ACCforum: Open Letter to the Law Commission - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Open Letter to the Law Commission This was sent before the Privacy breaches

#1 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 04 April 2012 - 05:40 PM

MY address and personal details



Re ACC and the Dispute Resolution Services



To: The Law Commission and Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Justice, Director General of Health, and he medical council of New Zealand.



I would like an investigation into the process that is the dispute resolution Services



Background Information:

Accident Compensation in New Zealand

The present Accident Compensation Act is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 and is the 5th major Act in 28 years dealing with our "no fault" accident compensation scheme.

The scheme was introduced in 1974 based on the report of the 1967 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Woodhouse (subsequently the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse), commonly referred to as the “Woodhouse Report”.
That report proposed a “no fault” system based on five basic principles:
Community responsibility;
Comprehensive entitlement;
Complete rehabilitation;
Real compensation; and
Administrative efficiency.

The scheme involved a trade-off in the form of loss of the common law right to sue for damages for personal injury in a New Zealand Court (except in respect of punitive or exemplary damages) in return for delivery of the three main purposes under the first 1972 Act (in force 1974). These were to:
Promote safety by preventing accidents;
Promote the rehabilitation of injured people; and
Provide compensation for the injured and for the dependants of certain people whose death resulted from injury.

A fundamental policy shift introduced by the National Government with the 1992 & 1998 Acts which abolished lump sum compensation and introduced work capacity assessments. Claims for nervous shock were also barred.
This period also saw private insurers permitted to administer the scheme in a “leaner, meaner” Act in line with National’s business policies.

The 2001 Act represented an attempt by the Labour Government to return to a public scheme and remove competition from workplace insurance.
Lump sum compensation was reintroduced for injuries occurring after 1 April 2002 but not to the same extent as under the earlier 1972 and 1982 Acts.
In a nutshell, the Labour Government returned the scheme to its founding principles but not as generously as it had before.

About DRSL
On 1 July 2011, DRSL became an independent Crown Company.
Because of disputes with ACC decisions the DRSL was set up:
“Under the 1972 and 1982 Acts claimants could appeal any of ACC's decisions.
ACC had to appoint an independent reviewer.
Claimants could then appeal that decision to the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority (an official Judicial Body).
References: John Miller Law Website
Reviewers are required to comply with section 138 of the act as well as any other relevant provisions of the act including Privacy and health information laws. Reviewers are also required to comply with the principles of natural justice; exercise due diligence in decision-making; and adopt an investigative approach with a view to conducting the review in an informal, timely, and practical manner

The Dispute Resolution Services website is intended to provide general information only. The company accepts no responsibility or liability for its material.
Please note that:
* the information is general, and is not intended to address your specific circumstances. Please evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance carefully for your purposes
* the information is not professional or legal advice. For this you should seek specific advice relevant to your circumstances from a qualified professional.
* Any links to external sites, organisations or people are provided for your convenience only. Dispute Resolution Services is not responsible for the contents or maintenance of any linked websites “and the fact that we provide a link to an external site does not mean we endorse that site. Dispute Resolution Services does not accept any responsibility for the way you use this information or the consequences of that use
* any views expressed in the information on this site are those of the author. Dispute Resolution Services does not necessarily endorse the views of any particular author or authenticate the accuracy of the information. How you use the information is your sole responsibility
* Dispute Resolution Services does not accept any responsibility or liability for any action taken as a result of reading, or reliance placed on Dispute Resolution Services as a result of having read any part, or all, of the information in this website. We also do not accept responsibility or liability for any error, inadequacy, deficiency, flaw in or omission from the information in this site

* if you have concerns about the information on this website, contact Dispute Resolution Services directly
Review services
DRSL’s skilled and experienced reviewers conduct independent and impartial reviews. They deliver binding decisions based on a thorough assessment of all the evidence presented. Reviews usually include an opportunity for the parties to meet and discuss the issue at a review hearing
Related legislation: Accident Compensation Act 2001
References: ACC Website


I have recently read the Crown law report from 2005, which was not to be released to the public
The JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER
A GUIDE to JUDICIAL REVIEW of ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
This paper has been prepared as general advice for CLIENT DEPARTMENTS and AGENCIES by CROWN COUNSEL in the CROWN LAW OFFICE.
It is not intended as advice to the GENERAL PUBLIC or as legal advice in relation to any specific circumstances.
Specific inquiries from GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS should be addressed, through their departmental legal advisors to:
Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, WELLINGTON



To summarise the 36 page document
Law Commission report of Court processes and the right to challenge the law

The right to challenge

Has the decision maker acted properly and reasonably?
1. Illegality-acting outside scope of power
2. Unfairness-procedural impropriety
3. Unreasonableness


As at 2 August 2011 there have been 460 Appeals against review decisions lodged in the District Court so far this year.

Clearly, there are horrendous consequences for the claimant when reviewers do not get it right.

And yet the DRSL booklet provided to claimant's states "The reviewer is expert in accident compensation law and other relevant law"

There are questions of law involved in these appeals:

An error of law will arise where the Court has misinterpreted or misapplied a statutory provision;

where there is no evidence to support a decision;

where the evidence is inconsistent with, or contradictory to the decision, or the true and only reasonable conclusion on the evidence contradicts the decision;

where a decision is wrong in principle, or where a decisionmaker has failed to take into account some relevant matter, or has taken account of an irrelevant matter; and where the Court has rejected evidence without a clearly articulated and rational basis for doing so.

“What is a point of law?

[5] Whether or not a statutory provision has been properly construed or interpreted and applied to the facts is a question of law: Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Walker [1963] NZLR 339, 353-354 (CA); Edwards v Bairstow [1995] 3 All ER 48, 57; P & O Services (NZ) Ltd v ARCIC.

[6] Even where, as in this case, an appeal is limited to questions of law, a mixed question of law and fact is assailable as a matter of law: CIR v Walker, 354; P & O Services (NZ) Ltd v ARCIC, 6.

[7] It is well settled that a decision-maker’s treatment of facts can amount to an error of law. There will be an error of law where there is no evidence to support the decision, the evidence is inconsistent with, and contradictory of the decision, or the true and only reasonable conclusion on the evidence contradicts the decision: Edwards v Bairstow, 57.

[8] The Court of Appeal in Lang v Eagle Airways Ltd [1996] 1 ERNZ 574, 576, cited Edwards v Bairstow in support of the following statement:

If those conclusions were not reasonably open to the Judge then this Court can rule, as a matter of law, that they are unsustainable and should be set aside ...

[9] Whether or not particular evidence is relevant to a particular issue is a question of law: Ogilvy & Mather (New Zealand) Ltd v Turner [1996] 1 NZLR 641, 651-652.”



Acc is an Insurance Company and there are also various pieces of general consumer legislation designed to protect consumers' interests. These include:
Fair Trading Act 1986
Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
Human Rights Act 1993
Privacy Act 1993
Disputes Tribunals Act 1998

This takes into account the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003
Public Act 2003 No 48 Date of assent 18 September 2003

This also includes the definition of Doctors and Practice from the medical Council of new Zealand Website

Peter Jansen is a general practitioner and Senior Medical Adviser for the Accident Compensation Corporation
Dr Peter Jansen, who has recently been under investigation for breach of Privacy and Harassment, releases this statement within the MCNZ site:
"ACC also contracts for a range of services from elective surgery, to
psychological services and rehabilitation. In general these contracts are
intended to meet the full cost of the service and no co-payment can be
charged.
The legislation also supports good clinical practice – stating that ACC
should fund services that are necessary and of the quality required to achieve
a return to independence. To ensure that the health services ACC purchases
meet these legislative requirements, the Corporation monitors the delivery of
health services."

