ACCforum: du Plessis - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

du Plessis For all who have been hurt/offended by this man

#1 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 08:45 PM

Read and enjoy how a Supreme Court Judge deals with a neurologist who ignores clinical evidence. Complete Judgment attached via this link:

http://www.saflii.or...%20du%20plessis

South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal Sibanyoni v Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Ltd. (14 Nov. 1997)
0

#2 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 09:44 PM

How embarrassing that it was the judge and not the opposing counsel highlighting his error and disregard of other evidence.I bet Mutual and Federal Insurance were totally impressed that their expert Neurologist backtracked in court.I wonder if he got any more work off them.
0

#3 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 10:54 PM

du Plessis talks about Pathology....the Supreme Court Judge in the Sibanyoni case had no difficulty interpreting it...but du Plessis sure did
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 24 May 2012 - 10:56 PM

It's public funds so why are they refusing to disclose who these professionals are?

Ian Rennie who is in charge of the State Services Commission should have issued a directive to be ensure transparency & integrity from his public service staff, not hush, hush, we'll keep this to ourselves and hope no one finds out.


State Services Commission organisational structure and senior managers
http://www.ssc.govt....senior-managers

Has anyone requested an OIA to find out whom they are?



State Services Commission Code of Conduct

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/code

View Postihateacc, on 22 May 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Look what I found while searching the press


Attachment Press Jan 2010.pdf

0

#5 User is offline   unicorn57 

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

Posted 24 May 2012 - 11:04 PM

Hmmm If ACC sponsor him to work here then we will be stuck with him!! And they probably will and then he will be sooo grateful to ACC wont he.

By the way Ih8acc - you used the words 100 and leopard in the same sentence. Do you think he has something to do with the 100 files in the leopardskin suitcase?
:unsure: B)
0

#6 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 25 May 2012 - 08:28 AM

What i would like to see is a list of Court cases here in NZ were his Opinion(in reality diagnosis) been criticized / overruled or at the very least discounted.This information out in the public domain would be an embarrassment for him.Hearsay and information unsubstantiated is of no use and can lead to defamation.You cannot not be criticized for the Truth.
0

#7 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 25 May 2012 - 09:53 AM

View Postutu, on 25 May 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

What i would like to see is a list of Court cases here in NZ were his Opinion(in reality diagnosis) been criticized / overruled or at the very least discounted.This information out in the public domain would be an embarrassment for him.Hearsay and information unsubstantiated is of no use and can lead to defamation.You cannot not be criticized for the Truth.


In my opinion it would not only be an embarrassment for Mr whathisname but also for those of whom sponsor his opinions, that being none other but the ACC
0

#8 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 25 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

Very powerful piece's of information,when presented en mass,that could be used in many ways!
0

#9 User is offline   unicorn57 

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

Posted 25 May 2012 - 11:36 AM

View Postutu, on 25 May 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Very powerful piece's of information,when presented en mass,that could be used in many ways!

All I could find on this doc (aka quack) is a 2 out of 5 score on rate the doctor site!! Doesnt look too promising for him. Good however from ACCs point of view...another grateful quack to add to their scurge list!!
0

#10 User is offline   Aldri Gi Opp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 13-May 12

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:16 PM

I love this forum!!! :)
0

#11 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 25 May 2012 - 03:22 PM

View PostAldri Gi Opp, on 25 May 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

I love this forum!!! :)


I would be inclined to think that the Minister for ACC (past and present), and all (past and present) employees of, and (past and present) service providers for, the ACC, don't love this forum as much as what you, I, members, and many thousands of daily visitors/guests do .... eh!

Google Search and FaceBook (two of many search / indexing bots) love this forum as well I must add :P
0

#12 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 25 May 2012 - 10:03 PM

Here (nz Court) du Plessis is criticized for going beyond his field of expertise http://www.nzlii.org...C/2008/117.html
0

#13 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1234
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 25 May 2012 - 11:08 PM

I have no wish to ‘defend’ du Plessis in any way, shape or form – I agree entirely with the thrust of pretty well every ACC clients concerns who have come into contact with him.

