ACCforum: Claimant declaration unnecessary, ACC concedes - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Claimant declaration unnecessary, ACC concedes Cruickshank v ACC (333/2011)

#1 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:53 PM

ACC does not need claimants to sign Declarations of Rights and Responsibilities (ACC165 Form) in order to manage their claims, ACC conceded in a recent District Court appeal (Cruickshank v ACC 333/2011). Accordingly, the Appellant's decision not to sign the ACC165 Form, when ACC demanded that he did so, did not constitute unreasonable failure to comply with section 72(1) of the ACA. However, ACC was still able to defeat the Appellant, and continue to withhold weekly compensation from him, because Judge Beattie decided that it was unreasonable for the claimant (actually his advocate) to put a particular condition on the Authority for Collection and Disclosure of Information (ACC 167) Form. From the decision, however, it is unclear whether adding any conditions at all to the ACC167 Form is "unreasonable" behaviour, triggering suspension of entitlements, or which of the three conditions imposed by the claimant (advocate) were "unreasonable", or whether all three conditions were "unreasonable". Apart from torpedoing the dearly-loved ACC165 Form, and depriving ACC of at least one weapon to use against claimants (anyone know how they do this?), IMHO "Cruickshank" leaves it open as to whether claimants can actually exercise any control at all over their health information (as other human beings can in NZ) or whether the fact that they are supplicants to ACC requires their total surrender of a fundamental human right to the tender mercies of ACC, accredited employers and insurers. Again IMHO, the issue of claimant rights over their health information will grow in importance over the next few years, because of: (a) privatisation of more of ACC's functions (accredited employer scheme and managing insurers = privatisation, right now); (b) greater ruthlessness by ACC in claims management because of fear of (a) and continued political cowardice to properly control its activities; © creation of a virtual "market place" in health information through Electronic Health Records (EHRs), disclosed throughout cyberspace without individual knowledge or informed consent; (d) supine government regulators (eg Privacy Commissioner etc) unwilling/uninterested in protecting individual rights to privacy against corporate interests. For all that, IMHO, "Cruickshank" represents a small, but palpable, defeat for the machinations of the Evil Empire, while astute claimants (and their advocates) can make good use of it by rejecting ACC's demands that claimants sign ACC165 Forms.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 08:40 PM

One should also read

Cruickshank v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 130 (2 May 2011)

this will give a back ground between this person and ACC.
0

#3 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 08:45 PM

Here's the background all straight off the internet.

Does anyone know what Michael Cruickshank's pre injury occupation was?

Is there more to this case than meets the eye in all areas?

Who is failing whom in there duty of Care and why has this repeat behaviour been allowed to happen?

It is noted in Judge M Beattie's decision that M Cruickshank claim is been handled by (4) the Remote Claims Unit.

May we assume it is because he has previously challenged http://www.acc.co.nz and ended up in prioson as a result of it.

It is noted that the allegations he faced were from 2005 which is prior to investigation and reports on the http://www.acc.co.nz Fraud & Investigation Unit.


Tuesday, 27 July, 2010 - 13:54

Auckland District Court


The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has welcomed the conviction and sentencing of Michael Christopher Cruickshank after a nine-day trial in Auckland District Court.

Mr Cruickshank, of Birkenhead, was convicted last week (21 July) of fraud against ACC.

In October 2005, Mr Cruickshank submitted a medical certificate to ACC stating that he was unable to resume any work duties, including heavy lifting and bending. During the period covered by the medical certificate he collected weekly compensation to cover lost earnings.

However, an ACC investigation revealed that he had been working up to and during the period covered by the medical certificate. This work included renovating, painting and tiling a food hall and a house.

Mr Cruickshank was sentenced to four months home detention and ordered to repay ACC $5,000.

"ACC levies are intended to help injured people not fraudsters and ACC has a dedicated fraud unit that works hard to make sure that happens.

