ACCforum: Cancellation of entire claim - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Cancellation of entire claim ACC no longer need medical assessments

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 March 2014 - 04:23 PM

BREAKING NEWS

The courts of New Zealand have confirmed that the ACC no longer need to rely upon medical information to cancel the entire claim on the basis that they are now entitled to rely upon private investigators collecting the assumptions from members of the public.

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand
CA670/2013 [2014] NZCA89

Does the reference in s73 of the 1992 Act to "information" require objective evidence of lack of incapacity?
... Regardless of the quality of the information before ACC, the district Court has found as a fact that he was not incapacitated.
The finding of fact that the medical certificates were wrong were based entirely upon two witnesses who were caught red-handed committing acts of dishonesty against the claimant, one a former ACC case manager, reported to the ACC that the claimant was working on non-descript activities for an indeterminable period of time. The district court required the ACC to disclose the alleged work task activities with due particularity at the material times no later than September 2006 but when the ACC refused the judge decided to carry out his own investigation to determine the case on s37A because the ACC have not and should have. In other words no material facts were ever before the court and without any information describing the preinjury occupation, any activity that the claimant was thought to be involved in or any medical evidence the judge relied upon his own intuition. It is from the judges intuition that he made a decision of fact.

What went before the High Court was the criteria by which both the ACC and this report must make decisions. The High Court failed to answer the question and when the matter went to the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Court of Appeal The Court Of Appeal has decided that the question was not seriously arguable nor of public importance.

This leaves the way open for the ACC to disregard all medical evidence in favour of what the fraud investigation unit gather from members of the public to override the medical evidence.
1

#2 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:36 PM

My goodness... is this for real???
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:41 PM

View Postunit1of2, on 24 March 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

My goodness... is this for real???


Sadly it is for real.

What is worse is a large number of members on this site that have continued in the past and still continue to attract attention from this issue is perhaps one of the most serious matters and the ACC's history.
The ACC relied upon three lawyers during the civil hearing and managed to delay the process over more than a 10 year period and had continued to create delays up until now to prevent the matter progressing through the appeal courts. Incredibly the Court of Appeal has blocked the way for the matter to be heard. You must appreciate unit one of two that this is not just about my own case but a very large number of claimants in the same predicament which effectively translates into many billions of dollars going back into historical cases and much much more in the future.

The case relates to the underpinning justification of the ACC maintained the fraud unit which relies entirely upon the assumptions of members of the public which relies upon as informants to oppose the authority of the medical profession who describe when it is safe or not safe to return to work.
0

#4 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 203
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:41 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 March 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

BREAKING NEWS

The courts of New Zealand have confirmed that the ACC no longer need to rely upon medical information to cancel the entire claim on the basis that they are now entitled to rely upon private investigators collecting the assumptions from members of the public.

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand
CA670/2013 [2014] NZCA89

Does the reference in s73 of the 1992 Act to "information" require objective evidence of lack of incapacity?
... Regardless of the quality of the information before ACC, the district Court has found as a fact that he was not incapacitated.
The finding of fact that the medical certificates were wrong were based entirely upon two witnesses who were caught red-handed committing acts of dishonesty against the claimant, one a former ACC case manager, reported to the ACC that the claimant was working on non-descript activities for an indeterminable period of time. The district court required the ACC to disclose the alleged work task activities with due particularity at the material times no later than September 2006 but when the ACC refused the judge decided to carry out his own investigation to determine the case on s37A because the ACC have not and should have. In other words no material facts were ever before the court and without any information describing the preinjury occupation, any activity that the claimant was thought to be involved in or any medical evidence the judge relied upon his own intuition. It is from the judges intuition that he made a decision of fact.

What went before the High Court was the criteria by which both the ACC and this report must make decisions. The High Court failed to answer the question and when the matter went to the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Court of Appeal The Court Of Appeal has decided that the question was not seriously arguable nor of public importance.

This leaves the way open for the ACC to disregard all medical evidence in favour of what the fraud investigation unit gather from members of the public to override the medical evidence.


I am a little confused, Alan. You refer to section 73 and then later section 37A of the former Act that is found here:

http://legislation.k...992/an/013.html

I suppose you mean section 73.

It is indeed a worry, but is it perhaps not due to the older Act being too unspecific on this? The word "information" must also be seen in context of the particular provision (section) and what it states. I would presume that this then perhaps only applies to older cases before the 2001 Act came into force.

