days, will the office wally come and wipe my bum as a favour, bet they wont

all I want is my legal rights, but what a bloody long fight to have my injury recognised in its true seriousness

good luck
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 20 July 2011 - 01:17 PM

Would go back to case manager and ask to confirm Dr welsh could not find or see in X-rays etc of the spinal fusions.

get a letter from your GP and direct it to ACC asking for the name of the degeneration desease causing all of the incapacity as none of the specialist has seen such a desease. You request this information so that treatment can be supplied.

this will confirm if the assessor and case manager is telling the truth which in my opinion they are not

your GP should be able to confirm you have spinal fusion and that is the injury covered and entitlements are being supplied on.
1

#5 User is offline   jaffa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1792
  • Joined: 14-August 11
  • LocationWellington City

Posted 18 October 2011 - 01:33 AM

Notice the toady GP ACC relied on to screw McGrath out of her rightful entitlements:


Registration Information for Antoniadis, Michael

Name
Antoniadis, Michael
Qualifications
Posted ImageMB ChB 1987 Otago, FRNZCGP 2000
District
Wellington
Scope of Practice
http://www.mcnz.org.nz/images/GreenPlus.gifGeneral, Vocational
Dr Antoniadis is participating in an approved recertification programme relevant to the vocational scope of General Practice.

Dr Antoniadis practises medicine under supervision in the Occupational Medicine training programme.
Practising Certificate
From 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012
Vocational Scope
http://www.mcnz.org.nz/images/GreenPlus.gifGeneral Practice (2 March 2001)

Conditions
None
General Scope
8 January 1989
Provisional Scope
9 March 1988http://www.mcnz.org.nz/Portals/_default/Skins/mcnz/images/buttonleft.gifBack to Search Resultshttp://www.mcnz.org....buttonright.gif

View PostMark, on 20 July 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

Well I hope you are appealing the decision.

Best to get an experienced ACC Lawyer on your case straight away. ie J M Law..

You will have all your specialist decisions.. And your GP's backing at a guess.

Too very recent decisions should aid your argument.

MCGRATH V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (SC 127/2010) "ACC can not require someone receiving ERC to under go assessment for vocational independence unless there is a likely hood of achieving vocational independence. At the date the Corporation gave notice to Ms McGrath that she was required to undergo vocational independence assessment, the statutory condition that vocational independence was then reasonably in prospect was not met."

&

Lu v Accident Compensation Corporation "Mr Otto uses the phrase "in the absence of specific supporting evidence", that is, from a discography, he would remain with his opinion that the circumstances of the annular tear at L4/5 are of long-standing, and that the condition was simply unmasked by the injuring event.

The information which Mr Otto had for his first two reports was the MRI scan report which identified the old compression fracture at L1 and it then stated that the other lumbar discs were reasonably well hydrated. It then stated: "There is a small right paramedian annular tear at the L4/5 disc with mild bulging". From that evidence, Mr Otto has identified disc degeneration at L4/5 and which he says is a cumulative disc degeneration over a number of years.

As earlier noted, Mr Hadlow when examining the scan identified no degeneration, as had been the statement by the radiologist himself.

In those circumstances, I find that Mr Otto has not correctly identified the state of affairs when he had the opportunity of examining the MRI scan, and he has stuck to his tried and true assertion that degeneration is the cause.

In the present case, I find that his opinion cannot achieve a sufficient degree of probability, in the light of the opinions of Mr Hadlow and Dr Ng, and therefore it is a case where the respondent did not have sufficient information upon which it could determine that entitlements for the appellant could no longer continue."

0

#6 User is offline   mimi 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 17-October 11

Posted 18 October 2011 - 12:53 PM

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. ACC and HDC and DRSL are same shit. All has to go down.

