ACCforum: Van Helmond V Acc (300/2004) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Van Helmond V Acc (300/2004) How they 'fixed' a botched assessment

#21 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 29 August 2011 - 12:44 PM

then you can review the plan under Clause9 as you objected to the IRP.

the reason for the delaied review application is because ACC never told of the ability to review there IRP.

First step is not the correct injuries on the plan.

Second reason Incapacities not correctly recorded.

Third reason Vocational Rehabilitation was not into obtaining employment but to see if the Claimant could be classed as vocational Independent.

the forth is No input from the claimant as required under legislation.

Of cause this would make the previous vocational Rehabilitation assessment invalid.
0

#22 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 29 August 2011 - 02:55 PM

The ACA, s65(1) - ACC may revise decisions at any time, for whatever reason, if the decision was in error. Additionally, ACC is a public entity and is not permitted to profit from its own wrongs. This why "McGrath" is such an important case.
0

#23 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 29 August 2011 - 06:46 PM

Not forgetting section 109 but this time include all injuries.
0

#24 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 29 August 2011 - 11:40 PM

View PostMG, on 29 August 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

The ACA, s65(1) - ACC may revise decisions at any time, for whatever reason, if the decision was in error. Additionally, ACC is a public entity and is not permitted to profit from its own wrongs. This why "McGrath" is such an important case.


Thank you!

View Postfreefallnz, on 07 September 2007 - 12:08 PM, said:

Yep a corrupt, self serving, cow

Total bully, who abuses her position of power absolutely.

I wonder if any of her correspondence/illegal demands of claimants does not use the standard threat of disentitlement for non compliance with her totally illegal demands.

Incapable of acting in a reasonable manner and certainly incapable of communicating to claimants in adherence with the law and the claimants code of rights.

Probably related to Mengeles.

This from a distraught claimant who was not home when Ms Capetown threatened her for failure to attend a meeting about which the claimant knew nothing. Its not as if the claimant is under house arrest lest the CM deign to courier an appointment with her. Or does the Bill of Rights regarding freedom of movement not apply to ACC claimants?

Quote

ACC has the right to decline to provide entitlements if you unreasonably fail or refuse to attend an appointment. If you do not respond to this e-mail, ACC will have no alternative but to decline to provide entitlements until such time that you arrange and attend an appointment with me.

1

#25 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 01 September 2011 - 11:28 PM

I have another question

I suffered my injury in August 1992

Should I not have been (assessed etc) under the 1992 Act which came into effect April(?) 1992

Cheers
0

#26 User is offline   Mark 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 13-April 11
  • LocationHorowhenua

Posted 01 September 2011 - 11:46 PM

View PostBLURB, on 01 September 2011 - 11:28 PM, said:

I have another question

I suffered my injury in August 1992....
The 1992 act Commenced: 1 Jul 1992 & 1 Apr 1992.

"Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 013

Commenced: 1 Jul 1992; 1 Apr 1992, ss. 32, 100, 108, 109, 113-119, 122, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,
134, 163, 167, 178, Third Schedule"

Quote

BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of New Zealand as follows:
1. Short Title and commencement---(1) This Act may be cited as the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992.
(2) Sections 32, 100, 108, 109, 113 to 119, 122, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 163, 167, and 178 of, and the Third Schedule to, this Act shall come into force on the 1st day of April 1992.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section and the Third Schedule to this Act, this Act shall come into force on the 1st day of July 1992.


August 1992!!!!!!!

and the Accident Insurance Act 1998

Quote

BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of New Zealand as follows:
1. Short Title and commencement--- (1) This Act may be cited as the Accident Insurance Act 1998.
(2) Sections 171, 177, 182, 184 to 194, Part 8, Part 9 (except
sections 262 to 264 and 266 to 273), sections 370, 399 to 412, sections 416, 475, 476, 480, and 481 come into force on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.
(3) Sections 265, 463, 466 to 474, 477, 478 (1), and 479 come into force on 1 April 1999.
(4) The rest of this Act comes into force on 1 July 1999.


Your injury comes under the 1992 act!
2

#27 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 02 September 2011 - 11:47 AM

No as your rehabilitation is supplied under the current Act but a good point is ACC could not cut your compensation under section 51 of that Act as you "Didn't" refused employment.

Sorry for the mistake and yes you are right.
0

#28 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 03 September 2011 - 04:20 AM

Thanks Mark and Doppelganger

So, what does all that mean in plain english Mark?

Don't forget, as soon as I see stuff like that written this guy gets confused etc

Doppelganger, s51? and refused employment? I didn't refuse employment ... maybe you wrote that wrong?