The South African case being referred to here though (http://accforum.org/...&attach_id=8043) does not seem to have been read by the members posting above who think that it:

1. Demonstrates du Plessis was up to his tricks as far back as this case;

2. Calls du Plessis into question.

In this case referred to du Plessis is presented with new facts and clearly accepts them and acknowledges his error making it very easy for the Judge to find on behalf of the injured person.

May I suggest that is NOT his New zealand style?

It appears to be common ground of us all that now that he is practising here in New Zealand (where there is a radical shortage of his speciality making contra opinions difficult to gain) he finds himself willing and able to disagree with sometimes EVERY other medical opinion on an injured person’s file and then reports to ACC in such a manner that the person becomes disentitled on his say so alone.

The lesson to be learned from this thread is not du Plessis duplicity etc but that accforum members have an uncanny knack both of misreading case law and being largely unable to understand common English.

If you do not think that is correct, if you think I am in error, I would be very pleased to have the parts of the case that show my error pointed out to me so that I can change my opinion.

In the meantime du Plessis (most unfortunately) goes rolling on to the disadvantage of all who come across him…
-1

#14 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 26 May 2012 - 07:54 AM

Thankyou KTH for your input.The fact remains though that he discounts other medical diagnosis to enhance his own, taylored to suit who is paying for his time.Follow this link for a critique of the SA case.Your comments would be welcome.http://bhoops-ajay.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=Sibanyoni+v+Mutual+and+Federal+Insurance
0

#15 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 26 May 2012 - 04:35 PM

http://bhoops-ajay.b...01_archive.html try this
0

#16 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 26 May 2012 - 04:57 PM

this is interesting and how many of these assessment will just be the opposite to the information in ACC posession.

in MICHAEL ERNEST ELLWOOD V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV 2005-485-536 18 December 2006

[62] Against that background I turn to the words of s 116. The test is put in the negative. That is, it refers to ACC being “not satisfied” of the right to entitlements. It could have been expressed differently. That is, it could have said “if ACC is satisfied that the claimant is not entitled to the statutory entitlements”. Is this relevant to the question of onus?

[63] I asked this question of counsel. Neither thought so. However I think there is a potential difference. If the ACC/the Reviewer/the District Court is “not satisfied” then the evidence has not persuaded them that there is a right to entitlements. That may occur where the evidence on the balance of probabilities establishes no right to entitlements. However it might also occur where the claimant has not established on the balance of probabilities that there is a right to entitlements. In that situation (if the evidence was in balance or unclear) the ACC would not be satisfied that there was a right – it would be uncertain.

[64] In contrast if the test required the ACC/the Reviewer/the District Court “to be satisfied that there is no right to entitlements” then that test would not be met where the evidence was in balance or unclear. They could not be satisfied because the evidence would have left the position unclear. That said, the ACC must make reasonable decisions. In a situation where the evidence is unclear or in balance, is it reasonable to suspend entitlements? In many cases it may not be. Before entitlements are suspended at ACC’s initiative (or that suspension is upheld by a reviewer or the District Court) ACC should take steps to clarify the position one way or the other. The claimant is not present at the first stage so the obligation must be on ACC at this stage to obtain sufficient evidence. Mr Beck’s proposed test of asking whether there is a sufficient basis on which entitlements should be suspended (in effect, terminated) is a reasonable one. If there is an insufficient basis then the test of “is not satisfied” is not met. If there is a sufficient basis then ACC can be “not satisfied” of the right to entitlements. As the reviewer and the District Court apply the same test the same approach should be taken at each stage.

[65] I therefore consider that s 116 combined with the requirement in s 62 on ACC to make reasonable decisions requires ACC to have a sufficient basis before terminating benefits. If the position is uncertain then there is not a sufficient basis.
The “not satisfied” test is not met in these circumstances.

my understanding is it is the onus on the ACC to prove they have not got the in information in there posession before they can suspend entitlements.

What information does ACC have in it posession about your injuries.

The answer is here.

How does the purchasing staff of an accident insurance organization seek information about treatment effectiveness?

Of cause you tell me the assessor does not have the same information "Prove It" If it is publically available then ACC and the assessor must have that information.