Weak up NZ.
0

#7 User is offline   mike54 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 14-June 12
  • Locationsouthland

Posted 17 June 2012 - 06:54 AM

hi all yep i got cut off years ago and still on the invalids
but truth be acc had worn me down right to the point
in the review i just gave up as i spent 10yrs fighting them and won then they acc
had me around for another 3yrs then came the letter saying bye again
now another 10yrs has gone by and i got fire in my belly now AGAIN
now they judged me right from the word go
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 17 June 2012 - 06:23 PM

Welcome Mike 54.
0

#9 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 19 June 2012 - 01:38 AM

View Postmike54, on 17 June 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

hi all yep i got cut off years ago and still on the invalids
but truth be acc had worn me down right to the point
in the review i just gave up as i spent 10yrs fighting them and won then they acc
had me around for another 3yrs then came the letter saying bye again
now another 10yrs has gone by and i got fire in my belly now AGAIN
now they judged me right from the word go


Any re-aggravation of the original injury should be enough to get your claim re-opened.

After all this time you will have to go about it the right way.

Dont lodge a new claim for a re=aggravation injury or you will never get the door opened.

good luck and never give up .....Gloria.
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7648
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 June 2012 - 10:18 AM

Hi Mike

When you were first on ACC erc or w/c, you would have also have had IA or lump sump.

In your records would have to be a document/s that say you have a stable and permanent
injury.

There you have the beginning of your fight. Then you have to get past late application.

Once you have that you can go Review Appeal etc again.

Start at the stable and permanent injury though. I also use that for holding onto my entitlements.

Just a thought.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   mike54 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 14-June 12
  • Locationsouthland

Posted 21 June 2012 - 07:09 AM

doppelganger.... thank you for your welcome
Gloria Mitchell... awesome thanks for that see that's why i joined this cool forum
MINI... again thank you great tip you gave
{you all have a great day}
i am waiting for my records now
i have already got them years ago but i have asked for updated ones (as i have not told them i got them)
as i think that they will chop a lot out of the new files
more they do is better for me
0

#12 User is offline   Mark 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 13-April 11
  • LocationHorowhenua

Posted 21 June 2012 - 09:53 AM

View Postmike54, on 21 June 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

doppelganger.... thank you for your welcome
Gloria Mitchell... awesome thanks for that see that's why i joined this cool forum
MINI... again thank you great tip you gave
{you all have a great day}
i am waiting for my records now
i have already got them years ago but i have asked for updated ones (as i have not told them i got them)
as i think that they will chop a lot out of the new files
more they do is better for me

Indeed having your paperwork from years ago will be a huge advantage.

I see from your first post you have a really old injury.

View Postmike54, on 17 June 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

hi all yep i got cut off years ago and still on the invalids
but truth be acc had worn me down right to the point
in the review i just gave up as i spent 10yrs fighting them and won then they acc
had me around for another 3yrs then came the letter saying bye again
now another 10yrs has gone by and i got fire in my belly now AGAIN
now they judged me right from the word go

I'd hazard a guess and say your injury was accepted under the 1982 act. Ie your injury occurred before June 1992.

A bit of an advantage actually... The biggest hurdle you'll face is why you didn't do anything over the last 10 yr period you've been on WINZ.

Having an experienced ACC advocate will help... Peter Sara in Dunedin is highly recommended.
0

#13 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:10 AM

the biggest hurdle Mark

not everyone has the stregth or mental fortitude to persist ...especially when dealing with the injury, medication, and the grieving period (all the losses due to acc)


sometimes that the journey with acc is so confusing and draining (done deliberately i might add-IMHO of course) ...you have to walk away for a while

other factors in life come into play, and i guess those factors are more important than the continued energy sapping fight with acc..


its good to take a breather, stand back, reassess, and then finally get your head around how this all happened....

the time is right...for those of us who need to up the ante....regroup....plan the tactics...and get back into damage control....

truth wins out eventually, and those responsible for twisting the truth, shit in their own nests eventually!!!


