ACCforum: Wcap Garry Wilson Pledge Letter - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Wcap Garry Wilson Pledge Letter 23 October, 1997

#1 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 November 2004 - 05:55 PM

a scanned copy of a letter Garry Wilson wrote in 1997 in regard to the Work Capacity Assessment Procedure (WCAP)



23 October, 1997

GARRY WILSON
CHIEF EXECUTIVE

xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx

Dear xx

As ACC's new chief executive I want to take this opportunity to make contact with organisations and individuals who have expressed an interest in our new work capacity assessment procedure.

ACC has considered submissions made in both rounds of public consultation, made amendments and developed a final version of the procedure. This was approved by the ACC Board on Wednesday 15 October - later than originally planned to allow myself and new members of the Board to carefully consider the draft procedure and issues raised in the submissions. ACC has now contracted occupational and medical assessors and begun staff training in the procedure.

I am aware there has been some comment in the media about the procedure and its impact on ACC's clients. I wish to assure you that ACC is committed to the following:
  • only people who have completed a vocational rehabilitation programme and have a clear capacity to work will be referred for assessment;
  • claimants who have been severely disadvantaged by injury will not be referred for
    assessment;
  • highly skilled claimants will not be assessed as having a capacity to work in low skill positions.

I will ensure you receive a copy of the final version of the procedure once it has been gazetted and you are kept fully informed once it is implemented. If you would like to discuss any aspect of the work capacity assessment procedure, please contact me.
For your information, I have attached a copy of the final version of the work capacity assessment procedure.

Yours sincerely

Garry Wilson
0

#2 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 November 2004 - 08:26 PM

Is this the latest updated/operational set of rules WRAP. 1997
0

#3 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 November 2004 - 09:54 PM

No, it was the first one, when it was first introduced through the 1996 amendment to the 1992 Act. The procedure was introduced through a gazetted notice under section 50 of the 1992 Act, and the loss of weekly compensation under section 51 was immediate.

The 1998 Act placed the entire work capacity assessment under a statutory regime, rather than a gazeted notice, and provided for a 3 month notice between when work capacity was determined and weekly compensation ceased.

The 2001 Act renamed it vocational independence assessment and increased the number of hours you had to be able to work in an occupation for which you have the education or experience tfrom 30 to 35.

But Garry Wilsons pledge in his letter was never honoured by ACC, as the numerous court judgments and review decisions overturning work capacity and vocational independence assessment decisions, often on the basis of fundamentally flawed occupational or medical assessments, will verify.
0

#4 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 November 2004 - 10:51 AM

Yes I have a copy of that letter..... wasn't worth the paper it was written on though as Ernie quite rightly points out.
0

#5 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 November 2004 - 12:41 PM

And how many are languishing on invalid's benefit, at $205.18 per week maximum, or on no benefit at all if they have a partner who earns sufficient to fully abate the invalid's benefit?

The qualifications for an invalid's benefit are that you are "incapable of regularly working 15 or more hours a week in open employment" and likely to be so for at least two years. (Social Security Act 1964, section 40). I fail to see how anyone who is assessed as unable to work in any job for 15 hours a week according to a Work and Income medical assessor can be capable of working 35 hours a week in some particular job according to an ACC medical assessor.

I would suggest that anyone who has been exited from weekly compensation under WCAP or VIAP and subsequently found to qualify for invalid's benefit should get the invalid's benefit medical assssor to give evidence at their review or appeal of ACC's decision, or if too late for that, ask their GP to request that ACC reassess their vocational independence on the grounds that their capacity for work has deteriorated (as ACC are required to do under section 109(2) IPRC Act in such cases).
0

#6 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:45 PM

I've got a few of these "deterioration" cases on the go at the moment. ACC tried to claim it would not even start the reassessment process without a specialist's report (which the claimant can't afford) saying the claimant had deteriorated. Now, they are successfully bullying GPs into not saying their patients' capacity has deteriorated. When they are forced into conducting reassessments, their toads are saying the claimants can do new job options that weren't even in the IOA/IMA. In one case, this is the second deterioration review we're going through in six months. IMHO, this is a wicked fraud on disabled citizens but our political class seems impervious to the suffering their employees are perpetuating.
0

#7 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 07 September 2007 - 10:58 AM

re = "Now, they are successfully bullying GPs into not saying their patients' capacity has deteriorated."

Dr Dean Campbell
Dr Ian Anderson
Dr Juan Toledo
Dr Bernard Choy
Dr Sydney Choy

geeze its hard finding an honest Doctor these days isn't it

but in fairness, I must acknowledge that both Bernard and Sydney Choy write "unfit for any work" due to injury/pain for more than 10 hours per week

I guess that means my condition has deteriorated from the time since Leanne MacDonnell and Dr Robert Percival (both from AON at the time) interfered with my assessments that resulted in me having, ever so briefly, a capacity to work 30 and 35 hours per week.

re = 30 and 35 hours per week ..... Aon in their documentation says this is a "pro-active" approach

In reality, I think they were also ensuring that instead of going onto a sickness benifit, I would go straight onto an Unemployment benifit, hence the "proactive" approach which stated 30 hours

I hope you read my book when it is published Leanne because your name appears more than anyone elses
0

#8 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 08 September 2007 - 08:45 AM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

Interesting ... thanks Garry.

;)
0

#9 User is offline   batman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 17-September 05

Posted 08 September 2007 - 12:51 PM

Yes, thanks Gary. You created a new type of invalid, they are called ACC Injury Invalids, your legacy lives on! Remember when a member of parliament, I think it was Lianne Dalziel, boasted to the public of New Zealand that by keeping ACC away from the private sector would mean cheaper levies. Well to save face we may have cheaper levies, but at what cost. I think, listening to the National Programme with Warren being interviewed, it tells it all. Screw the claimant, give them next to nothing and that MP is then not made out to be wrong. So what if the number of invalid's in the country grows, people lose their houses and their families and quite a few commit suicide, if it keeps the levies down then it must be worth it as we are all made out to be bludgers anyway!!
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