"Any person thinking of defrauding ACC needs to be aware that it is not if they will be caught but when," said ACC's General Manager of Claims Management Denise Cosgrove.
0

#4 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 08:55 PM

Regardless of Mr Cruickshank's background and circumstances, the importance of his latest District Court appeal (even though he lost) is that ACC conceded that it does not need claimants to sign ACC 165 Forms in order to carry out its statutory obligations towards claimants. Note too that nowhere in the ACA is there any express reference to ACC having a duty of care towards claimants. IMHO, this is deliberate, so that aggrieved claimants cannot bring legal actions against ACC, except in very exceptional circumstances.
0

#5 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 08:59 PM

Background & previous decison to ensure chronological order of the chain of events is viewed in order.

A fishing expedition by Michael Cruickshank or by http://www.acc.co.nz Fraud & Investigation Department headed may we assume by a school dropout at 15 years young and ex Fisheries officer somehow turned Project Manager of ACC's Investigations Unit Martin Williscroft?

You be the Judge.


Cruickshank v Accident Compensation Corporation [2008] NZACC 271 (7 November 2008)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD AT ROTORUA

Decision No. 271/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act 2001

AND

IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act

BETWEEN MICHAEL CRUICKSHANK

(Al 344/08)

Appellant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

CORPORATION

Respondent

HEARD at ROTORUA on 21 October 2008

APPEARANCES

Mr D Heperi, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr A D Barnett, Counsel for Respondent.


RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE

[1] The issue in this appeal relates to a consideration of whether a letter from the respondent, dated 21 July 2008, to the appellant's Advocate, was a decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act and thereby amenable to review pursuant to Section 134 of the Act.
[2] A further issue requiring determination is whether the Reviewer correctly exercised his discretion in declining to award the costs of review to the appellant. [3] The background facts relevant to the issues in this appeal may be stated as follows:
The appellant has cover under the Act for an injury to his left arm suffered in a work accident in April 1995.
The appellant's incapacity from his employment as a carpenter, as a consequence of his injury, enabled him to receive weekly compensation.

In May 2007 the respondent's Fraud Office laid an Information in the North Shore District Court alleging that the appellant had committed an offence under the Act by failing to advise the Corporation of income he had allegedly been receiving, whilst in receipt of weekly compensation.
This Court has been informed that the appellant has pleaded not guilty to that charge and a hearing of the Information has not yet taken place.
As part of the discovery process for that criminal proceeding, the Corporation provided the appellant with a copy of the Brief of Evidence of its principal witness in that proceeding.

One of the statements in that Brief of Evidence states:

As a result of the defendant working whilst in receipt of weekly compensation and not advising ACC, an overpayment has been calculated at $10,853.60."

By email dated 17 July 2008, the appellant's representative requested particulars of the respondent's assessment of weekly earnings and weekly compensation for the period in question.
By email dated 21 July 2008, the appellant's case manager, David Smith, emailed the appellant's representative stating, inter alia -
"I spoke with Martin Williscroft and he informed me that ACC is seeking full repayment of weekly compensation for the period Mr Cruickshank was working. I will post a copy of the weekly compensation that was paid from 18.8.05 to 1.12.05."

By email dated 21 July 2008, the appellant's representative requested Mr Smith to advise whether an actual decision letter had been issued.

By email response of 22 July 2008, Mr Smith stated:
"I have been informed that a decision letter has not been issued."

On receipt of that email the appellant lodged an application for a review of the respondent's letter of 21 July 2008.
A Review Hearing took place on 20 August 2008, at which the appellant was represented by Mr Heperi.

In his decision dated 3 September 2008, the Reviewer, Mr Woodhouse, determined that the letter of 21 July 2008 was not a decision letter but rather was correspondence of an administrative nature.

In a further decision the Reviewer determined the question of costs sought by the appellant as follows:
When I consider this matter in the round, I find it likely the intent of the review application was to seek information regarding ACC's case for prosecution, or to potentially influence the criminal prosecution. Given a review hearing is a civil matter, I must conclude such a request is an abuse of process and on that basis, was not reasonably brought."