Now as an assessor is an expert in the medical legal services one can only assume that medical expert also has access to the world Medical Libuary. As he can not determine what he has and does not have then we must asume that he has the same information as the ACC had in acceptig the claim or other ongoing injuries.

Using Ellwood in my opinion if the ACC want to say the treating profesional is wrong then he must show the treating profesional can not be correct in his diagnoses of the injuries and the symptoms are not related to the injuries reported.

Of cause if the medical journals show the treating specialist are correct then the ACC specialist is in the position to show the research is also incorrect.

I heard duPlessis is a speed reader so he will have a large knowledge of the medical journal documentation.

Section 73 1992 Act

73 SUSPENSION, CANCELLATION, OR REFUSAL OF COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION
(1) The Corporation shall, if not satisfied on the basis of the information in its possession that a person is entitled to continue to receive any treatment, service, rehabilitation, related transport, compensation, grant, or allowance under this Act, suspend or cancel that payment for treatment, service, or related transport, or the payment of compensation, grant, allowance, or provision of rehabilitation.

Section 116 1998 Act

An insurer may suspend a statutory entitlement if it is not satisfied, on the
basis of the information in its possession
, that an insured is entitled to
continue to receive the statutory entitlement.

Section 117 2001 Act

117.Corporation may suspend, cancel, or decline entitlements—
(1)The Corporation may suspend or cancel an entitlement if it is not satisfied, on the basis of the information in its possession, that a claimant is entitled to continue to receive the entitlement.
0

#17 User is offline   Caniwi 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 20-November 11

Posted 26 May 2012 - 07:26 PM

It seems to me that, (as anyone who has had an appointment with a specialist would know) Du Plessis disregarded medical evidence that would have been present – (i.e., 3 doctor’s appointments wherein the Appellant’s blood pressure was normal and if one carefully reviews the evidence between July and November 1991 – and even in his previous 1985 hospital history, it becomes apparent there was no evidence of a stroke, plus the opinion of other medical experts).

I would expect that the request/instruction from the Insurer (who was paying him for his report) asked him the question: was the weakness on his left side: due to the accident or: due to his pre-existing hypertension? I think, from reading the case in its entirety, that Du Plessis ignored critical clinical evidence – which WAS present in the form of doctor’s notes that he would have received plus the Appellant would have been present and giving him an account during an appointment to assess him as well.

It took the Supreme Court Judge to push Du Plessis into backing down as per the portion of the Judgment cited below:

“Dr Du Plessis gave the following evidence in chief:
"It must be borne in mind that a stroke can give you cognitive impairment just as much as a head injury can. So I have got no problem that there is cognitive and/or neurophysical problems that led to his laying off. My problem is that looking through the records that were made available to me it was my understanding of those records that the problem did not arise as a consequence of the head injury but as a consequence of the incident in October 1991."

........................
(Why did he ignore a fellow neurologist’s medical opinion – being Dr. Zwonnikoff: Dr Zwonnikoff is a specialist neurosurgeon who testified for the appellant. He examined the appellant in November 1991 and found that he had a residual left-sided hemiparesis or weakness as a result of the head injury sustained in the collision. He examined the appellant again in September 1992 and concluded that the head injury was the most likely cause of the appellant's subsequent disabilities, which included one or more epileptic seizures during early October 1991. Did he ignore this diagnosis because the Appellant (Sibonyani) was paying for that report? – mine and not part of the Supreme Court Judgment).
.........................

"The learned trial judge then pointed out to him that there was evidence from the appellant's fellow workers that when he came back to work after the collision he was not able to function as before, and Dr Du Plessis thereupon acknowledged that he was not aware of such evidence. In the course of cross-examination Dr Du Plessis made the following significant concession in this connection:

"....if the weakness was there before this whole thing [the October 1991 incident] started and it was there after the accident, then obviously the weakness is related to the accident and I have never denied that if there is evidence, that there is a weakness from the day of the accident, that that must then be the cause. But the information that was available to me did not indicate that...."

Dr Du Plessis further conceded that if there was reliable evidence of a real change in performance by the appellant after the collision "then one must accept that something else - that the head injury must have been more severe than anticipated initially."