Within this site is a comment from Dr David Rankin
Providing opinions about patients or other doctors
"A clinical leader may be asked to provide an opinion on the adequacy or
appropriateness of another doctor’s report. This opinion is usually based
solely on information recorded in the patient’s file. The non-treating doctor
must ensure they have access to all the necessary information and that they
can provide an opinion based on the information to hand. 116
Where additional information or a clinical examination is required, the
non-treating doctor should either refrain from providing an opinion or note
the need for further information in their report."


The non-treating doctor and patient relationship – the professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship

7. The basis of the relationship between the patient and assessing doctor is not the same as an established doctor-patient relationship, however the doctor is still required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship. The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

8. As such, the patient should be treated with respect, be free from coercion, discrimination, harassment and exploitation. If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.


And from the dictates of the Medical Council of New Zealand
Non-Treating Doctors Performing Medical Assessments of Patients for Third Parties
Doctors who are employed by a third party to perform medical assessments of patients are required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship and are expected to meet the standards of practice outlined in this statement.

Introduction
1. Medical assessments for third parties are a common feature in medical practice. The purpose of a medical assessment varies depending upon the role of the third party. Examples include assessment for employment suitability, and eligibility for health services or compensation. Medical assessments may be performed by the patient’s own doctor or by a non-treating doctor.
2. In some circumstances the patient’s own doctor will be asked to provide a medical assessment of the patient for a third party. Insurance companies and employers tend to use this form of assessment. Non-treating doctors may be employed or contracted when the third party requires an independent assessment or second opinion. Examples include expert advisors (used in legal proceedings), doctors employed by organisations like ACC, insurance companies or the patient’s employers.
3. An assessment by a doctor may take several forms that include a consultation with the patient, possibly a physical examination or a file review of the patient’s medical history.

Performing medical assessments
4. If a doctor who is asked to perform a medical assessment does not consider him or herself suitably qualified, or identifies that a conflict of interest exists, the doctor must decline the referral. An explanation does not have to be provided to the third party.
5. If the third party considers a physical examination is not required the assessing doctor must be satisfied (and be able to justify) that he or she has all the information necessary without performing a physical examination or speaking with the patient, before providing an accurate professional opinion or recommendation.

The role of the non-treating doctor
6. The role of the non-treating doctor is to perform a medical assessment and provide an impartial medical opinion. The recipient of the medical opinion is the third party who has employed or contracted the non-treating doctor. As the title indicates, the non-treating doctor does not provide any form of treatment to the patient.
The non-treating doctor and patient relationship – the professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship
7. The basis of the relationship between the patient and assessing doctor is not the same as an established doctor-patient relationship, however the doctor is still required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship. The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.
8. As such, the patient should be treated with respect, be free from coercion, discrimination, harassment and exploitation. If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.

Effective communication and consent
9. The Council has identified some recurring problems in medical assessments performed by non-treating doctors. The common issue is poor communication with the patient. This leads to unmet expectations, misunderstandings and confusion about the non-treating doctor’s duty of care to the patient. The following information must be clearly communicated to the patient by the non-treating doctor:
If the non-treating doctor is required to consult the patient he or she must ensure the patient understands the purpose of the medical assessment and the non-treating doctor’s role. Although the patient will usually be informed of this by the third party before visiting the non-treating doctor, it is the responsibility of the non-treating doctor to confirm this and if necessary, provide any further explanation. This explanation should include discussion about the differences between the non-treating doctor’s role and the patient’s own doctor.
The non-treating doctor must explain what will happen during the assessment and also ensure that the patient is aware of what he or she is doing throughout the consultation. This includes explaining the scope of the consultation and any tests that the assessment may require.
As with any health service, informed consent must be obtained before any service is provided. The non-treating doctor should ensure the patient understands that any aspect of the medical assessment may be included in the report to the third party. If the patient does not consent to this the assessmentshall not proceed. The patient also has the right to withdraw from the assessment at any time. In either of these circumstances the non-treating doctor should record in his or her report to the third party at what point the assessment was terminated and why.
The non-treating doctor must explain and ensure that the patient understands what will happen after the consultation. Specifically, the non-treating doctor should ensure the patient understands that the report will be the property of the third party. A request for a copy of the report and any further communication should be directed through the third party.

Recording a consultation
10. A patient may want to record the consultation by video or audio tape. Arrangements should be made prior to the consultation and with the consent of the doctor. The Council recommends that third parties make the arrangements with the patient and doctor and if the doctor selected to perform the medical assessment does not consent to recording the consultation, an alternative doctor is located.

Reports for the third party
11. Once the medical assessment has been completed it is standard practice for the doctor who performed the assessment to provide a written report to the third party with his or her medical opinion. The report must be accurate and objective. The doctor should not speculate or base recommendations on insufficient or flawed evidence and if he or she is not satisfied that a medical opinion can be accurate, based on the information provided in the file, he or she must clearly state this in the report. The doctor may choose to recommend further methods of investigation if appropriate (i.e. medical tests, x-rays etc).
12. If the non-treating doctor has been provided with any documentation or information from the third party this should be listed as part of the report. This ensures that all the information available to the non-treating doctor is recorded and can be referred to again if there are any issues or questions in the future.
13. If the third party has requested that the non-treating doctor make recommendations (e.g. suitability for an employment position) the recommendations must not compromise the patient’s safety. The non-treating doctor is contracted to make a medical judgement and the third party’s decision will be influenced by the medical opinion. The Council does not accept that making recommendations is a step back from implementing them. Therefore the non-treating doctor has some responsibility for the outcome by ensuring his or her professional opinion and recommendation are appropriate to protect or enhance the patient’s health.
14. It is inappropriate for the assessment report to include comments on any policy or legislation pertaining to the third party because it is not relevant to the non-treating doctor’s role.
15. If the non-treating doctor becomes aware of another medical condition as a result of the assessment the doctor should inform the patient and refer the patient back to his or her own doctor (the patient’s general practitioner/specialist) for further investigation.
Medical Assessments by the patient’s own doctor
16. In some circumstances the patient’s doctor will be requested to perform a medical assessment that would otherwise be performed by a non-treating doctor. This is usually because the patient lives in an isolated area where a non-treating doctor is unavailable. It is imperative that the doctor clearly explains the difference in his or her role in this circumstance, so that the patient understands that the usual dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship are different.
17. Doctors must ensure that any medical assessment of a current patient to a third party is based on objective and clinical findings.
18. When the patient’s own doctor is requested to perform a medical assessment for a third party on a current patient, the doctor has the same duty and requirements to report all of the relevant findings accurately to the third party.

File assessments by non-treating doctors
19. A non-treating doctor may be employed or contracted to perform a medical assessment based solely on information in the patient’s file. As with any other form of medical assessment the non-treating doctor must be satisfied that he or she has all the information necessary and a physical examination is not required before providing an accurate professional opinion or recommendation.
20. The Council reminds non-treating doctors in this role that the documented findings of another doctor have been based on physical examinations and direct communication with the patient. If a non-treating doctor performing a file medical assessment concludes that the documented cause of a medical condition or diagnosis is incorrect, the non-treating doctor needs to be confident that his or her conclusion can be supported with clinical evidence and is based on all the necessary information. It is not acceptable to include such conclusions in the report to the third party unless the non-treating doctor is confident that consulting with the patient or the patient’s own doctor is not necessary.
Financial influences for the non-treating doctors
21. A doctor must not allow the financial interests of either the patient or the third party to influence the medical assessment of the patient, the medical opinion or recommendations.

