ACCforum: Seven-year ACC feud heads for High Court - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Seven-year ACC feud heads for High Court Gary Green - New Plymouth & Ivon Watkins-Dow, Paritutu

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 25 August 2012 - 12:51 AM

Maybe it's overdue some took class action together who have lived in this region and been endangered.

Would Gary Green be living in Western Australia if it wasn't for his health been harmed and ACC matters?

Wasn't it Melanie Reid &
http://www.tv3.co.nz/ 60 minutes team that did a feature on dioxin poisoning from agri-chemical plant Ivon Watkins-Dow in Paritutu some years ago?

Maybe it's time it was aired again and followed up...


Green v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZACC 272 (14 August 2012)

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2012/272.html

Seven-year ACC feud heads for High Court
LYN HUMPHREYS
Last updated 05:00 24/08/2012


A former New Plymouth man in a seven-year fight to get ACC cover for alleged dioxin poisoning says he will now take his claim to the High Court.

Gary Green says he has been dealing with ACC since October 2005 for what he believes is a work-related gradual process injury caused by dioxin poisoning from agri-chemical plant Ivon Watkins-Dow in Paritutu.

"So anyone thinking of claiming ACC from this problem in New Plymouth needs to be ready for a very, very long journey and be prepared to fight it right up to the High Court," he said yesterday from his home in Western Australia.

Mr Green claimed his exposure to dioxins in the atmosphere occurred when he worked for Steel and Tube NZ Ltd from 1985 till 1988.

The workplace was about 300 metres downwind of the Paritutu IWD agri-chemical plant.

In a written decision issued this week, ACC Judge David Ongley declined Mr Green's appeal.

He ruled that the injury was not shown to have been caused by Mr Green's exposure in the course of his work tasks or environment.

Mr Green said he would now seek legal representation to mount a High Court appeal.

"Unfortunately, justice in the courts comes at a higher price than I as a disability pensioner [am] able to sustain," Mr Green said.

"I'm hoping someone will take it up as a pro-bono case [for the public good].

"There is not one dioxin in my blood test which does not appear in the soil tests done around the affected area. Also it is well documented that ACC's exclusion of medical claims on the grounds of ‘normal' is erroneous."

Mr Green said his appeal submission was 3000 pages long and was from medical journals and official reports "from incredibly reputable organisations".

"If accepted they would have been very damning against the policy of ACC and the New Zealand Government in its point of reference to what medical problems dioxin causes."


- © Fairfax NZ News
0

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:59 PM

Maybe Gary Green & others in the same situation as himself who suffered from dioxin poisoning from agri-chemical plant Ivon Watkins-Dow in Paritutu should engage the services of someone like Gordon & Slater, Maurice Blackburn or Erin Brokovich to further his claim in the NZ legal system on a pro bono case...

It might be the wake up call some need.


http://www.brockovic...ironmental.html

http://www.slatergordon.com.au/

http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/
0

#3 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 10 September 2012 - 12:46 PM

So, once again, firstly the unnamed toxicology panel - why in a court of law are these "experts" not detailed as whom for the
legal record. And why are people who have no speciality according to the New Zealand Medical Council, in toxicology allowed
by the legal processes and by the New Zealand Medical council to speak of and about what they know so little of. Toxicology
is an extremely complex specialisation of chemical - the active ingredient, the inerts - which are usually not "inert" at
all in chemical or toxicological processes, often being a solvent, sometimes a pesticide it is own right but if listed as an inert in conjunction with a pesticide it doesn't need to be declared beyond being called an inert, all used around and by humans. When virtually none of these chemicals are tested
by anyone in regards to inhalation toxicity which often allows entry across the blood-brain barrier. And when they were tested even for dermal and oral, it was often done in the 1960's - for example neurological
symptoms were only considered by the USA registering body from year 2000, and they use hens for it.

WHY is it allowed to happen in courts, why are the persons not listed in legal documents and their specialisations detailed to verify their specialist expertise?

There is no clinical toxicologist in New Zealand. There is nobody qualified in toxicology to speak
in NEW ZEALAND yet the courts allow these "pretence experts" and the NZ Medical Council does nothing about them operationing beyond their professional scope.
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 24 November 2014 - 04:57 PM

No High Court for ACC battler
Last updated 05:00 21/11/2014

http://www.stuff.co....for-ACC-battler



A former New Plymouth man fighting to get ACC cover for alleged dioxin poisoning has been denied the right to appeal to the High Court.


Gary Green has been battling the Accident Compensation Corporation since 2005 for what he claims is a work-related gradual-process injury caused by dioxin poisoning from the Paritutu Ivon Watkins Dow plant.

He believed his exposure to dioxins in the atmosphere stemmed from when he worked near the agri-chemical plant between 1985 and 1988.

In 2012, Judge Ongley dismissed Green's appeal against a 2010 review decision that upheld ACC's determination that he was not entitled to the cover.

Green then sought leave to appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

In March, the District Court found there was no sign that an even faintly arguable question of law case could be made.

However, Green said he was still annoyed an ACC law provision that allowed for a qualified professional to sit with the judge and provide expert advice had not been allowed.

"It is a perversion of the law and the evidence has been mishandled," he said.

Green said he had not given up, but he wasn't sure what his next step would be.


- Taranaki Daily News
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