[4] Mr Heperi, for the appellant, submitted that the respondent's letter of 21
July did amount to a reviewable decision in that it determined the amount of an alleged overpayment of weekly compensation and that full repayment would be sought.

[5] Mr Heperi went further and submitted that having made its mind up on that point, the respondent should then have complied with Section 64 of the Act which requires that the Corporation must give notice in writing of its decision, and the fact that it had not given such notice was a breach of that section.
[6] With regard to the question of review costs, Mr Heperi submitted that the appellant was simply seeking to obtain further information regarding the respondent's assessment of an overpayment , and that in those circumstances it could not be said that the application for review was an abuse of process.

[7] Mr Barnett, for the respondent, submitted that all correspondence between Mr Heperi and the appellant's case manager in and about July 2008, was in the context of the prosecution which the Corporation had commenced, rather than in relation to any action on any entitlement that the appellant may have been enjoying. Counsel submitted that the letter in issue must be looked at in its correct context.
[8] Mr Barnett went further to suggest that the Reviewer must have suspected that the appellant was engaged in a "fishing" expedition, and considered that because it was a "fishing" expedition this was the reason for declining costs.
[9] Counsel further submitted that the respondent's follow-up letter advising
that no decision within the meaning of the Act had been issued ought to have been the end of the matter, and that the appellant's continuation with the questioning of that letter indicated his true motives.

DECISION


[10] The appellant has appealed to this Court from the Review Decision which determined that the respondent's email of 21 July 2008 was not a reviewable decision within the meaning of Section 134 of the Act. A reviewable decision must be one that comes within the definition of "decision" in Section 6 of the Act.
[11] Section 6 sets out seven instances where decisions made by the Corporation are considered to be reviewable decisions, and although these definitions are not meant to be exhaustive, it is clear from the various definitions that it is only decisions which affect a claimant's entitlement or cover which come within the category or reviewable decisions.

[12] In this present case the advice contained in the respondent's letter that it was contending that it had made an overpayment to the appellant and that it was intending to recover that overpayment , was clearly made within the context of the fraud prosecution which it had commenced and where it was giving particulars of the amount of fraud which was alleged had been committed.

[13] In terms of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, I find it to be the case that the letter from the respondent did not amount to a decision pursuant to Section 248 of the Act, that it was seeking to recover a debt by way of proceedings from the appellant, but rather that as part of any penalty that may be imposed in the event of conviction, that it would be seeking a sum by way of reparation.

[14] The actions by the appellant in questioning the respondent's advice to that effebt is premature insofar as assessment of any liability under the Act by the appellant is concerned, as any such overpayment would need to be considered in the context of the abatement formula, and if and when the respondent were to seek to recover all or any overpayment by proceedings taken under the Act, then that decision to do so would be one which was reviewable.

[15] The letter in question, I find, was simply advisory of the position which the respondent was taking in the context of the prosecution for fraudulent acts on the appellant's behalf in relation to his receipt of weekly compensation. Such information being provided wholly within the context of Court criminal proceedings, and in those circumstances it was not a matter which was capable of review within the framework of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.

[16] The question of review costs is wholly a matter of discretion for the Reviewer to determine, and in circumstances where an applicant for review is unsuccessful, the Reviewer must take into account whether the applicant has acted reasonably in applying for the review.

[17] In the present case, the context of the communications which passed between the appellant's representative and his case manager were solely in the context of the criminal prosecution and the advice of 22 July, that no decision under the Act had been made, was indicative of that being the case, yet despite that advice the appellant elected to pursue the question of particulars by way of review proceedings.

[18] The position is that the appellant sought to use the review procedure as a means of obtaining further particulars in the context of a criminal prosecution and this was identified by the Reviewer and he concluded that in that context the application for review was an abuse of process and not reasonably brought.