Review of medical assessment opinions
22. Any challenge by a patient or representative of the patient to an opinion in a medical assessment report should be done through the third party.
23. In past cases, the Health and Disability Commissioner has concluded that a non-treating doctor is not providing a health service to the patient. Instead, the service is provided to the third party. As a result the Commissioner is likely to refer any complaint to the third party in the first instance because the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is restricted to services provided directly to a patient by a health provider.
The Medical Council of New Zealand has released guidelines on medical certification that outline the general requirements and duties of a doctor when signing any form of certificate or medical report. This is available from the Council’s website (www.mcnz.org.nz), or the office.
A doctor who performs a medical assessment is not responsible for the actions of the third party. The only responsibility the doctor has is to competently perform a medical assessment within the scope identified by the third party, and provide a professional, ethical report based on his or her impartial medical assessment.

There are several publications available from the Internet and some occupational groups that may assist doctors to understand the role of the independent or third party assessment. Both the Australasian and the United Kingdom Faculties of Occupational Medicine have released guidelines on this issue - guidelines are available on www.racp.edu.au/afom/ or www.facoccmed.ac.uk
A doctor has the "privilege" to decide in what lawful way a medical examination will be conducted and the patient also has the "privilege" to ask for a tape-recorded consultation. It is then a question of balancing the reasonableness of the exercise of the mutual privileges. In this particular case the doctor had not put forward any worthy arguments to refuse to tape the consultation and given the patient's perception of her dealings with ACC and specialists appointed by it, her request to tape the examination was a reasonable exercise of her privilege to do so.
References:, www.mcnz.org.nz.


I would like to challenge all ministers to assess the efficiency and efficacy of the Dispute Resolution Service and the way the Accident Compensation Corporation places its claimants into 3rd party assessments, whereby the doctors are well outside their scope of practice.
These doctors are mainly used to disentitle clients from Earnings Relataed Compensation.

Following the headings of the judge over your shoulder report:
Illegality
A. Means the decision maker got the law wrong,
DRSL misuses the acc legislation to its own determination

B. Decision is ultra vires (beyond scope of power)
The reviewers are not always lawyers, and lawyers cannot make decisions about Medical Issues. The LAW has no place in a person’s injury, once the injury is accepted and proven


C. Decision fails to take into account all relevant matters
Important medical documents are deliberately withheld by case managers important documents concerning health are missing/destroyed, hidden within files.
It takes regular file download to keep on top of this scenario


D. Decision takes into account irrelevant matters
ACC contracted assessors add in their own versions of events, without actually taking the claimants version as a true statement.
Reports based on false information are detrimental and dangerous to health

E. Decision maker applied rigid predetermined policy
Company policy is not law or legislation

You then get
a) Error of law & Error of fact
Ultra vires
c) & d) Relevant/irrelevant decisions
e) Acting under dictation, Invalid delegation, improper purpose



Unfairness
A Breach of natural justice
Oral hearings and phone conferences are a waste of time, as ACC do not listen to/ignore your concerns then sprout policy over the phone.
Very rarely are you given a legitimate reason for why your case has been placed before the DSRL.
ACC have a tendency to withhold relevant material until 24 hours before a hearing, which barely gives a claimant time to read case law used against them. We cannot all afford lawyers to represent us at this level, nor to be able to take these failed processes to District Court, High Court and more recently, Supreme Court
Hearings within the DRSL can be manipulated dependant on time factors; therefore your advocate does not have a voice, when the reviewer only wants to hear oral submission, which is usually presented in conjunction with written submission

B Bias
Acc own and operate the DRSL service, therefore they have a financial interest in any outcome, they employ the reviewers, lawyers, and the inexperienced GP’s.
Regardless of the submissions, there is almost a predetermined outcome, even when true and correct information is presented during the case.
Acc hold the assessors word as law, when other factual medical/surgical reports, along with MRI/CT, and other relevant tests by doctors who care for you under the scope of practise are ignored.
Up until recently, there has been a 70% chance of losing at review

C Legitimate expectation
The duty to act fairly cannot be seen to be upheld by a company that pays your wages, and shows bias as above.
previously expressed assurances, promises or statements of intent by the decision maker as broken, and this is despite recorded meetings with Branch Managers Team leaders and case managers.
The legislation is fixed, yet somehow becomes open to interpretation in the reviews of DRSL
Once you have “won” at DRSL, there is an expectation that ACC will uphold the reviewer’s decision, this is not the case.



D Substantiative unfairness
Very rarely does acc take into consideration the amount of time and effort by the GP who manages your health, nor does it allow the GP , whom you have handed partnership of your health, to have an active role in disputing 3rd party assessors reports
Failure to consult with the GP
Failure to consult with the specialists involved, or DRSL will ask an assessor to amend a report, of it does not have the predetermined outcome DRSL wants to achieve.
Consultation is not always considered

Unreasonableness
In administration LAW:
a decision maker must act in a reasonable fashion, and the decision must rely on some reasonable basis.
This cannot be possible when acc own and run DRSL
Decisions need to look objectively at what has occurred and be satisfied with a fair and reasonable process has resulted in a fair and reasonable outcome.
Disentitleing claimants is not a fair or reasonable expectation in proven and accepted injuries.
the use of GP's who do not meet the Scope of practise legal Definition and failure of informed consent, I would never consent to an ACC contracted assessor having determination over my health or injury
There is no equality when a dangerous long term injury is misdiagnosed by ACC, signed of by the Branch Medical Advisor and despite repeated requests, ACC refuse to correct information held on file.

Other relevant factors within the Judge over your shoulder report are:

Substantiative unfairness-this has now been recognised as a legitimate form for review.

Impacts of reviews will be: relevant legislation and principles.

Treaty and other international instruments of domestic legislation e.g.
U.N. Convention on Children’s Rights,
NZ Bill of rights act 1990
Human Rights Act 1993

The NZBOR is therefore less likely to impact on law in areas that are already governed by detailed statutory code.
NZBOR;
The right not to be deprived of life
Freedom of thought conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom from discrimination on the grounds set out by the Human rights act 1993 s19
The right of a person belonging to minority to enjoy the culture, profess and practice religion, and use the language
The rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
The right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained
The right to the observance of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority

There are no general rules as to what is justified or reasonable
A breach of the human rights act may result in an award for compensation
This is different from Judicial Review Cases where the decision is quashed or matter reheard in court.

Human Rights Act
Claims are taken to the human rights commission and if a mediated resolution is not possible then may proceed to human rights review
This tribunal has a variety of remedies, including a declaration that a breach has been committed, orders further breaches and damages
2001 act allows for members or public to CHALLENGE GOVERNMENT ACTION

Processes and Outcomes
Interim orders
No action is taken until the review is complete.
Orders can be ex -parte (without notice to defendant)

Relief
The court can decline relief if it is decided it is in the public interest to do so

Process
Lawful examination of documents and evidence of relevant decision makers as well as interpreting relevant statues and case law

Discovery
Comprehensive list of all evidence for both parties
Privileged information can be withheld due to public interest immunity, usually involving sensitive claims material
Should be fact not hearsay or cannot be explained to a judge

Affidavits
Evidence given by sworn statement without physical presence

Consultation
Recommendations: failure to give reasoning might be regarded as a breach of duty to act fairly.



Conclusion.
I would consider my injury to be life threatening, is currently inoperable, and I worked as a wage earer for over 24 years.
I am a registered Nurse
I have 11 fully qualified doctors reports that substantiate my injury, another that mentions the neck injury even thought I didn’t, 1 CT scan, 5 MRI scans, that all prove my statement- My neck is severely injured.
Due to the process of DRSL, including a lawyer who was reprimanded by the law society, the law society would not give me a letter of support to re-hear my case, I am now struggling to meet daily needs, financial commitments and the right to live my life the best way I know how with an accepted injury.

I would consider the Process of DRSL a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, a a breach of my Human rights with several breaches of privacy, and a complete loss of Natural justice.