AND another question

Both Walls and Sprott (and Chew) refered to scans that were at least 5+ years old

Are they allowed to do that?

That in my opinion is like reading a newspaper which is 5 years old
0

#29 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 03 September 2011 - 12:18 PM

Of cause they should be refering to scans even 10 years old.

this is to see if you injuries were deteriorating.

A good point is I was diagnosed with a condition that would deteriorate

there were many medical documents and this included a CT and MRI scan.

21 years after the Accident the MRI confirmed there was an annular tear which the orginial Professor had assumed due to the accident, symptoms and physical condition. the document that is written by the treating providers is important as it shows the progress of the injury, to see if the recomended treatment was successful or to see if the insurance orginisation is applying policy instead of legislation.

In your case ACC removed one of your injuries causing the incapacity when obtaining a report.
0

#30 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 04 September 2011 - 10:17 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 03 September 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

Of cause they should be refering to scans even 10 years old.

this is to see if you injuries were deteriorating.

A good point is I was diagnosed with a condition that would deteriorate

there were many medical documents and this included a CT and MRI scan.

21 years after the Accident the MRI confirmed there was an annular tear which the orginial Professor had assumed due to the accident, symptoms and physical condition. the document that is written by the treating providers is important as it shows the progress of the injury, to see if the recomended treatment was successful or to see if the insurance orginisation is applying policy instead of legislation.

In your case ACC removed one of your injuries causing the incapacity when obtaining a report.



You miss the point trev

I didn't mind them refering to those scans

but to see if anything had changed since those scans were taken

since the assessment I have had scan taken which shows increased damage

You would be the type to allow your surgeon to operate on your body only refering to scans that are years old and may not show your current condition ....

They should have had got me to get fresh scans done just before the assessments

One specialist was going to get some done on my spine but acc spoke to him and a new referal sent to me .... i had a brain scan instead

Little do ACC know that I still have a copy of the original referal document ... for a full spine/lumbar scan

Read what Warren has posted on that other thread. There is a memo from Liam McVeigh to Leanne Mac Donnell something about lets present this as a success story (or whatever) .... THEY were out to exit me regardless whether I had a capacity or not Trev. They controlled the whole process. AON were allowed to exit claiamnts in which ever way they wanted no questions asked and this is why ACC have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far in keeping me exited .... keeping their scam out of publics eyes.

Its more about total dishonesty on ACC's part than merely just making a slight error in the process that can be sorted out just like that Trev.

I stood up and started to ask questions and they don't want that. They have lied to ministers, they have lied to reviewers, they have lied to judges (they controlled the reviewers and judges also) I use for example the last reviewer ... Tim Yates this guy is bent as fuck - gave acc 3 goes at it by adourning the review 3 times ... all because they know if i am reinstated not only will ACC be in the shit, AON's intregity will be distroyed and they are the biggest insurance company in the world. This is why ACC have spent so much money to keep me out.

Read Warrens thread on the whole background Trev. Warren got them by the balls and they attempted to destroy him as well.

http://accforum.org/...branch-manager/
0

#31 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 05 September 2011 - 02:00 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 02 September 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

No as your rehabilitation is supplied under the current Act but a good point is ACC could not cut your compensation under section 51 of that Act as you "Didn't" refused employment.

Sorry for the mistake and yes you are right.


Can you explain a bit clearer doppelganger
0

#32 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:49 AM

View PostMark, on 01 September 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

The 1992 act Commenced: 1 Jul 1992 & 1 Apr 1992.

"Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 013

Commenced: 1 Jul 1992; 1 Apr 1992, ss. 32, 100, 108, 109, 113-119, 122, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,
134, 163, 167, 178, Third Schedule"



August 1992!!!!!!!

and the Accident Insurance Act 1998


Your injury comes under the 1992 act!


So if the person was injured after 1992 and prior to 1998, then they are covered under the 1992 legislation?
2

#33 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:05 PM

Section 51 as in 1992 and then modified later.