Or have you been given another legal interpretation?

It seems the decision was made as you state, as the District Court judge decided somehow on the basis that, within his own "fair" and "reasonable" assessment or consideration of evidence before him (or her), a "reasonable" decision could be made. There are of course certain legal principles a judge must base decisions on. In any case, it is very interesting and I would like to read the whole case once published in the law books.

There is still the Supreme Court as a last option, is there not?

1

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 March 2014 - 11:37 PM

Marc
The Act is 1992
S73(1) is the information.
The information can come from s37 or s51.
ACC did not get s73(1) information from either.
The judge solved this defect by gathering s37A information himself on the basis that he knew occupational information and conducted his own medical assessment himself in challange of the expert information and in defiance of the existing desision that I could not return to work unless my hand is reattached to my arm. I have only just had the artifical wrist joint surgery late 2012 and have just return to my old job on light duties as I will never be able to lift more than 4KG.

The court could not determine or make a "fair" and "reasonable" assessment or consideration of evidence as the ACC place no information in front of the court s37A or otherwise so the judge did his own medical assessment basis on assumptions.

Not even Dane Tui agrees with the ACC, DC, HC or Court of Appeal! He even said ACC had no information that I was working letalone what work I did preinjury. 10 years after the ACC desision the judge basis his assessment on the work I did while on light duties .
1

#6 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 203
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 24 March 2014 - 11:46 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 March 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:

Marc
The Act is 1992
S73(1) is the information.
The information can come from s37 or s51.
ACC did not get s73(1) information from either.
The judge solved this defect by gathering s37A information himself on the basis that he knew occupational information and conducted his own medical assessment himself in challange of the expert information and in defiance of the existing desision that I could not return to work unless my hand is reattached to my arm. I have only just had the artifical wrist joint surgery late 2012 and have just return to my old job on light duties as I will never be able to lift more than 4KG.

The court could not determine or make a "fair" and "reasonable" assessment or consideration of evidence as the ACC place no information in front of the court s37A or otherwise so the judge did his own medical assessment basis on assumptions.

Not even Dane Tui agrees with the ACC, DC, HC or Court of Appeal! He even said ACC had no information that I was working letalone what work I did preinjury. 10 years after the ACC desision the judge basis his assessment on the work I did while on light duties .


It is stuff that can make one pull all remaining hair out off the head, in despair, I presume. The law is an ass, they say, and yes, I have had some very disappointing experiences in other areas as well. Thanks for sharing the info.

1

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 March 2014 - 11:57 PM

View PostMarc, on 24 March 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

It is stuff that can make one pull all remaining hair out off the head, in despair, I presume. The law is an ass, they say, and yes, I have had some very disappointing experiences in other areas as well. Thanks for sharing the info.



The ACC cliam that once I loose I will commit mass killings as per Weal's predictions that ACC went to the police with.

What can I do to end this nightmare? I am not safe from these monsters.
1

#8 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 25 March 2014 - 09:37 AM

What you want is to hope the ones who joined this forum of yours would en-masse,CONDONE the use of doing other work/business/avoiding the acc queries/traveling round the world/acting as a design engineer company owner manager etc etc whilst the acc pay you for being completely incapacitated apart from the cunning use of two hours a day fragmented use at that to cover your asS
You failed
I DONT CONDONE THAT Crap Thomas
You stuffed up Were caught out
The wrist has nought to do with what you were charged with Thomas
Go back to wanking with it who cares-doubt you WONT need the 4kg capacity for that Posted Image

*You were caught out Misleading the acc with an intent via the use of an acc medial certificate documant, to enable a pecuniary gain for yourself or others*


Take the large doses of medicine you were dispensed with,and get on with life instead of being a radical full of bollocks hoping to lead others into your 'FAILED'' way of ripping off the acc system
dave
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:01 AM

My comments in blue

View PostDavid Butler, on 25 March 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

What you want is to hope the ones who joined this forum of yours would en-masse,CONDONE the use of doing other work/business/avoiding the acc queries/traveling round the world/acting as a design engineer company owner manager etc etc whilst the acc pay you for being completely incapacitated apart from the cunning use of two hours a day fragmented use at that to cover your asS
ACC legislation not only allows us to but also encourages utilising residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable. There was nothing wrong with my brain feet and mouth which enabled me to utilise my residual capacity in my original occupation to travel the world, register patents, meet with industrial world leaders, political world leaders, fund a variety of businesses, to be a director of those businesses and do anything else in my power to make as much money as I possibly could. Anybody who opposes that is wrong in law.