As my Government agents, I challenge you to fix the process, and enable injured claimants, to maintain their lawful entitlements.

yours faithfully etc!!!! ..........................


Intellectual copywrite......NTV (real name withheld for personal reasons)
0

#2 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:55 AM

http://www.lawcom.go...rt#quicktabs-23

from the article...

-agencies should be required to notify people when personal information held by an agency is lost or otherwise compromised (for example, through computer hacking), if the breach is sufficiently serious;

acc had no intention of telling 6000+ people that their details had been released...

so at least this will hasten the reading of this act.
0

#3 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:17 AM

http://www.lawcom.go...rt#quicktabs-23

use the act, to change the process of acc and hold the board accountable for the abominable Riley 2009 report, that fails to recognise some new Zealanders are now irretrievable in terms of work capacity...
0

#4 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:19 AM

Auditor-General to investigate ACC board
Rob Hosking | Wednesday April 04, 2012 | 5 comments

ACC chairman John Judge: his board suddenly subject to sweeping inquiry
Related links
Collins to fund defamation action from own pocket
List of 28 'a safeguard for Bronwyn' says Boag
The Auditor-General has launched a wide-ranging inquiry into the Accident Compensation Corporation in the wake of the row which has consumed one cabinet minister and embroiled another.

Auditor-General Lyn Provost this afternoon announced an inquiry into ACC at board level, targeting not only the privacy breaches surrounding aggrieved ACC claimant and former National Party official Bronwyn Pullar, but also conflict of interest issues among staff and board members, along with privacy issues raised after a confidential file listing more than 6700 ACC claimants was sent to Ms Pullar.

The Privacy Commissioner is already examining the privacy aspects of the issue, and the corporation is already holding an internal inquiry of its own.

The Auditor-General's inquiry stems from a request made by Labour MP Andrew Little and Green MP Kevin Hague.

The terms of the inquiry are extremely broad.

The Auditor-General lists the inquiries focus as being on:

The policies and practices at ACC for managing risks relating to conflicts of interest, legal compliance and communications between board members and clients and staff.
The policies and practices that apply when claimants personally contact board members.
How any matters relating to Ms Pullar that came to the attention of the board or individual board members were dealt with.
Any other matters that the Auditor-General considers it desirable to report on.
More by Rob Hosking
0

#5 User is offline   unicorn57 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 01-June 10

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:33 AM

Wow NTV. Sooo much work here....Go for it.

Dont you wish that when you put all this effort into someting so important, that the bureaucracies that you deal with, apply urgency, and get the job done pronto...but they dont...they sit on it,and procrastinate, and pass it all round the various departments, send it off to legal just to see if they actually HAVE to bother with it...eventually allocate it to someone for investigation...and depending on the integrity and performance levels of the employee its been allocated to...one day next year, maybe, you get your desired, or undesired outcome...

Please Lord, Help this situation to be speedily resolved for NTV, so she can live a wonderful quality of life, and look forward to a peace-filled future, without this struggle and hardship, that has been imposed on her by malicious and devious 'others'. You know who they are Lord. Please deal with them as you see fit, and sort out this horrendous corruption. Your Will be done...In Jesus name. Thankyou Lord. Amen

Godbless :)
0

#6 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:35 AM

thank you for your prayer Unicorn57

this is the document, that made Judith Collins reply and offer an investigation by the labour department, into our dealings with case managers who are under contract as State Servants

this document covers all the processes, privacy, Law, legislation human rights etc...that are subjected to abuse by acc

State Servants cannot break the Law

so justification will come abut-legally-with no dirty tricks-using integrity, and all the values and morals I hold dear.

so hopefully, when Ms Collins has escalated this-once she has sorted the privacy Issue,police investigation defamation of character and auditor generals investigation...it may take a while....

In the meantime, I will continue to work quietly in the background, and use the brain that my ancestry, genealogy, family and God have given me, to try and make a difference,

and inspire others to keep it simple...

so that we do make the right impact, based on facts

love peace and blessings

NTV
;)
0

#7 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:19 PM

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


most of the ministers are 1st name.last [email protected]

some like minister Collins have Capitals as in [email protected]

winston peters uses his secretariat address...these are all on the parliament website

http://www.parliamen...ontact-list.htm

go to the right hand side of the page...downloads....list of members....and a PDF comes up with all the contact details....

voila....

please pass this on....

im flat tack with paperwork and have one more comparative analysis to do....

plus submission for D/C and DRSL.....so I will drop down articles of interest, but sorry I dont have time to reply to individual requests.....

if there is anything i can help with that is specific, please PM (private message me.)

LP&B
NTV
0

#8 User is offline   unicorn57 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 01-June 10

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:07 PM

OK Got this now thanks

I will work on it.

I think I will alter the dispute resolution bit to include ACC too, and then add bits as appropriate.... :wacko:
0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:07 AM

unicorn57, its intellectual copywrite.....

you cannot alter this document

you can only download it..

but i havent done the GENERIC COPY YET.....so hold fire for a minute and let me get it into the General Lounge!!!
0

#10 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

I have written to each of you, expecting a real response with some resolution…

This is not about a personality clash with acc

It is about SYSTEMIC CORPORATE FRAUD

How dare someone alter my IRD number?


Tell me I have had a massive payout, after a horrific injury whereby I suffered Brown Sequard paralysis and recovered from this after a high risk operation, in 1994.
I never received this payout.

Try wearing a Philadelphia neck brace for 6 months and looking like something out a zombie film, whereby people ignore you, as they are frightened you may taint them with your injury.
Do you have any idea what if feels like to be told you may never walk again, and that you could die during the operation?

How dare a case manager doubt my word and injury after a physiotherapist injured my neck severely for a second time? 2004
There was no mention of a neck injury prior to physiotherapy, and then she spends half her life instructing and communicating with the physiotherapist to make sure he “covers his butt”
How dare she fail to inform my GP and how dare the physiotherapist fail to inform my GP

How dare acc perpetuate this fraud through neglect, from branch medical advisor, to branch manager, team leader and case manager

How dare regional and national management ignore these issues as well, and fail to respond to genuine grievances and concerns.

How dare the case manager write lies and personal opinion, while leaving an urgent scan on her desk and letting me suffer for 9 months while ignoring my emails and phone communication.



How dare ACC escalate my claim to Party Status as I am “too clever” for my own good, and was holding them accountable for criminal action, without realising what the criminal action was.

Party status means the communication goes for the case manager to the team leader, to the branch manager, to the regional manager, to the technical manger and then the legal team.
Then information is filtered down this line again, so that the case manager gets told what to write and how to block your access to treatment, reimbursements and weekly pay

Acc purchased and ran an Insurance Model type computer system and even the current IT specialist cannot get back into EOS to correct past mistakes.

1st accident: married name, neck destruction by physiotherapist in my maiden name. This computer randomly spat out 3 numbers…and somehow this is my fault?
Acc have admitted this and not one thing has been done

How dare the investigative team, gloss over the issues and pretend they know what they are doing. I may have well just answered my own letter, for the effort that was put in.

How dare acc instruct their acc assessors to destroy my life by ignoring this real, validated neck injury, and be instructed to write complete lies?
These people get paid megabucks to do this and they are not my treatment providers, nor do I like being assaulted, abused, and denigrated during “examination”.

How dare the branch medical advisor, write an inexperience dangerous opinion, without ever examining me, or reading my factual black and white scans, xray and medical file.

How dare the government claim to have successful rehabilitated seriously injured people by claiming successful statistics?
Rehabilitation ? -rubbish, we are transferred on WINZ

How dare, I get sent to DRSL whereby the reviewer, doesn’t even fit the criteria District Court has set, and are unable to read expert medical evidence.
And how dare the statistics be set so that only 30 percent of cases win, regardless of how severe the injury is.

