ACCforum: OCCUPATIONAL ASSESSMENTS - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

OCCUPATIONAL ASSESSMENTS Effects of an Occupational Assessment

#1 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 01 November 2003 - 04:10 PM

;) Just a few Points to PONDER on:

Occupational Assessors are just a group of Private Sector contractors that just happen to have a HUGE Database of 'Jobs' that they simply cross reference against an accident claimant's SUPPOSED transferable skills, experience, knowledge and any training they may have previously had, be that privately or via any IRP rehabilitation plan.

Their reports are simply 'Money for Jam; unless you challenge them about Each and Every employment option that they decide that they going to put forward in their report to the ACC. IPRC Act 2001, section 91 (1b & 1c) legally requires them to discuss each and every job option with claimant's and consider any comments made by the claimant about each and EVERY employment option.

Under former Acts (ie: 1992/1998) the wording in those Acts at sections 37A and 37B respectively stated that a claimant had to be able to do 'Each and Every Part' of an employment otherwise they were incapacitated for that employment. Whilst those sections applied namely to the employment involved at date of accident, COMMON SENSE says that any employment option put forward by an occupational assessor MUST be employment that a claimant CAN actually undertake comprehensively, anything less than that means the claimant can not do the job properly (or with the same ability as his/her peers) and would therfore be incapacitated for that employment regardless of any other factors.

The Current IPRC Act 2001 has excluded the wording 'Each and Every Part' of an employment option in the relevant sections 103 and 105, however our bodies ability to undertake physical employment etc etc in a state of injury did not change in any way simply because there has been a change of legislation in April 2002.

It is not acceptable for Occupational Assessors to hide behind the new provisions of section 103 and 105 by throwing any old jobs from their extensive Database in to a report in the HOPE that the claimant will elect to take their chances with the Medical Assessor. We all know that the ACC has 'PET' Medical Assessors who will backup the Occupational Assessors report. It is important to understand that section 103 and 105 are crucial indicators (capacity wise) for WHEN and IF the Corporation will elect to implement the VI assessment process. It's also worth noting that IPRC Act 2001, section 110 (3) states that the Corporation MUST NOT (Mandatory) require a claimant to undergo VI assessment unless the claimant is LIKELY to achieve vocational independence.

In other words, if the Occupational Assessor CAN NOT provide the Corporation with suitable employment options that a claimant does have a capacity to engage in, it would follow that the claimant would not be likely (at least for the time being) to have Vocational Independence and therefore MUST NOT be put through the assessment process until the claimants medical condition improves to the point where they may then be able to partake in some form of suitable employment that can be properly considered by a Medical Assessor.

It is therfore imperative that claimants ensure that the Occupational Assessor covers all aspects of EACH and EVERY employment option that they are going to include in their report. If you don't agree with any of the options that he/she is wanting to include then challenge them about all the requirements of that particular employment and if you are physically unable to undertake each and every part of that employment option (Don't let them include it). If they won't listen to reason make sure they document your opinions in detail and demand that this information is included in their report.

Lastly..

Do Not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES go to an Occupational Assessment or Medical Assessment alone.
Always take a support person with you and get them to take notes (you can always use them later to light your fire)


Tipster007
0

#2 User is offline   BillyBob 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 01 November 2003 - 06:31 PM

I fully agree with you Tipster

I had an assesment done by workbridge and the assessor openly admited they were NOT allowed to take our injuries or disabilities into account when working out our employment options.

As far as the comments we could make on each job selected, it was more of a third degree on why we couldnt do it.

One of my options i just laughed at and on the report it said , claimant said hahahahahahaha

very proffessional and very fair (my arse)

my rights and options should have been explained to me before i had the assessment and then i would have been a little more circumspect on my comments.