0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7648
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:16 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

the biggest hurdle Mark

not everyone has the stregth or mental fortitude to persist ...especially when dealing with the injury, medication, and the grieving period (all the losses due to acc)


sometimes that the journey with acc is so confusing and draining (done deliberately i might add-IMHO of course) ...you have to walk away for a while

other factors in life come into play, and i guess those factors are more important than the continued energy sapping fight with acc..


its good to take a breather, stand back, reassess, and then finally get your head around how this all happened....

the time is right...for those of us who need to up the ante....regroup....plan the tactics...and get back into damage control....

truth wins out eventually, and those responsible for twisting the truth, shit in their own nests eventually!!!


Dont be so negative!!!
0

#15 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:59 AM

please dont bother commenting on my posts mini

i hold no value to your opinion

especially on your skewed attacks on the integrity of Bronwyn Pullar, especially on one of the sister sites...



as i have stated on many occasions, its is the facts that count

not the opinion of people who have no first hand knowledge of the truth, and the hard work that has gone on behind the scenes to bring the truth to light

the forum has been ticking over nicely, with information sharing of facts, backing each other up, private messaging to keep things closely guarded



if i was a negative person...i would have given up in my fight against acc a long time ago..

i didnt...i stepped back to have a breather..and am now ready to face the next set of challenges, with the love and support of many others here, who value what I post..in a positive light



I do admire your fortitude, in the way you have stuck to getting your own cases sorted out, all credit to you...


some of the claimants just dont have the energy any more, so i guess you compleletly missed the point....


have a GREAT DAY...and leave my posts alone :)
0

#16 User is offline   Mark 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 13-April 11
  • LocationHorowhenua

Posted 21 June 2012 - 11:11 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

the biggest hurdle Mark

not everyone has the stregth or mental fortitude to persist ...especially when dealing with the injury, medication, and the grieving period (all the losses due to acc)


sometimes that the journey with acc is so confusing and draining (done deliberately i might add-IMHO of course) ...you have to walk away for a while

other factors in life come into play, and i guess those factors are more important than the continued energy sapping fight with acc..


its good to take a breather, stand back, reassess, and then finally get your head around how this all happened....

the time is right...for those of us who need to up the ante....regroup....plan the tactics...and get back into damage control....

truth wins out eventually, and those responsible for twisting the truth, shit in their own nests eventually!!!


Which is what ACC relies upon.. 90% of claimants give up in disgust with the system geared to dis-entitle and deny entitlements.

View Postmike54, on 17 June 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

now another 10yrs has gone by and i got fire in my belly now AGAIN

So the biggest hurdle is re-opening a claim that ACC thought they'd successfully closed 10 years ago...

How do claimants go about this?

By asking ACC for a new decision on some aspect of the case...

Not easy... ACC dicked me around for many years in the wrong jurisdiction.. DRSL claiming no jurisdiction.

I did everything right.. I got ACC to issue a new decision and was then able to review that decision and subsequent ones but it was not until I got a renowned ACC barrister involved that ACC was forced to treat my claim seriously.

Also the decision of Langhorne helped in that claims from the 1972 & 1982 acts must be heard by the DRSL as if it were the Accident compensation appeal authority and those decisions can be appealed directly to the accident compensation appeal authority.

Then claimants have to overcome the hurdle of McDougall..

Quote

The principles to be applied in considerlng the application of s 101(2) were set out in the decision of the High court in McDougall v ACC [NZACR677]. Casey J set out the principles as follows:
1. The Length of the delay beyond the time allowed.
2. The reason for the delay.
3. The strengths and merits of the appticant's case
4. Any prejudice to ACC if the extension is granted.


Which is why I recommend getting an experienced ACC advocate such as Peter Sara on board.
1

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7648
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:03 PM

View PostMark, on 21 June 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Which is what ACC relies upon.. 90% of claimants give up in disgust with the system geared to dis-entitle and deny entitlements.


So the biggest hurdle is re-opening a claim that ACC thought they'd successfully closed 10 years ago...

How do claimants go about this?

