ACCforum: Disgusting. Acc Challenges Asbestos Claim - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Disgusting. Acc Challenges Asbestos Claim to 80 year old widow.

#1 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 August 2004 - 11:01 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


dont know where this one turned up from but it is alan jones video comment on the james hardie asbestos issue:
Alan jones - Jhardie asbestos.
0

#2 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 30 August 2004 - 08:22 AM

The arrogance of these people.
No doubt when the hight court approves the decision they will still appeal.
Their track record shows that they see themselves aboue the courts, Indeed above even decency all in the pretence of protecting the fund yet in reality protecting their gains stolen from thousands of hard working Kiwis.
Despicable.
0

#3 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 30 August 2004 - 09:28 AM

GREETINGS,
I would also suggest, all other legal firms ACC uses be included in that.
What this, needs to be effective is, some media coverage. ;)
TC
0

#4 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 30 August 2004 - 10:03 AM

Interesting how Cargill believes that these payouts
are not what the way Parliament wanted the law to be
interperated.

Parliament also stated " Wcaps was not to be used as
an exit tool".

More double standards from the [blinkered] ones whom
recieve financial support from ACC.
0

#5 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 30 August 2004 - 12:28 PM

It's interesting how Caygill can so accurately divine Parliament's intent in these matters - perhaps it's because he and his underlings had a hand in drafting the 2001 Act which, among other things, apparently intends permanent deprivation of entitlements if ACC determines that a claimant acts unreasonably.
As I understand the Lehmann case, ACC will pay $100K to the estate, appeal the decision to the High Court, then recover it if it wins. If ACC doesn't win, I predict it will take the Matter on to the Court of Appeal, followed by Supreme Court. All te while, poor Mrs L can't use the money to which she is entitled. I think this behaviour amounts to cruel and unusual punishment - possibly breaching section 8 NZBORA.
The next thing ACC will do is amend the law so it doesn;t have to pay out to claimants who die while fighting its decisions. This will give ACC an even greater incentive to delay paying entitlements, and use the appeal process to deny entitlements, in the hope the claimant will die and it can keep its hands on the money.
Are all our politicians moral eunuchs?
0

#6 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 30 August 2004 - 08:28 PM

Shoert answer MG.... yes :(
0

#7 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 August 2004 - 11:20 PM

ACC Pays $100,000 But Will Clarify Legal Points
Monday, 30 August 2004, 9:40 am
Press Release: ACC

ACC to pay $100,000 but will also seek clarification on how law should be interpreted

The Accident Compensation Corporation has confirmed today that it will pay $100,000 lump sum compensation following a recent ruling by the District Court in favour of the estate of the late Ross Lehmann.

However ACC has also decided to seek further judicial clarification of the District Court Judge’s interpretation of the law as applied in the Estate Lehmann case, and will offer to pay the legal costs the Estate will incur in defending the appeal.

ACC is taking this course of action after carefully considering external legal opinions that take a view contrary to that taken by the District Court Judge.

The Corporation is also aware the Government did not originally intend ACC’s governing legislation—the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001—to provide lump sum compensation in the deceased’s circumstances.

ACC and its independent legal advisors believe the law is drafted appropriately and that the District Court Judge may have made an error in law.

In the Estate Lehmann case, ACC told the District Court that the Corporation believed the legislation was clear.

Interpretation of the provisions of the 2001 Act according to standard rules of statutory interpretation meant that Mr Lehmann could not receive lump sum compensation, but he could receive an Independence Allowance.

The argument in the District Court centred on whether the fact that the exposure to asbestos had long ceased by the date the 2001 Act came into force precluded Mr Lehmann’s access to lump sum compensation.

Mr Lehmann’s claim for asbestos-related disease was made in late 2002 and accepted by ACC in early 2003.

ACC’s decision to assess and pay an Independence Allowance and not lump sum compensation was the subject of a review.

ACC’s case at the review hearing was that because the exposure to asbestos had long since ceased by the date the 2001 Act came into force (on 1 April 2002), clause 55(2) of Schedule 1 of the Act applied and precluded an entitlement to lump sum compensation.

The reviewer disagreed and ACC appealed to the District Court.

The District Court held that the words of clause 55(2) are not sufficiently clear to have the effect asserted by the Corporation.

ACC will be seeking the earliest possible hearing of the appeal.

http://www.scoop.co....0408/S00274.htm
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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