How dare the judgment of these reviews force me into District Court to defend my injury, I am not a criminal, and the process of appearing in court is stressful, hideous and derogatory.

How dare acc defame my character, force me into job interviews whereby I cannot present a professional face because I am stressed, haven’t slept a full night in weeks and am on cheap generic medication therefore I am still in pain.
Yes, I have tried to obtain jobs, I thought I was capable of, and no I am not lazy.

How dare acc spread vicious rumours, slander and libel to 3rd parties, to the point where socially I am avoided deliberately?
Then one of these 3rd party providers begs for his email to be destroyed

How dare the acc denigrate the qualifications of my Specialists, by using their own paid assessors to disqualify my injury, no where in the legislation does it say that my specialists cannot write these reports.

And the medical council covers for these over pretentious morons, despite complaints against them. This does not honour the Hippocratic Oath, which is sacred to those doctors who do care, and protect their patients

How dare the injured and disabled of New Zealand be treated as commodities, whereby the insurance ratings take precedence over their injuries, and the money saved by denying weekly entitlement be used to invest in acc shell companies

How dare the government allow these state servants to continue with this fraud.
There are no ethics, morals or values in being instructed to save money.
The 2009 Riley report doesn’t even take into account long term injured apart for the concerted diagram of exit, exit, exit. This is now acc policy.


It is up to the law to deal with scam artists and rip off merchants; I am not one of them, in fact at this point, I am accusing the Hawes Bay Branch of criminal activity.

I am not alone in my journey, this has happened to other New Zealanders, who are genuinely injured, and have also gone through similar circumstances.

The current political fiasco shows quite succinctly, that acc has gone full circle, and that the Trapski report is once again highlighted.

The Social Contract of acc as determined by the Woodhouse Principles has now been annihilated; however, the government already has our levies, and has no right to dishonour this Social Contract.

While I appreciate that some of you, have taken the time to acknowledge my letters, I have not had legal redress, and while case manager , team leaders, branch manager and the doctors all get free legal advice, I am once again severely disadvantaged as acc have succinctly destroyed my income, my income potential and my dreams..


I would like the courtesy, of a response, that addresses my issues, and I do not think this is too much to ask for; 10 years of my life have been taken up with fighting INSURANCE FRAUD that I did not know existed.


Yours sincerely

NTV
0

#11 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:26 PM

this got sent to the government ministers and the serious fraud office
0

#12 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:15 AM

MY JOURNEY.

8 complaints to the Official Investigation Team at acc-no resolution of corporate complex fraud!

6 complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner,about Doctors writing false reports-under investigation

2 complaints to the Medical Council as to why the doctors reported continue to practise illegally, and outside of Scope of Practise

2 complaints to the Ombudsaman as this agency is supposed to hold acc accountable for upholding the LAW

4 complaints to the DRSL about the illegality of unqualified reviewers failing to uphold the Law of Natural Justice in NZ

1 Complaint to the law Commission as to why the illegality and need for Lawyers to interfere with the Social Contract

1 Complaint to the regional "return to independence service" manager who failed to sack case managers committing crime

1 complaint to the District Court, as to why they have not acknowledged correspondence

12 complaints to the privacy Commissioner as to the illegality of my claim, and misinformation through my file, that acc refuse to correct

2 complaints to the Office of the Auditor general, as I already am able to identify the illegality of the exit process based on policy, not legislation

1 complaint to the Serious Fraud Office,as to why Government Ministers have made no attempt to resolve this situation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

please bear with me, as you can see, I have been working my Butt off, over a substantial length of time, to overturn the crimes that have been committed by acc, especially in regard to my own case, but i have also quoted figures re other scenario.ie: Aon Catalyst etc...

14 separate letters have also gone to all the Government ministers, and so far 2 personal responses:

one from Minister Collins, who states State Servants cannot break the law and she will instigate a Labour Department Enquiry!

instead, at this point she is overseas, and instigating her own defamation of character charge against Andrew Little and Trevor mallard

the second response has been from Green Party Leader Kevin Hague, who responded to a "receipt request" while currently on vacation with his family.

My letters are intelligent, succinct, have evidence and proof attached to them...
these letter have taken hours of no sleep, screaming pain, blinding headaches, and misfunctioning hands (thank God for spell-check)

In amongst these, I have also baffled my case managers and branch manager with legislation and they have the privilege of a legal team on tap...I dont

so, despite all my own hard work...nothing will change unless each and every one of us,
pulls down the templates,
writes to all the agencies,
cc these to all the ministers,
so that rightful lawful legal entitlement, reimbursement and compensation for inhumane suffering at the hands of bureaucracy is given legal redress.

feel free to send these templates to anyone you know, whose injuries can be proven by any specialist who reads them...
lets keep it legal
lets make a change
and
lets get acc back to the Social Contract it is meant to be

Love peace and blessings

NTV
0

#13 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:07 PM

Branch managers lying to the Police (senior detectives) is a criminal offence


I will now place my Complete and Utter Faith with

the Privacy Commissioner

the Auditor Generals Office

and the SFO

I guess patience is a virtue... what's another few months after 10 years...?

Truth Wins Out...and Justice will be done.
0

#14 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:54 AM

The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

acc assessors do not listen/ nor consider the amount of medication you are on, or the side effects of these medications

If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.

we are only sent to these acc assessors for exit, and no other reason usually

If a doctor who is asked to perform a medical assessment does not consider him or herself suitably qualified, or identifies that a conflict of interest exists, the doctor must decline the referral

in medico legal terms, there is no point sending someone with head injuries to an obstrtician, there is no point sending an neurosurgical patient to an orhopeadic specialist, the council is very clear on the guidelines for "scope Of Practice"

Once the medical assessment has been completed it is standard practice for the doctor who performed the assessment to provide a written report to the third party with his or her medical opinion. The report must be accurate and objective.
The doctor should not speculate or base recommendations on insufficient or flawed evidence and if he or she is not satisfied that a medical opinion can be accurate, based on the information provided in the file, he or she must clearly state this in the report.
The doctor may choose to recommend further methods of investigation if appropriate (i.e. medical tests, x-rays etc).

if this alleged medical OPINION does not hold true with the reports of your specialist, if the assessors opinion id falsified with irrelevant, vexatious nonsense, if the case managers have deliberately with held medical specialist reports then-every one of these report meets the criteria of a privacy breach!!!

Citation: Ministry of Health. 2011. Towards Better Access to Information About Our Health. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Published in July 2011 by the Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
ISBN 978-0-478-37312-7(Print)
ISBN 978-0-478-37472-8 (Online)
HP 5344
This document is available on the Ministry of Health website: www.moh.govt.nz
National Health IT Board website: www.ithealthboard.health.nz

Privacy Act 1993 No 28 (as at 13 February 2012), Public Act
• Act by section
• Contents
• › Part 8 Complaints
66 Interference with privacy
• (1) For the purposes of this Part, an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if, and only if,—
o (a) in relation to that individual,—
 (i) the action breaches an information privacy principle; or
 (ii) the action breaches a code of practice issued under section 63 (which relates to public registers); or
 (iii) the provisions of Part 10 (which relates to information matching) have not been complied with; and
o (B) in the opinion of the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Tribunal, the action—
 (i) has caused, or may cause, loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual; or
 (ii) has adversely affected, or may adversely affect, the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual; or
 (iii) has resulted in, or may result in, significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity, or significant injury to the feelings of that individual.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if, in relation to an information privacy request made by the individual,—
o (a) the action consists of a decision made under Part 4 or Part 5 in relation to the request, including—
 (i) a refusal to make information available in response to the request; or
 (ii) a decision by which an agency decides, in accordance with section 42 or section 43, in what manner or, in accordance with section 40, for what charge the request is to be granted; or
 (iii) a decision by which an agency imposes conditions on the use, communication, or publication of information made available pursuant to the request; or
 (iv) a decision by which an agency gives a notice under section 32; or
 (v) a decision by which an agency extends any time limit under section 41; or
 (vi) a refusal to correct personal information; and
o (B) the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no proper basis for that decision.
(3) If, in relation to any information privacy request, any agency fails within the time limit fixed by section 40(1) (or, where that time limit has been extended under this Act, within that time limit as so extended) to comply with paragraph (a) or paragraph (B) of section 40(1), that failure shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section, to be a refusal to make available the information to which the request relates.
(4) Undue delay in making information available in response to an information privacy request for that information shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(i), to be a refusal to make that information available.
Compare: 1982 No 156 s 28(1), (2), (4), (5); 1987 No 8 s 16(1); 1987 No 174 s 27(1), (2), (4), (5)