51 ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY FOR WORK
(1) For the purposes of determining whether or not a person who is receiving compensation for loss of earnings or for loss of potential earning capacity, or who may have any entitlement to compensation for loss of potential earning capacity, has a capacity for work, the Corporation shall determine the person's capacity for work in accordance with this section.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the term "capacity for work", in relation to any person, means the person's capacity to engage in work for which the person is suited by reason of experience, education, or training, or any combination of those things, and that capacity shall be determined having regard to the consequences of the person's personal injury.
(3) Every assessment under this section shall be carried out—
(a) In accordance with the procedure for the time being determined by the Corporation under section 50 of this Act; and
(B) In accordance with the principles of natural justice.
(4) Every assessment under this section shall be undertaken by or on behalf of the Corporation and at its expense.
(5) The Corporation may require a person to be assessed at any time and from time to time at such reasonable intervals as the Corporation considers appropriate in each case.
(6) If a person's entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity has ceased, whether by virtue of this section or otherwise, and the Corporation considers that the person's capacity for work has deteriorated since that cessation,—
(a) The Corporation may reassess the person's capacity for work under this section; and
(B) If the person is assessed as no longer having a capacity for work, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the person shall be entitled, as from such date as the Corporation shall determine, to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity.
(7) If a person is assessed under this section as having a capacity for work, then,—
(a) For the purposes of section 37A of this Act, that assessment shall be regarded as a determination that the person is able to engage in employment in which the person was engaged when the personal injury occurred:
(B) For the purposes of section 37B of this Act, that assessment shall be regarded as a determination that the person is able to engage in work for which the person is suited by reason of experience, education, or training, or any combination of those things.
[S 51 substituted by No 106 of 1996, s 12, effective 2 September 1996. Former s 51 read:
"51 ASSESSMENT OF DEGREE OF INCAPACITY
(1) Any person who has received compensation for loss of earnings for more than 6 months after incapacity first commenced or who may have an entitlement to compensation for loss of potential earning capacity shall have his or her degree of incapacity resulting from personal injury determined in accordance with scales prescribed by regulations made under this Act which may take into account impairment, disability, and handicap for work.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall limit the power of the Corporation or an exempt employer to have the incapacity of a claimant assessed at any time more than 6 months after the incapacity commenced.
(3) The assessment of incapacity under this section shall be undertaken by and at the expense of the Corporation.
(4) Where any such assessment is that the person has a capacity for work of less than 85 percent, the Corporation shall, unless it is satisfied that no purpose would be served by a further assessment, redetermine the incapacity of the person resulting from the personal injury at intervals of not less than 6 months.
(5) An assessment of incapacity under this section shall not include as incapacity any impairment, handicap, incapacity, disability, or inability to do any thing that does not result from personal injury covered by this Act or personal injury by accident in respect of which a claim has been accepted under the Accident Compensation Act 1972 or the Accident Compensation Act 1982.
[S 51(5) substituted by No 55 of 1993, s 20, effective 1 July 1993. Former s 51(5) read:
"(5) In any assessment of incapacity under this section, any incapacity that does not arise from personal injury covered by this Act, or personal injury by accident covered by the Accident Compensation Act 1972 or the Accident Compensation Act 1982, and in respect of which a claim has been accepted, shall be disregarded."]
(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section or section 49 or section 50 of this Act, where any person who has been assessed under this section as having a capacity for work of 85 percent or more refuses, without good reason, an offer of permanent employment in which that person could earn more than $245 a week (or $196 a week in the case of a person who has not attained the age of 20 years), that person shall not be entitled to any further compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity in respect of that incapacity; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall not be a good reason to refuse an offer of permanent employment—
(a) That the person is caring for a child if that child has attained the age of 14 years unless that child is disabled by a physical or mental condition that requires that person to care for that child; or
(B) That the person has a fear of—
(i) A recurrence or aggravation of a condition; or
(ii) Repetition of the occurrence of an accident; or
(iii) Occurrence of further personal injury unless that fear is a mental injury to which section 4(1) of this Act applies or mental or nervous shock to which section 8(3) of this Act applies.
(7) Nothing in subsection (6) of this section shall apply in any case where the person is actively participating in a vocational rehabilitation programme or has completed such a programme within the previous 3 months, and the offer of permanent employment is not compatible with the objectives of that rehabilitation programme.
(8) Where a person's entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity has ceased by virtue of this section or of section 46(1)© or of section 49 of this Act, and the Corporation considers that the degree of incapacity has increased so that the person's capacity for work is less than 85 percent, the Corporation may reassess the person's degree of capacity for work and the person shall be entitled to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity from the later of—
(a) The date of the assessment; or
(B) The date 6 months after the date on which compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity ceased to be payable by virtue of this section or of section 46(1)© or of section 49 of this Act.
(9) Notwithstanding subsection (8) of this section, where a person's entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity has ceased by virtue of this section or of section 46(1)© or of section 49 of this Act, and the incapacity of the person subsequently increases because of medical or surgical treatment in respect of the personal injury that caused the prior incapacity, the person shall again be eligible to receive compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity where the capacity for work is less than 85 percent as determined in accordance with the scales prescribed in regulations made under this Act.
(10) Where—
(a) Subsection (9) of this section applies; and
(B) Compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity resumes; and
© The person again has a capacity for work of 85 percent or more,—
then compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity shall cease immediately."]

0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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