"I have indicated above that there was indeed credible and reliable evidence of Dr Keikelame, the appellant's wife, Mr Duursema and other lay witnesses to the effect that the appellant not only complained of weakness shortly after the accident, but also displayed actual weakness and loss of memory. Dr Du Plessis did not dispute that there were disabilities. He accepted that the appellant's cognitive functions were impaired and that there was evidence of weakness when the appellant was examined by Dr Zwonnikoff and Dr Grobler in October and November 1991 and by Dr Keikelame in January 1992. Dr Du Plessis also accepted that there were reasons for Dr Grobler to board the appellant. He made these concessions despite the fact that he was not able to find a weakness when he examined the appellant in August and November 1993.

The evidence of the appellant's weakness and his inability to cope with his work shortly after the collision no doubt lends support to his case that his disability was caused by the head injury sustained in the collision."

..........................
(The respondent's expert, Dr Du Plessis, in effect was fored to concede that such evidence would show that the weakness was related to the accident – mine and not part of the Supreme Court Judgment).
.............................

"I therefore agree with counsel's submission on behalf of the appellant that the temporal coincidence between the collision on the one hand and the onset of the appellant's inability to cope with his work on the other hand created an inescapable probability of cause and effect.

In view of the aforegoing I am of the opinion that the appellant succeeded in proving that the head injury which he sustained in the collision was the most likely cause of his disabilities. It follows that the appellant has proved that the consequences of the head injury were a left-sided hemiparesis, epileptic seizures and cognitive and intellectual impairment. As a result thereof the appellant was unable to continue with his work at Sasol and he was consequently medically boarded.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Medical experts are expected to be unbiased. Du Plessis obviously got away in the first instance with a report that blatantly disregarded what the Appellant would have told him and also disregarded the medical information that was there in the form of doctors notes and other medical opinions from other experts. If he is trying to say that he didn’t have the doctor’s notes, then one has to conclude why did he even try to make an opinion based on the limited evidence. This whole situation – if you read between the lines – smacks of someone tailoring his report to suit the person paying him. He could have chosen to write a report based on the history – and it would have been glaringly obvious that he was missing medical evidence.

Why did it take a Supreme Court Judge to have to pin him between the crosshairs to get him to back down. It smacks of total arrogance made on limited information. He did not, in my opinion, display any professional integrity in his determination, and even when he would have known – or ought to have known – at the initial trial that there was further information, he still did not change his opinion and it was up to the Appellant to fight.

THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG - IN MY OPINION - WITH SO CALLED EXPERTS LIKE DU PLESSIS WHO WRITE REPORTS THAT ARE MANUFACTURED TO BEST SUIT THE PERSON PAYING THEM.
0

#18 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 26 May 2012 - 07:49 PM

Keen To Help....I seem to remember in one of your replies in another post that you have had experience in dealing with du Plessis reports and have even managed to have them discounted/nullified.(I don't have all night to search them out so will trust in your memory)If I am correct why don't you enlighten us so that anybody coming up against one his ambushes has the knowledge to deal with it.Many people are flying blind when they run into du Plessis and the hurt he does is not nice.
0

#19 User is offline   utu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 26 May 2012 - 09:48 PM

KTH .... du Plessis claims in the SA case he did not have all the information...yet he would have heard the testimony of the 3 co-workers at the original trial(and written submissions by the same) and obviously chose to ignore it.It is at the supreme court of appeal where he is forced to comment on it,that he is MADE to acknowledge it's importance.Why does it take a Supreme Court Judge to make him reconsider?
0

#20 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 27 May 2012 - 04:48 PM

You may find some more information in here.
The reality is that it is not only du Plessis that makes these claims about injured people it is those in the same Medical Profession as him that practice the same tick the boxes.

The unfortunate fact is that South Africans, that travel and work in countries other than there homeland, still have racist & discriminating beliefs and practices that they assume that they can get away with in the countries they end up living and working in.

We would like to see a full disclosure of how much Pharmacuetical Companies are funding these Medical Professionals.


http://www.google.co...e=hp&channel=np

http://www.saflii.or...CA/1997/93.html


We note there is a New Zealand case in amongst these cases tabled.
http://heinonline.or...v=112&id=&page=
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 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