ACCforum: Template for The Privacy Commissioner - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Template for The Privacy Commissioner if your legal diagnosis is wrong, IRP wrong, Exit due to false Reports

#1 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:07 AM

As highlighted by The Commissioner, during her speech at the "Joint Border Management Information Sharing and other Matters. Amendment Bill" reading on 8/10/2010

"profiles and assumptions can be made based on inaccurate information ,and this inaccurate information then gets spread across multiple databases."

according to the Public Records Act, and i'm assuming that ACC are part of that act, then:

"every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal prudent business practice"




False reports written by acc contracted assessors are opinion only and cannot be deemed as FACT by LAW.


these are a matters to be followed up by the health and Disability Commission as acc have persistently refused to correct information about my claim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to misuse of information by ACC, I amended the Standard Consent to release Private Information ACC 167 form, and asked that all documents are sent to me, to ensure the details are true and correct, before further "misinformation" about me is sent out to other ACC staff, and 3rd party Providers.

In fact i felt so strongly about this, I went to the Courthouse and signed an affidavit to this effect

defaming my character, and spreading innuendo based on false information, and falsified documents, is a breach of my privacy, especially in view of the fact that one of my legal unique identifiers was "altered" by acc staff.

This has had horrendous ongoing sequelae for me.
2

#2 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

Beware of the SCU's yank psychologist Cheryl Broneck.

This woman is so racist she has defamed Maori claimants with fabricated reports, that are so untrue and slanderous they are offensive. Then the SCU sends her defamatory reports to third parties, without permission, thereby contaminating the claimants relationships with doctors and others. The shame and humiliation of her defamatory reports causes great harm.

 not their victim, on 12 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

As highlighted by The Commissioner, during her speech at the "Joint Border Management Information Sharing and other Matters. Amendment Bill" reading on 8/10/2010

"profiles and assumptions can be made based on inaccurate information ,and this inaccurate information then gets spread across multiple databases."

according to the Public Records Act, and i'm assuming that ACC are part of that act, then:

"every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal prudent business practice"




False reports written by acc contracted assessors are opinion only and cannot be deemed as FACT by LAW.


these are a matters to be followed up by the health and Disability Commission as acc have persistently refused to correct information about my claim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to misuse of information by ACC, I amended the Standard Consent to release Private Information ACC 167 form, and asked that all documents are sent to me, to ensure the details are true and correct, before further "misinformation" about me is sent out to other ACC staff, and 3rd party Providers.

In fact i felt so strongly about this, I went to the Courthouse and signed an affidavit to this effect

defaming my character, and spreading innuendo based on false information, and falsified documents, is a breach of my privacy, especially in view of the fact that one of my legal unique identifiers was "altered" by acc staff.

This has had horrendous ongoing sequelae for me.


If they invaded your privacy rights to use the information unlawfully gained to disadvantage you, does that mean you can be reinstated and receive compensation as Kevin Hague has suggested?
3

#3 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 16 February 2014 - 05:44 AM

 not their victim, on 12 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

As highlighted by The Commissioner, during her speech at the "Joint Border Management Information Sharing and other Matters. Amendment Bill" reading on 8/10/2010

"profiles and assumptions can be made based on inaccurate information ,and this inaccurate information then gets spread across multiple databases."

according to the Public Records Act, and i'm assuming that ACC are part of that act, then:

"every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal prudent business practice"




False reports written by acc contracted assessors are opinion only and cannot be deemed as FACT by LAW.


these are a matters to be followed up by the health and Disability Commission as acc have persistently refused to correct information about my claim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to misuse of information by ACC, I amended the Standard Consent to release Private Information ACC 167 form, and asked that all documents are sent to me, to ensure the details are true and correct, before further "misinformation" about me is sent out to other ACC staff, and 3rd party Providers.

In fact i felt so strongly about this, I went to the Courthouse and signed an affidavit to this effect

defaming my character, and spreading innuendo based on false information, and falsified documents, is a breach of my privacy, especially in view of the fact that one of my legal unique identifiers was "altered" by acc staff.

This has had horrendous ongoing sequelae for me.