By asking ACC for a new decision on some aspect of the case...

Not easy... ACC dicked me around for many years in the wrong jurisdiction.. DRSL claiming no jurisdiction.

I did everything right.. I got ACC to issue a new decision and was then able to review that decision and subsequent ones but it was not until I got a renowned ACC barrister involved that ACC was forced to treat my claim seriously.

Also the decision of Langhorne helped in that claims from the 1972 & 1982 acts must be heard by the DRSL as if it were the Accident compensation appeal authority and those decisions can be appealed directly to the accident compensation appeal authority.

Then claimants have to overcome the hurdle of McDougall..



Which is why I recommend getting an experienced ACC advocate such as Peter Sara on board.


Which is of course the absolute in a case like the one as above. However, if I had used peter sara repeatedly I would have no house left. Not going to happen.

However, interesting to see, that why some are saying they can say anything in here, and it is all but true and been proved so in the past. Now I have someone ordering me to leave her posts alone...............be funny if it wasnt so sad!!!

Anything that is said to stop people for fighting for their rights, will be commented on by me whenever I feel like it. Sorry love. We who fight ACC have no sentiment, for those that take breathers, and let their time limit run out. Although it is known that a lot of background work including court cases, make up our helpfulness in making sure all get their chances. It is full on serious shit with a little jolly to make it easier on the soul.

NTV you must be coming up for a decision around about now: No? Yes?? With a legal it should be possible so be a good sort and don't make like it is all your strength going into the battles.

You and Pullar are much like a muchness, niether of you have much in the way of case law around, but you keep yelling how badly done by you both are. Bring and show us the weapons you have been fighting with and we will give them a read.............either of you for that matter.............that would be a good idea, then we could factually see how sincere you really are quoting your FACTS!! In the meantime, while you are both scambling for your legal cases, I will go about doing my thing.

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:03 PM

I think each individual needs to ask themselves is the cost too high?

This morning I looked through ACC stuff (breaches) I had let lay for the last 6 months as I am trying to live my life without conflict. Today I sent off the evidence and had a thumping awful migraine, neck screaming, tense muscles and my old feelings resurfaced how hurtful (and dishonest) acc can be.

I then spent the afternoon outside and regretted opening the door to this strife, it is not worth it. Instead focus on the people who can help you with your condition and only the most important, ie not the behind the scenes shit unless as in NTV case is a higher cost to her (understandably) than the cost of not bringing this to attention.

I absolutely admire Brownwyn for putting into words what I am unable to, its just too big for my brain.

I hope she can focus on what she can do/achieve despite her injury which is still more than most. She should not be penalysed for still being capable, but supported in what ever limits she has to make the most of what she can do now.
0

#19 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 21 June 2012 - 09:15 PM

View PostMINI, on 21 June 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

You and Pullar are much like a muchness, niether of you have much in the way of case law around, but you keep yelling how badly done by you both are. Bring and show us the weapons you have been fighting with and we will give them a read.............either of you for that matter.............that would be a good idea, then we could factually see how sincere you really are quoting your FACTS!! In the meantime, while you are both scambling for your legal cases, I will go about doing my thing.

Mini

What can one say butPosted Image
.
0

#20 User is offline   mike54 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 14-June 12
  • Locationsouthland

Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:44 AM

10yrs is a long time but they acc wore me down mentally
to the point of chucking in the towel
OK the first point i have to make is
all the crap acc put me threw years ago is illegal now
soon as i got the rights off the ingll advocate (cheers m8 for that)
acc blew it the first without even looking to hard at it
"you have the right to be treated with dignity and respect"
"we will treat you honest and with courtesy"
"we will recognize you may be under physical and emotional social or financial strain"
makes a good tui ad "YEAH RIGHT"
i will be put my yarn up soon as i get it all together
and the main point is i want to appear in front of a judge myself
i am honest my children have left home so this will not hurt or effect them again and i feel good about this
so its time for me to take it to acc like they did me
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