The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill
By Nicholai Anderson, senior associate, Chen Palmer New Zealand Public and Employment Law Specialists
As stated by the Privacy Commissioner in her submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (8 October 2010, at [3.2]):
“[I]f information is inaccurate, then the error is spread across multiple databases. It is then more difficult and resource-intensive to correct the information, as the correction must be made not only to the data held by many agencies, but also to the profiles and assumptions built upon this information. It is also difficult for the individual concerned to correct the information and to know where it is held.”


HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY CODE | 1994
privacy principles in the Privacy Act.
The rules in the code might be summarised as follows:
1. Only collect health information if you really need it.
2. Get it straight from the people concerned.
3. Tell them what you’re going to do with it.
4. Be considerate when you’re getting it.
5. Take care of it once you’ve got it.
6. People can see their health information if they want to.
7. They can correct it if it’s wrong.
8. Make sure health information is correct before you use it.
9. Get rid of it when you’re done with it.
10. Use it for the purpose you got it.
11. Only disclose it if you have a good reason.
12. Only assign unique identifiers where permitted.

The principles of informed choice and consent relating to autonomy, responsibility and accountability
should also be borne in mind in the provision of health and disability services.
Those principles accord
with many of those expressed in this code.
However, there is an important distinction between the need
to obtain informed consent and the obligation for health agencies to be open about the purpose for which
they collect and hold health information.

Guidance on that code and matters of informed consent can be obtained from the Health and Disability
Commissioner’s office.


Medical reports for employers or insurers
If your doctor writes a report on your health for an insurance company or an employer you have the right to see it before it is sent under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988.
An employer or insurer cannot contact your doctor unless it has your written consent and has inf
ormed you of your rights under the 1988 Act.
You must be invited to say whether you want to see the report before it is sent.
An employer or insurer cannot contact your doctor unless it has your written consent and has informed you of your rights under the 1988 Act.
You must be invited to say whether you want to see the report before it is sent. If you say yes, the doctor should wait 21 days before sending it, to allow you to arrange to see it. Get in touch with your doctor straight away and ask to be contacted as soon as the report is ready.

If you see the report and are unhappy with it - for example, if you feel it involves an unacceptable breach of your privacy, or misrepresents the position - you have the right to stop it being sent
.

But if you do, the employer or insurer may not be willing to offer you the job or insurance policy - so do not take this step lightly.
If you believe that a doctor, employer or insurance company has breached the Act you can apply to a court for an order requiring compliance.

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

Section 8 - Health practitioners must not practise outside scope of practice

(1) Every health practitioner who practises the profession in respect of which he or she is registered must have a current practising certificate issued by the responsible authority.

(2) No health practitioner may perform a health service that forms part of a scope of practice of the profession in respect of which he or she is registered unless he or she—

(a) is permitted to perform that service by his or her scope of practice; and

(b performs that service in accordance with any conditions stated in his or her scope of practice.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or subsection (2) applies to a health practitioner who performs health services—

(a) in an emergency; or

(B) as part of a course of training or instruction; or

© in the course of an examination, assessment, or competence review required or ordered by the responsible authority.

Cogs
How we prefer to do business
• Early engagement – characterised by COGs involvement early in the thinking and planning process, rather than at the consultation stage when all blue-skies thinking opportunity has all but evaporated.
• Persuasive – characterised by a two-way openness.
• Mutual respect – characterised by the development of quality relationships and the evolution of trust.
• Advocacy, persistence – characterised by the right information to the right people at the right time and purposeful feedback.
• Promote inclusiveness – characterised by improved access to services, participation, awareness of entitlements and future opportunities.

Privacy & Consent forms
A check needs to be made whether ‘etc’ has been removed from ACC167. Ku Seymour will follow up on this but did state that it can take time to get new forms printed and if the older forms are used, the etc. can be crossed out.

Medical Certificate acc 554
This form provides ACC with information about your patient's covered injury.
ACC will use this to
determine whether the injury qualifies for an assessment for a Lump Sum or Independence Allowance.
0

#15 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:21 AM

sent today to privacy commissioner...



I will remind you, that NO one is above the law

An acc case manager altering a unique identifier 18 years ago, and then alleging I have had a massive payout has an impact today.
In fact what she did is a crime under sections 113, and 258 of the crimes Act 1961

Withholding urgent treatment is inhumane, once again based on an assumption created by criminal activity by a public servant, who had no right to alter a legal identifier. State servants are NOT supposed to commit crime.
State Servants Code of Conduct.

I received my IT sweep file in November 2011, and until this point had no idea of the depths of fraudulent activity within my file.

One false statement, has been perpetuated into acc’s truth, which has been used as a template in referrals to 3rd party contractors including , slander, libel and character assassination.
Each of these is a complete breach of privacy.

In fact this is reiterated by the Privacy Commissioner herself.
As stated by the Privacy Commissioner in her submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (8 October 2010, at [3.2]):
“[I]f information is inaccurate, then the error is spread across multiple databases. It is then more difficult and resource-intensive to correct the information, as the correction must be made not only to the data held by many agencies, but also to the profiles and assumptions built upon this information. It is also difficult for the individual concerned to correct the information and to know where it is held.”

I will remind you:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY CODE | 1994
Privacy principles in the Privacy Act.

The rules in the code might be summarised as follows:
1. Only collect health information if you really need it.
2. Get it straight from the people concerned.
3. Tell them what you’re going to do with it.
4. Be considerate when you’re getting it.
5. Take care of it once you’ve got it.
6. People can see their health information if they want to.
7. They can correct it if it’s wrong.
8. Make sure health information is correct before you use it.
9. Get rid of it when you’re done with it.
10. Use it for the purpose you got it.
11. Only disclose it if you have a good reason.
12. Only assign unique identifiers where permitted.
The principles of informed choice and consent relating to autonomy, responsibility and accountability should also be borne in mind in the provision of health and disability services.
Those principles accord with many of those expressed in this code.
However, there is an important distinction between the need to obtain informed consent and the obligation for health agencies to be open about the purpose for which they collect and hold health information.

Guidance on that code and matters of informed consent can be obtained from the Health and Disability Commissioner’s office.


Medical reports for employers or insurers
If your doctor writes a report on your health for an insurance company or an employer you have the right to see it before it is sent under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988.
An employer or insurer cannot contact your doctor unless it has your written consent and has informed you of your rights under the 1988 Act.
You must be invited to say whether you want to see the report before it is sent.
An employer or insurer cannot contact your doctor unless it has your written consent and has informed you of your rights under the 1988 Act. You must be invited to say whether you want to see the report before it is sent. If you say yes, the doctor should wait 21 days before sending it, to allow you to arrange to see it. Get in touch with your doctor straight away and ask to be contacted as soon as the report is ready.
If you believe that a doctor, employer or insurance company has breached the Act you can apply to a court for an order requiring compliance.