I have been researching cases regarding such issues, of an opposing "medical expert," (prostitute). And the trend is quite clear- judges has usually ruled that the treating doctor is usually more qualified as far as opinion. The key term you want to look at is "medical necessity" when researching cases. Hazel Armstrong's website has a lot of good, relevant cases referenced, and you can go and pull those to read the court's opinion and ruling. If you do a good search for various things like "medical necessity of treatment court cases," I stumbled across several cases in the States, one that comes to memory, recently, in New York if I remember correctly, was that the judge ruled that an "independent medical examination" is a medical statement/opinion FOR THAT DAY. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the REAL treating doctor to render an opinion the FOLLOWING day, that goes counter to everything the prostitute doctor just said, and simply carry on. Therefore, a fair strategy, for all patients who find themselves in this situation, is, upon receipt of a "request" for seeing a prostitute doctor, simply pick up the phone and make an appointment with your REAL doctor the following day, to change your status back to the way it was, in anticipation of the prostitute saying that there is nothing wrong with you. That way, you have only lost 24 hours of off-work pay, once argued. The legal term is "standing" or "jurisdiction" to receive off-work pay.

The sneaky trick is they use these "Independent" examinations to turn off the money. What they do not tell you is how to turn it back on...by an examination by a real doctor, who, again, thinks that you should still be receiving pay. Both doctors hold equal weight, in the eyes of the law. Then it becomes a matter of "who is more qualified." Well, the one who has seen you more RECENTLY is more qualified. If that doctor is convinced you should be off-work, then his word should hold the day, when comparing the two. One of my lawyer relatives explained law to me this way- it's a tennis game. The ball gets hit into your court (going to the IME), so you hit the ball back into their court (going to your doctor, and getting an update as to your working status the next day, or confirming what you already knew to be true, but had no evidence). In other words, the sole purpose of the IME is to change your status, from "non-working" to "working." What they conveniently don't tell you is that you can simply have it changed right back with another visit to your doctor, putting the ball right back into ACC's court to have to prove that your doctor is a liar, or less qualified then their prostitute. Good luck with that. All of this may seem like such a simple thing, IT IS. But in the eyes of the court, it matters everything.

The concept of "standing" is extremely important in law- it matters everything, basically. Do you hold "standing" to argue? If you do not, or the other party does not, THEN THE COURT CANNOT CONTINUE. You can cry all you want to the judge that the IME does not have standing, and cry injustice, etc. However, this is an ARGUMENT, and the burden of proof is on you to prove him wrong- because the IME has STANDING to practice medicine in NZ, has the requisite medical certificate, etc. He is not just some person off the street, because it would be quite easy for you to argue that- "he's a bum!" However, understand that this is technically an attack on STANDING, or JURISDICTION of the person to bring the argument, itself. It's as old as law, itself. A king is a king, a serf is a serf. Both stand differently. What just happened, once you go to the IME, is you have had your standing changed, from "non-working" to "working" by a duly authorized person, who had standing to do so. The ball is in your court, and you may not realize what just happened, so I am trying to make this clear to you. The next day, or even the same day (if you want to be really prudent, but make sure you have the doctor note the TIME OF DAY of the appointment, so you can show the court that it happened AFTER the IME appointment), you go to your REAL doctor and have your work status re-assessed. If that doctor thinks your status should be "non-working" then it will be superior to the IME immediately because it is more RECENT. The IME can make a report 100 pages long, but it does not compare to the power of your doctor in the eyes of the law, because both the IME and your doctor have the same "standing" or "jurisdiction" to give or take your off-work status away. This is what the court sees. Not petty details about what test was performed, or that you did not fix your hair that day.

The NZ government has awarded them a registration certificate to practice medicine in NZ. That means they have standing to treat and diagnose the public. That is all the judge cares about. So whose opinion was more recent, if the two doctors are the same in the eyes of the court? I believe making an appointment with your REAL doctor for the day after the IME is the easiest, cheapest way to destroy the IME, because you have legally thrown out the IME's report with such action. The real reason why people continue to lose on the IME issue is because they do not know the concept of "standing" and how it is being changed when you visit the IME, and just how easy it is to change it back. Instead, people focus on the lengthy report from the IME, which is a DISTRACTION from the facts, as they would be in a court. A single piece of paper from your doctor holds more weight than a 50 page report from an IME, if it is more recent, and your doctor is a doctor, same as the IME.
0

#4 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 19 February 2014 - 11:55 AM

A specialist factual evidence is medico legally sound

an opinion by an acc 3rd party contracted assessor is not medically sound, nor can they treat, change prescriptions etc...

lets keep the reality simple folks!
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