I do also agree , dont go it alone.
0

#3 User is offline   Stumpy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 01 November 2003 - 09:03 PM

Well, I wish I had been "armed" with this information BEFORE I had my recent VA. I still haven't had the result but the longer it takes the less I like the feel of it. What lies will they come up with !!!!
I must have broken all the rules.
1. I went on my own to [/b]BOTH [B] the Occ Asssesment and the Medical. :o

Guess I just have to wait. :(

Stumpy B)
0

#4 User is offline   Stumpy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 01 November 2003 - 09:05 PM

:unsure: OOps, Looks like I messed up with the computer. I do apologise :wub:
0

#5 User is offline   BillyBob 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 06 November 2003 - 09:31 PM

I have recently had an IOA and have just recieved a copy of the report done for my IMA.

All jobs suggested on IOA were discounted by the assessor and he made the comment

"As he is at present XXXXXXis not capable of full time work in any occupation.
I dont believe further attempts at physical rehabilitation or pain management are likely to be successfull"


Whats the next step?
Anyone been through this with a similar outcome?

Thanks
Billybob
0

#6 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 06 November 2003 - 10:44 PM

Hi Billybob,

In light of the recommendations of your IMA assessment report it is likely that the Corporation will not bother going to the time and expense of putting you threw any further assessment (ie: Vocational Independence Assessment) as you obviously would not be found to have vocational independence and therefore section 110 (3) will apply to you in your current situation.

All of your Entitlements (ie: Treatment Costs, Weekly Compensation, Social Rehabilitation etc etc will remain intact and you will basically be regarded as a long term claimant (something of a dying breed nowadays).

They may well attempt to reassess you again at some later date if your injury status can be seen to have improved, however going by your assessment report that sounds highly unlikely.

It's good to see that this process actually does work in favour of the claimant sometimes.

However, it is equally unfortunate for you that there now appears to be nothing further that can be offered to assist your rehabilitation at this time.

Cheers for now and the very best of luck :)


Tipster007
0

#7 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 09 November 2003 - 07:34 AM

Billybob, the first thing you should do is send your case manager a get well card, they will be spewing! It is good to see some of these Assessors getting real. I am having a tough time lately dealing with being able to do buggar all physically. It is bad enough just coping with the fact that you are doomed as far as work goes without some halfwit coming up with ridiculous job options, most of which do not exist.
0

#8 User is offline   used to could 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 31-July 06

Posted 12 September 2006 - 07:52 PM

Hi Billybob and all

Yes, like yourself - disability issues were the last thing they wanted to hear.

For those in the Wellington region - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - stay well clear of Trade and Commerce Workplace Training on Willis Street.

This palce is a joke ! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's like Workbridge X 2.5 bad :P :( :P

;)

Whys does ACC waste such presumably vast amounts of money on these places - or more appropriately perharps - why can't these orgs get there brown stuff organised and get on the same page - and see to the NEEDS OF THE CLAIMANT.

Money for Jam: yes one wonders :wacko: how much these 'products' cost ACC - how much better would this be spent on something more substantial to secure someone's future Vocational well being ??!!

Sorry about that those of you at Trade and Commerce that REALLY DO TRY TO HELP and realise someones hindrance <_< - however much you identify the lack of integrity AND purpose in this org.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 September 2007 - 12:19 PM

It is possibly a timely to raise the issue of occupational assessment which is necessary to determine a claimant's capacity to either return to their preinjury job, plan vocational rehabilitation or measure whether or not a claimant is vocationally independent.

The problem that we are facing is that the ACC other sole determinator is of the criteria and qualification of occupational assessors from which the courts must rely. My observation is that these assessments are far from satisfactory.

Strike 1 Occupational assessors are relying upon job specification is created by the ACC.

Strike 2 Occupational assessors generally had no knowledge of the work task activities that make up the occupations and therefore cannot cross credit residual task capacity into new occupations.

Strike 3 occupational assessors failed to describe the work task activities in the reports to enable medical assessors to determine safety.