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

Section 8 - Health practitioners must not practise outside scope of practice

(1) Every health practitioner who practises the profession in respect of which he or she is registered must have a current practising certificate issued by the responsible authority.
(2) No health practitioner may perform a health service that forms part of a scope of practice of the profession in respect of which he or she is registered unless he or she—
(a) is permitted to perform that service by his or her scope of practice; and
(b performs that service in accordance with any conditions stated in his or her scope of practice.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or subsection (2) applies to a health practitioner who performs health services—
(a) in an emergency; or
(B) as part of a course of training or instruction; or
© in the course of an examination, assessment, or competence review required or ordered by the responsible authority.
Privacy Act 1993 No 28 (as at 13 February 2012), Public Act
Act by section
Contents
Part 8 Complaints
66 Interference with privacy
• (1) For the purposes of this Part, an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if, and only if,—
o (a) in relation to that individual,—
 (i) the action breaches an information privacy principle; or
 (ii) the action breaches a code of practice issued under section 63 (which relates to public registers); or
 (iii) the provisions of Part 10 (which relates to information matching) have not been complied with; and
o (B) in the opinion of the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Tribunal, the action—
 (i) has caused, or may cause, loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual; or
 (ii) has adversely affected, or may adversely affect, the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual; or
 (iii) has resulted in, or may result in, significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity, or significant injury to the feelings of that individual.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if, in relation to an information privacy request made by the individual,—
o (a) the action consists of a decision made under Part 4 or Part 5 in relation to the request, including—
 (i) a refusal to make information available in response to the request; or
 (ii) a decision by which an agency decides, in accordance with section 42 or section 43, in what manner or, in accordance with section 40, for what charge the request is to be granted; or
 (iii) a decision by which an agency imposes conditions on the use, communication, or publication of information made available pursuant to the request; or
 (iv) a decision by which an agency gives a notice under section 32; or
 (v) a decision by which an agency extends any time limit under section 41; or
 (vi) a refusal to correct personal information; and
o (B) the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no proper basis for that decision.
(3) If, in relation to any information privacy request, any agency fails within the time limit fixed by section 40(1) (or, where that time limit has been extended under this Act, within that time limit as so extended) to comply with paragraph (a) or paragraph (B) of section 40(1), that failure shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section, to be a refusal to make available the information to which the request relates.
(4) Undue delay in making information available in response to an information privacy request for that information shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(i), to be a refusal to make that information available.
Compare: 1982 No 156 s 28(1), (2), (4), (5); 1987 No 8 s 16(1); 1987 No 174 s 27(1), (2), (4), (5)



Therefore, I am demanding my Rights Under the Natural Law of Justice in New Zealand , that Breach of Privacy Certificates are issued post haste, due to the grossly inappropriate behaviour of acc staff, based on fiscal reward.

Yours sincerely


NTV
0

#16 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:37 AM

Fraud investigation guidelines

Five Common Mistakes in Internal Investigations
When investigating misconduct, watch out for these pitfalls.
September 1, 2009 by Tim Mohr and Nidhi Rao

Warren Buffett put it best when he said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” This statement could not be more relevant today. It takes only one person to tarnish an organization’s reputation. Not only is the current turbulent economy affecting the corporate bottom line, but if past history is any indicator, businesses can anticipate it to lead to an increase in incidents of fraud. As a result of the SEC, regulators, stakeholders and the public paying closer attention to the way an organization functions, organizations and corporate directors need to be diligent when conducting internal investigations.

It is important that an organization have a mechanism in place to alert the company’s Board of Directors and management about incidents of suspected employee misconduct and the need to conduct an internal investigation. To comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, many organizations have implemented a whistleblower hotline or an anonymous reporting mechanism; however, often the process implemented is ineffective in encouraging individuals to report instances of misconduct.

For example, one organization’s “anonymous” reporting process specifically stated that an individual could either write a confidential and detailed memo to the Audit Committee Chairman or leave an in-depth complaint message on his cell phone. This organization did not receive a single complaint since the mechanism was implemented. An organization should evaluate its reporting method and confirm that it is designed effectively and communicated appropriately throughout the organization to promote its effective use. In addition, although not all complaints should be routed to the Board, the notification process for complaints received through hotlines should be structured so that the Board is aware of the number and types of complaints received and how these complaints were handled.

Once an issue has been identified and a decision has been made to conduct an internal investigation, the organization should make sure that it is managed appropriately and common pitfalls are avoided. An improperly managed investigation can lead investigators to calculate monetary loss inaccurately, fail to identify all the individuals involved in the perpetration of the scheme, inadvertently contaminate or destroy potential evidence, cause additional costs to be incurred due to violation of employee contracts and company policies and increase the possible reputational damage due to harsh public criticism from shareholders. In one such mismanaged internal investigation, an employee accused of misconduct was terminated before completion of the internal investigation and without being offered an opportunity to explain his actions as required by his employment contract. As a result, in spite of the compelling evidence that this employee was negligent in his fiduciary duties and intended to use the company’s assets for his personal benefit, the company was held liable for breach of the employment contract, the ultimate findings against the employee were inadmissible in court and the company was required to pay severance costs to the individual.

An organization must be aware of—and make appropriate effort to avoid—certain potential missteps when conducting an internal investigation. The following are some of the most common mistakes made in internal investigations:
• improper selection of the investigative team
• inadequate triage of the potential evidence and target
• incorrect gathering, preservation and analysis of evidence
• limited scope of background checks
• inappropriately conducted interviews

The Board and Senior Management should establish policies and procedures to avoid these pitfalls when responding to allegations.

1. Improper Selection of the Investigative Team

After receiving a complaint, one of the first steps that an organization should take is to identify who is best suited to lead the investigation and who will be privy to the resulting information. During this process, one commonly overlooked factor is whether the investigative team is far enough removed from the situation to assure independence. The person(s) conducting the investigation should be qualified, properly trained in conducting investigations and independent of the allegations. When selecting the investigative team, the following should also be considered:
• The investigative team’s relationship with the suspect and/or the whistleblower. A long-standing or reporting relationship with either party can affect the objectivity of the team.
• The investigative team’s position within the organization. Are the individuals conducting the investigation “high” enough within the organization to obtain the required information?
• The role of the suspect’s supervisor in the investigative team. The suspect’s supervisor should not lead the investigation, as the supervisor may be too close to the allegation. Certain information uncovered during the investigation may indicate that the supervisor did not perform his/her duties completely and, therefore, failed to uncover the misconduct on a timely basis.
To ensure independence, the Board should also consider engaging external counsel, forensic accountants and other investigative consultants to conduct the internal investigation.

2. Inadequate Triage of the Potential Evidence and Target

Often, the target of the investigation is not isolated and restricted from accessing potential evidence on a timely basis. As a result, valuable information may be contaminated or lost due to the deletion or destruction of files. Triage of the situation should include placing the target on a leave of absence and restricting his/her access to the organization’s internal computer network and to its books and records during the course of the investigation. By doing so, the company will have protected the integrity of the potential evidence. As this is often a sensitive process, the organization should exercise caution and verify that these steps are taken in accordance with the company’s policies and procedures.

3. Incorrect Gathering, Preservation and Analysis of Evidence

Not surprisingly, some of the significant errors in an investigation occur during the collection and analysis of evidence. Prior to the commencement of the investigation, the investigative team should obtain and review the organization’s privacy policy to confirm that evidence collection is done in accordance with these policies. In addition, if all the documents and facts uncovered are not treated as if they will be subject to applicable rules of evidence, the evidence may be compromised and, therefore, inadmissible in future criminal or civil litigation.

Preservation Order

One of the first actions an organization should take is to determine which documents may be relevant during the investigation. Depending on the scope of the investigation, an organization may need to issue a document preservation order. If an organization neglects to issue a preservation order in a timely manner, a possibility exists that pertinent information and evidence may be destroyed.