[19] The Reviewer's decision was one of an exercise of a discretion which the Act vested in him, and I find there is nothing in the facts which would suggest that the finding, upon which the Reviewer based his decision, could not be had. In those circumstances, as a matter of law, it is not open to this Court to interfere
[20] with the exercise of that discretion. The Reviewer was acting within the statutory framework relating to the award of costs and I find that there are no grounds to disturb that exercise of a discretion.
[21] [20] Accordingly then, in relation to both issues, the appellant is unsuccessful and this appeal is dismissed.

DATED this 7th day of November 2008

M J Beattie

District Court Judge
0

#6 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:14 PM

MG good on Michael Cruickshank for taking them on in the Courts of Law.

He sounds like he has been through hell.

And he was Better at Work???

As we have stated before, including in our thread Administrative Failures of Professional Standards there is need for accountability by http://www.acc.co.nz and the onus should not be disproportionately placed on the claimants whom are not always fully informed or know there legal rights.

http://accforum.org/...dards-services/

If it wasn't for people like M Cruickshank we wouldn't be making some of the progress we have in exposing the ongoing incompetences within http://www.acc.co.nz

0

#7 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:28 PM

I agree. The fact that Mr Cruickshank's claims are "managed" by ACC's Remote Claims Unit suggests to me that its rehabilitation efforts have less than totally successful.
0

#8 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:40 PM

thanks doppleganger



Working on a construction site is a little bit different than working at alternative slower paced employ where he was and no doubt for less financial recompense.

May we assume he may be financially disadvantaged for having Returned to work and been, to quote Dame Carol Black, "Better at Work".

Been a carpenter he would use both of his arms more often than some occupations, with lifting and holding pieces of timber and nails and a hammer.

It is overdue http://www.acc.co.nz looked in it's own backyard and did something about ensuring it's claimants are in fact Better at Work in all aspects.

It is more cost effective to have a person working as and when able than having them on Home Detention and with a Criminal Conviction which further disadvantages them.

Was the intent & knowing factually there or was it ignorance on the jury members part that he was found guilty by his peers?

In respect of any overpayments (abated earnings) that is a matter that http://www.acc.co.nz should be addressing within there own Administration internally instead of clogging up the Court system and they must stop causing further unnecessary distress and expense to claimants.



Quoted from the attached decision.
The appellant has cover for injuries suffered in a fall from a ladder in April 1995. His injuries included a lacerated ulnar artery and damage to ulnar nerve and tendon in his left arm.

At the time of this injury the appellant was employed as a carpenter and was working on a construction site.




View Postdoppelganger, on 22 November 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

One should also read

Cruickshank v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 130 (2 May 2011)

this will give a back ground between this person and ACC.

0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:03 PM

""Regardless of Mr Cruickshank's background and circumstances, the importance of his latest District Court appeal (even though he lost) is that ACC conceded that it does not need claimants to sign ACC 165 Forms in order to carry out its statutory obligations towards claimants. Note too that nowhere in the ACA is there any express reference to ACC having a duty of care towards claimants. IMHO, this is deliberate, so that aggrieved claimants cannot bring legal actions against ACC, except in very exceptional circumstances.""

but we can take class action against drsl.....

i guess we will have to wait till saturday/sunday, to figure out whether to go ahead or not?
0

#10 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:31 PM

There can be no Human Rights when ACC applauds the harassings and gross breaches of BORA, Privacy Act, HR Act, Treaty of Waitangi & other rights by a racist Case Manager from a continent renown for it's gross lack of Human Rights. http://groups.yahoo....a/message/27573

View PostMG, on 22 November 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:

ACC does not need claimants to sign Declarations of Rights and Responsibilities (ACC165 Form) in order to manage their claims, ACC conceded in a recent District Court appeal (Cruickshank v ACC 333/2011). Accordingly, the Appellant's decision not to sign the ACC165 Form, when ACC demanded that he did so, did not constitute unreasonable failure to comply with section 72(1) of the ACA. However, ACC was still able to defeat the Appellant, and continue to withhold weekly compensation from him, because Judge Beattie decided that it was unreasonable for the claimant (actually his advocate) to put a particular condition on the Authority for Collection and Disclosure of Information (ACC 167) Form. From the decision, however, it is unclear whether adding any conditions at all to the ACC167 Form is "unreasonable" behaviour, triggering suspension of entitlements, or which of the three conditions imposed by the claimant (advocate) were "unreasonable", or whether all three conditions were "unreasonable". Apart from torpedoing the dearly-loved ACC165 Form, and depriving ACC of at least one weapon to use against claimants (anyone know how they do this?), IMHO "Cruickshank" leaves it open as to whether claimants can actually exercise any control at all over their health information (as other human beings can in NZ) or whether the fact that they are supplicants to ACC requires their total surrender of a fundamental human right to the tender mercies of ACC, accredited employers and insurers. Again IMHO, the issue of claimant rights over their health information will grow in importance over the next few years, because of: (a) privatisation of more of ACC's functions (accredited employer scheme and managing insurers = privatisation, right now); (B) greater ruthlessness by ACC in claims management because of fear of (a) and continued political cowardice to properly control its activities; © creation of a virtual "market place" in health information through Electronic Health Records (EHRs), disclosed throughout cyberspace without individual knowledge or informed consent; (d) supine government regulators (eg Privacy Commissioner etc) unwilling/uninterested in protecting individual rights to privacy against corporate interests. For all that, IMHO, "Cruickshank" represents a small, but palpable, defeat for the machinations of the Evil Empire, while astute claimants (and their advocates) can make good use of it by rejecting ACC's demands that claimants sign ACC165 Forms.

1

#11 User is offline   Fighter for Justice 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 23-August 08

Posted 23 November 2011 - 02:12 AM

I cannot see mention of ACC165 form in the above link! However, it is very late and I may have missed it.....

Please post where in the judgment is the ACC165 form mentioned. Thanks.
0

#12 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 23 November 2011 - 09:19 AM

I think you will find, that Mr Cruickshank was so forceful in demanding his rights, that he was placed into remote management?
it seems to be this way for those who really do get into acc's face about the pitfalls in the system??
his nerve pain and frustration would have made dealing with acc extremely stressful???

I dont know the chap, or his circumstances, apart from what i read here

but i do know, after reading the IT sweep file, what a pile of drivel, that gets taken for gospel is written in those files-bloody shocking....
if you challenge anything acc writes, and quote a bit of legislation to back it up, acc does everything in its power to deem you a "troublemaker"

good on him for attempting to swing a hammer again, he is obvioulsy passionate about his building career and misses it, would he ever be a master craftsman again because of his injury? i suspect not, and that too must be frustrating for him as well as his loss of potential income

i hope he appeals this and takes it to high court, i really do...

however the energy to continually hold acc accountable for what they have done to claimants is shocking...

when will they realise, that not everyone will heal, and go back to pre injury lifestyle? it like its an insult to them personally!

actually, what it is, is that it stuffs up the numbers within the branch for performance, so the circle of "riding each others butts to achieve exit", goes on and on...in my honest opinion of course...
0

#13 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 24 November 2011 - 12:31 PM

Read the decision carefully. ACC165 is not mentioned by number, although the claimant declaration is mentioned. Note the paragraph where ACC's lawyer concedes that ACC does not need signed claimant declarations.
0

#14 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 24 November 2011 - 01:48 PM

I get what you are saying

ACC needs informed consent but dose not need a declarations. two didderent matters

The ACC lawyer has said you can give consent in a letter which would be the reply in accepting to go to the assessment.
0

#15 User is offline   Southernman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 04:04 PM

View PostMG, on 22 November 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:

