ACCforum: Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation Not signing concent form.

#1 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:04 AM

here is a decision showing what happens when one goes against ACC

From all of the documents one sees that the ACC had been collecting all of the documents to show the claimant is unwilling.

Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZACC 23 (24 January 2012)

One should take notice of the presonal statement in this case which is simular to a statement in another case.

[54] Obviously, ACC needs certain information to do its job and claimants must comply with s.72. The appellant must forgo some privacy so that she can benefit from the ACC scheme. Frankly, there are two many cases of claimants being quite unreasonable in their dealings with ACC and then exercising Review and appellate rights in a futile manner at quite some cost, in effect, to taxpayers. It may be that consideration needs to be given to costs Order against such people. It is concerning that a claimant can create so much work and cost for ACC (and, in effect, for the taxpayer) by adopting a stubborn and misguided approach.

If this statement appears in cases the claimant looses then the opposite must happen when the ACC looses.

A previous court case

Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation [2008] NZACC 135 (30 June 2008) shows the ACC didn't know what the covered injuries were or the consequence. ACC had suspended entitlements because they though the cronic pain was not a covered injury and not as a consequence of the accident

Judge Beattie did not say ACC had waisted levy payers money.
0

#2 User is offline   Compassion 

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

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:15 PM

Regarding consent forms. Maybe to avoid this type of thing that their needs to be an elaboration on what is considered 'reasonable' for acc to obtain. Otherwise two parties think both are being reasonble as both are using their own interpretations of this :blink:
0

#3 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:22 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 01 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

here is a decision showing what happens when one goes against ACC

From all of the documents one sees that the ACC had been collecting all of the documents to show the claimant is unwilling.

Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZACC 23 (24 January 2012)

One should take notice of the presonal statement in this case which is simular to a statement in another case.

[54] Obviously, ACC needs certain information to do its job and claimants must comply with s.72. The appellant must forgo some privacy so that she can benefit from the ACC scheme. Frankly, there are two many cases of claimants being quite unreasonable in their dealings with ACC and then exercising Review and appellate rights in a futile manner at quite some cost, in effect, to taxpayers. It may be that consideration needs to be given to costs Order against such people. It is concerning that a claimant can create so much work and cost for ACC (and, in effect, for the taxpayer) by adopting a stubborn and misguided approach.

If this statement appears in cases the claimant looses then the opposite must happen when the ACC looses.

A previous court case

Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation [2008] NZACC 135 (30 June 2008) shows the ACC didn't know what the covered injuries were or the consequence. ACC had suspended entitlements because they though the cronic pain was not a covered injury and not as a consequence of the accident

Judge Beattie did not say ACC had waisted levy payers money.

Is this your justification at being caught out wasting taxpayers money with your stupid, litigious and plain time wasting attempt to prove you know better than all the legal counsels and judges you come up against.

I hope you never ever get bankrupted because you face crippling costs for wasting time.

As an aside, Why do you represent yourself
Is it because no legal counsel will have bar of you
No reputable advocate wants to be associated with you
Or you are a self believing fool who thinks you know better
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:43 PM

Surely you should read the decision.

Consent can not be denied but there are other avenues to deal with ACC not obtaining correct information from the report writers.

I gathered you have read both decisions and it shows ACC collected a number of medical assessments from well known toadies, not to mention the Branch medical A*************** claimed covered injuries were not covered.

At least in the future if the case manager now proceeds in supplying wrong information one can complain and have the person dismissed.

Must take great pride in the ACC is not a litigation Act. The administrators are the litigators through there behaviour.
0

#5 User is offline   agog 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 10-March 09

Posted 11 March 2012 - 06:23 PM

View Postneddy, on 01 February 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Is this your justification at being caught out wasting taxpayers money with your stupid, litigious and plain time wasting attempt to prove you know better than all the legal counsels and judges you come up against.

I hope you never ever get bankrupted because you face crippling costs for wasting time.

As an aside, Why do you represent yourself
Is it because no legal counsel will have bar of you
No reputable advocate wants to be associated with you
Or you are a self believing fool who thinks you know better

BECAUSE IT WORKS.
BECAUSE MEDICALLY IGNORANT LAWYERS AND ADVOCATES CHARGE TOO MUCH.
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