The following Internet site closely resembles the computer program I was funding and the business plan submitted to the ACC for my vocational rehabilitation 1996 - 97. Claimants will find this site extraordinarily useful when planning their rehabilitation or addressing vocational assessors. I would recommend going to any assessment pre- armed with superior information to what they could ever envisage producing. I would recommend claimants taking control of our destiny rather than relying upon the incompetence that the ACC have foisted upon us.

http://online.onetcenter.org/
0

#10 User is offline   rusty 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 27 March 2009 - 12:03 PM

Tipster 007 I wish I had read your advice before my IOA in late 2007 to early 2008 as your advice could have saved me some pain but I did not know about this web site then. I have allot of pain from the headaches I suffer as a result of my brain injury which was worsened by the extra mental drain of doing this assessment.
However it all worked out good in the end, despite everyone that knows me knew I was not fit for any part time work as yet ACC's IOA stated I was fit for part time work the drain of doing this assessment send me backwards to the point I was not coping with my independent and my OT made ACC listen as she could see the effort it had made on me.
0

#11 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:45 PM

Has anything changed?

 Tipster007, on 01 November 2003 - 04:10 PM, said:

;)/> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Just a few Points to PONDER on:

Occupational Assessors are just a group of Private Sector contractors that just happen to have a HUGE Database of 'Jobs' that they simply cross reference against an accident claimant's SUPPOSED transferable skills, experience, knowledge and any training they may have previously had, be that privately or via any IRP rehabilitation plan.

Their reports are simply 'Money for Jam; unless you challenge them about Each and Every employment option that they decide that they going to put forward in their report to the ACC. IPRC Act 2001, section 91 (1b & 1c) legally requires them to discuss each and every job option with claimant's and consider any comments made by the claimant about each and EVERY employment option.

Under former Acts (ie: 1992/1998) the wording in those Acts at sections 37A and 37B respectively stated that a claimant had to be able to do 'Each and Every Part' of an employment otherwise they were incapacitated for that employment. Whilst those sections applied namely to the employment involved at date of accident, COMMON SENSE says that any employment option put forward by an occupational assessor MUST be employment that a claimant CAN actually undertake comprehensively, anything less than that means the claimant can not do the job properly (or with the same ability as his/her peers) and would therfore be incapacitated for that employment regardless of any other factors.

The Current IPRC Act 2001 has excluded the wording 'Each and Every Part' of an employment option in the relevant sections 103 and 105, however our bodies ability to undertake physical employment etc etc in a state of injury did not change in any way simply because there has been a change of legislation in April 2002.

It is not acceptable for Occupational Assessors to hide behind the new provisions of section 103 and 105 by throwing any old jobs from their extensive Database in to a report in the HOPE that the claimant will elect to take their chances with the Medical Assessor. We all know that the ACC has 'PET' Medical Assessors who will backup the Occupational Assessors report. It is important to understand that section 103 and 105 are crucial indicators (capacity wise) for WHEN and IF the Corporation will elect to implement the VI assessment process. It's also worth noting that IPRC Act 2001, section 110 (3) states that the Corporation MUST NOT (Mandatory) require a claimant to undergo VI assessment unless the claimant is LIKELY to achieve vocational independence.

In other words, if the Occupational Assessor CAN NOT provide the Corporation with suitable employment options that a claimant does have a capacity to engage in, it would follow that the claimant would not be likely (at least for the time being) to have Vocational Independence and therefore MUST NOT be put through the assessment process until the claimants medical condition improves to the point where they may then be able to partake in some form of suitable employment that can be properly considered by a Medical Assessor.

It is therfore imperative that claimants ensure that the Occupational Assessor covers all aspects of EACH and EVERY employment option that they are going to include in their report. If you don't agree with any of the options that he/she is wanting to include then challenge them about all the requirements of that particular employment and if you are physically unable to undertake each and every part of that employment option (Don't let them include it). If they won't listen to reason make sure they document your opinions in detail and demand that this information is included in their report.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Lastly..

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Do Not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES go to an Occupational Assessment or Medical Assessment alone.
Always take a support person with you and get them to take notes (you can always use them later to light your fire)
</span></span></span>

Tipster007

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