Collection of Evidence

A crucial component of evidence gathering is ensuring that the chain of custody is documented. This documentation should include a description of how the information was obtained, when it was collected, who has handled it, where and how it was transported, and where it is stored and maintained. Improper documentation of the chain of custody during the collection process may result in information becoming inadmissible in court.

The individuals responsible for collecting electronic evidence should be aware of the following:
• Hard Drive Image: There are two ways an image of a hard drive can be created—a ghost image and a forensic image. A ghost image creates an exact copy of all files on the hard drive of the computer, excluding the free space. A forensic image, on the other hand, is an exact copy of the hard drive, including the free space. Deleted files, which sometimes can be retrieved using specialized tools and programs, are located in the free space of a hard drive. These files may hold valuable information that can assist in the investigation and may be missed if only a ghost image is obtained.

• Copying of Files: When copying selected files from a target’s hard drive, a common mistake can be to “click and drag” the files to another location. The use of this technique causes the metadata of the copied files to be altered. Metadata maintains and identifies the administrative properties of a file, such as the name of the person who created the file, creation and modification dates, number of revisions made to the file, and the most recent access date for the file. This is especially important because courts may deem evidence where the metadata was changed as inadmissible.

• Comprehensive Collection of Evidence: During the collection phase, some of the possible places from which electronic evidence can be gathered may inadvertently be overlooked. When retrieving electronic data, often only e-mail and documents from the hard drive of the target are collected. In reality, there are many other places where relevant data can be stored, such as flash drives, PDAs, backup files on network drives and servers, additional servers or other computers previously used by the target.

Analysis of Evidence Collected

A common mistake committed by investigators when conducting document review is the use of only a Windows search tool on the files of the target. This tool will not allow searches to be conducted on scanned PDF images and password-protected files. A scanned PDF is merely an image of a document. This file must undergo a process called Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for the file content to be searchable. The use of various computer forensic tools that can facilitate the review of evidence collected should also be considered.

Another common flaw when performing a document review is having an overly narrow focus when developing search terms or search parameters. For example, in one investigation which called for an e-mail review to identify collusion between two employees, the search was limited to e-mail communication between the two targeted employees. This search did not yield any results. After discussions with experienced investigators, the e-mail search was expanded to include all e-mail communication from the targets. This approach identified email that was sent by one of the targets to a third party and then routed from the third party to the second target. As a result of the expanded search, the company was able to prove the collusion between the two employees.

4. Limited Background Checks

Although a background check is often conducted on an alleged perpetrator, investigators often do not inquire about or know the exact parameters of the search. Inexperienced investigators may also limit a background check to an Internet search or to a compilation of raw data obtained from a search engine. A limited search may result in missing pertinent information about the target’s lifestyle or his/her criminal and civil litigation history and can be detrimental to the investigation.

An important consideration is whether a criminal background check is conducted on a local, state or federal level, as well as what specific jurisdictions are included in the search. A background check for civil court records should also be considered because these records can yield information about the criminal conduct of an individual. Criminal proceedings may not always be filed, and an individual who commits a criminal act may only be named as a party in a related civil suit.
In most cases, a background check requires the investigator to review large quantities of data obtained from various public records. This information should be analyzed in the context of the facts surrounding the fraud allegations being investigated so that the investigation stays focused on the allegations at hand.

5. Inappropriately Conducted Interviews

Interviews are one of the most valuable sources of information during an investigation, and interviewers must be experienced and skilled in eliciting information. Inexperienced investigators may act in a combative or unknowledgeable manner that ultimately may undermine the purpose of the interview.
At times, the target of the investigation is interviewed too early in the process. To the extent possible, the investigators should review applicable evidence and interview individuals who may have knowledge related to the allegation prior to interviewing the suspect. This will assist the investigators in asking pertinent questions when they interview the subject and allow them to refer to relevant and potentially incriminating documents during the interview.
It is recommended that two investigators be present during an interview so that one can act as a witness and be responsible for documenting the findings from the interview. The investigative team should also ensure that interview notes are documented in writing, are sufficiently detailed and capture the relevant content of the conversation.

In an era of increasing scrutiny of alleged corporate and employee misconduct, Directors should be aware of potential pitfalls when conducting an internal investigation. The investigative team should make certain that care is taken to avoid these missteps and develop a comprehensive and organized approach to the investigation.

To ensure that allegations are addressed appropriately and in a timely manner, the Board should develop an investigative policy and have a process in place to shorten the response time to a complaint and to mitigate problems encountered during the investigative process.
Tim Mohr is a principal in the New York office of BDO Consulting. He can be contacted at [email protected] Nidhi Rao is a director in the New York office of BDO Consulting. She can be contacted at [email protected]
0

#17 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:46 AM

and yet more delays by acc, while the Privacy and defamation of character issues hit the headlines!

im starting to wonder, will the politicians actually respond?

bearing in mind what is happening politically, this could cause the most massive scandal acc has ever seen (IMHO-of course)
0

#18 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:23 AM

I am making a formal complaint against DRSL

I requested transcripts of my file, 23/3/2012 to prepare for District Court, which I was led to believe would be happening this month.

The case manager, who also received a copy of the request, was extremely unhelpful.

In fact, this case manager, Natalie Henson, is the person who scrubbed out my IRD Number, inserted another one, then claimed I have had a massive payout from ACC.

This has set up an illusion of FRAUD which has created profiles and assumption based on lies, innuendo, slander and libel.

ACC / OCI have proven that I have never had a massive payout.

I have not had any correspondence of acknowledgment of my transcript request at all from DRSL.

Therefore once again, I consider this a Human Rights Violation due to:

delays
incorrect action or failure to take any action
failure to follow procedures or the law
failure to provide information
inadequate record-keeping
failure to investigate
failure to reply
misleading or inaccurate statements
inadequate liaison
inadequate consultation
broken promises

I will remind you that as State Servants, there are legal obligations to clients.


Attached is the request that was sent to DRSL and Natalie Henson



I require these transcripts post haste.



Yours sincerely,
0

#19 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

and another response gone through today!................




Please Find enclosed...the letter I received from Natalie Henson, which stated I should approach DRSL about the transcripts


Once again, I will reiterate Natalie Henson altered my unique identifier, and then wrote to tell me I had already received a lump sum payout


She is guilty of altering legal private documents for pecuniary advantage, and "requested" i sign an unaltered ACC 167 Privacy Waiver form, whereby her actions have set up a scenario of fraud, lies, slander and libel within my file.
I never had access to these payslips, they went directly from the hospital to Natalie, I have never worked at ACC, and have no access to the computer system

This in conjunction with a 9 month delay by Feona Cook, to action an URGENT RED FLAG INJURY
And also in conjunction with the Branch Manager and Branch Medial Advisor, offering dangerous opinion of a Neurological Condition they know nothing about, and also blocking my entitlements

It is my belief, that her 'request" for me to sign the privacy waiver, while the privacy commissioner is investigating acc breaches of privacy, constitutes harassment, as Natalie and the Hawke's Bay branch are complicit in the fraud, whereby all my entitlements have been blocked or denied.

My "illegal" review result based on a false report by Dr Christian is lodged in District Court.

As you can tell by the "tone" of Natalie's letter it is now very difficult to have "Open Communication.

Therefore, I would like these transcripts within the subsequent week

Yours sincerely
0

#20 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:51 AM

acc was told to have a face to face meeting

mediation via phone that the mediator couldnt work

didnt know what pabx was

the phone cradle covered the speaker

and he asked me if acc was right and i was wrong after hearing about 30 pages of evidence!!!

what a farce!!!

no resloution

unleash the chaos lol
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • 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