ACC does not need claimants to sign Declarations of Rights and Responsibilities (ACC165 Form) in order to manage their claims, ACC conceded in a recent District Court appeal (Cruickshank v ACC 333/2011). Accordingly, the Appellant's decision not to sign the ACC165 Form, when ACC demanded that he did so, did not constitute unreasonable failure to comply with section 72(1) of the ACA. However, ACC was still able to defeat the Appellant, and continue to withhold weekly compensation from him, because Judge Beattie decided that it was unreasonable for the claimant (actually his advocate) to put a particular condition on the Authority for Collection and Disclosure of Information (ACC 167) Form. From the decision, however, it is unclear whether adding any conditions at all to the ACC167 Form is "unreasonable" behaviour, triggering suspension of entitlements, or which of the three conditions imposed by the claimant (advocate) were "unreasonable", or whether all three conditions were "unreasonable". Apart from torpedoing the dearly-loved ACC165 Form, and depriving ACC of at least one weapon to use against claimants (anyone know how they do this?), IMHO "Cruickshank" leaves it open as to whether claimants can actually exercise any control at all over their health information (as other human beings can in NZ) or whether the fact that they are supplicants to ACC requires their total surrender of a fundamental human right to the tender mercies of ACC, accredited employers and insurers. Again IMHO, the issue of claimant rights over their health information will grow in importance over the next few years, because of: (a) privatisation of more of ACC's functions (accredited employer scheme and managing insurers = privatisation, right now); (B) greater ruthlessness by ACC in claims management because of fear of (a) and continued political cowardice to properly control its activities; © creation of a virtual "market place" in health information through Electronic Health Records (EHRs), disclosed throughout cyberspace without individual knowledge or informed consent; (d) supine government regulators (eg Privacy Commissioner etc) unwilling/uninterested in protecting individual rights to privacy against corporate interests. For all that, IMHO, "Cruickshank" represents a small, but palpable, defeat for the machinations of the Evil Empire, while astute claimants (and their advocates) can make good use of it by rejecting ACC's demands that claimants sign ACC165 Forms.


GETTING BACK ON TOPIC !

I have recently refused to sign an ACC167 form, thrust across the desk to me by the Manager of Alexandra ACC.
After a long pause - he conseded:-
"Oh well, I suppose we will have to do this on a case to case basis" - to which I agreed.

One year ago my partner did not sign and return a ACC167 form. We waited for the argument but none came.
In a recent submission for Review, ACC stated, that information about the claim was gathered and given to an Assessing Doctor under the authority signed by the claimant on the ACC45 form. All in all this shows the ACC1167 form was unnesesary and just a device to harass claimants.

Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the dreaded ACC167 form?
0

#16 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 24 November 2011 - 04:44 PM

The court case refers to the ACC165 (claimant declaration) rather than the ACC167 (claimant consent). Am I reading that correctly?
0

#17 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 24 November 2011 - 06:49 PM

The case refers to both documents. Judge Beattie said the conditions that Mr Cruickshank's advocate tried to place on the ACC 167 form (consent) were unreasonable. However, ACC conceded that it did not need a signed ACC 165 form (claimant declaration of rights and responsibilities) in order to manage the claim.
0

#18 User is offline   Southernman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 06:56 PM

View Postfairgo, on 24 November 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

The court case refers to the ACC165 (claimant declaration) rather than the ACC167 (claimant consent). Am I reading that correctly?

Case was about ACC165 & 167.
However - Cruikshank lost the case?
0

#19 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 24 November 2011 - 08:08 PM

Yes, Cruikshank lost - because the conditions he sought to impose on the ACC 167 were "unreasonable" - in Judge Beattie's view. See my earlier posts on this.
0

#20 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 24 November 2011 - 08:36 PM

Ok so I was reading correctly - just wanted to make sure. BTW at the last COG meeting the ACC167 was once again on the agenda (has been for the last few years!) and ACC have agreed to remove the 'etc' out of the section re who ACC can contact re information "such as general practitioners,specialists, employers etc..."

ACC explained that it may take awhile before the new versions are being used but in the meantime ACC have agreed that on the older forms the "etc" can be crossed out.

Confirmed minutes stating this will be available after the next COG meeting in Dec.
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