Of course the ACC is entitled to get a discount on earnings compensation at any money is generated but if no money is generated then none of the above information has anything to do with ACC.Nonetheless as a matter of courtesy I did inform the ACC in writing which led to the ACC wanting me to produce business plans and threatened suspension of my entitlement if I did not. In fact they actually did suspend my entitlements because they had lost the plans I had already submitted to them.

David Butler for some inexplicable reason you seem to be arguing on behalf of the ACC fraud unit who disagree with the legislation. Your friend Douglas weal offered himself to the ACC as a supplier of "high-value information" while you're of a friend Kenneth Miller offered himself as there "go to Guy" and you have had discussions with ACC staff and sent them e-mails expressing your concerns about the being attacked as a leader in two Kenneth Miller's reports being fed to him by Douglas weal About ACC staff being blown up.



You failed
We do have evil people among us who plot and conspire with some even imagine himself to be Russian spies.



I DONT CONDONE THAT Crap Thomas
You stuffed up Were caught out
The wrist has nought to do with what you were charged with Thomas
How wrong you are. The medical certificates describing the wrist injury and degree of incapacity form the basis of the ACC private criminal prosecutions asserting that the medical certificates were wrong in fact.



Go back to wanking with it who cares-doubt you WONT need the 4kg capacity for that Posted Image
Yes I will


*You were caught out Misleading the acc with an intent via the use of an acc medial certificate documant, to enable a pecuniary gain for yourself or others*
Whether or not the medical certificates were true is a matter of medical fact. What we have here is the ACC and known the Court of Appeal endorsing the ACC challenging medical certificates by the impressions generated by members of the public such as yourself. Your endorsement of members of the public overriding the medical profession is at the heart of the problem. Why do you think that medical certificates can be overturned by members of the public?

Take the large doses of medicine you were dispensed with,and get on with life instead of being a radical full of bollocks hoping to lead others into your 'FAILED'' way of ripping off the acc system.
How in your wildest dreams do you imagine that following the medical advice on medical certificates equates with "ripping off the system"?
Are you really sayingthat I should surrender myself to the ACC who are truly the ones ripping off the ACC system?


dave


It is quite clear from David Butler is above comments that he works for the forces of evil when he endorses the notion that using medical certificates to obtain entitlements equates to ripping off the ACC system. Essentially has argument is that a person who needs an artificial wrist can return to work and does not even need the surgery in order to assist ACCs theft of entitlements.
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:32 AM

Unit one of two

This is Alan Thomas words as to how the failure of this most important case came about.

You will see why they did not allow it to go further when the documentation is put up her, allowed to be opened and read. That should be made public any day soon. However there was nothing to stop Thomas putting it up here for us all to read. Nothing at all. The days given after the decision is made before going public is a legal nicety to him, to give him time to digest the decision before it being made public. It is his decision so nothing to stop him making it public.

However Thomas as normal, has to have his say and he has to grab your attention, (and the rest of us, but some of us are not so gullible.) before the case becoming public property.

I would recommend you read the outcome carefully when it is made public, instead of relying on Thomas wording of the outcome.

This case is not only relevant to Criminals who have been charged with fraud. Lots of us get dumped on by ACC and denied out w/c, without being under investigation for ripping the system off.

That is where section 37A & B are very important, to all of us that this happens too. These are the sections in the 1992 Act that make it obligitory for ACC to use those sections before using section 73 of the 1992 Act to deny anyone w/c.

37A & B are the capacity, incapacity tests and assessments that I believe ACC has a mandatory requirement to use before they can use section 73 to disentitle or deny w/c or erc.

This is made clear in a case that Thomas had before the High Court last year. The Justice used the words: ACC has a obligatory requirement to take s37A into consideration. But he did not say it had to be by assessment. At another point in Alan Thomas last year case, the Justice said in reply to another question that 'it depends' when answering a question. That means he left himself an out. And I believe without reading the decision just named up here and heard on the 17 of this month that it is the out that has been used to deny Thomas the right to carry his case further.

However, I am hoping they havent closed the door for all of us that had done nothing wrong, (illegal) but still been denied for any reason what-so-ever. This may mean that at long last we have a High Court decision that makes it plain that it is mandatory for ACC to take the incapacity test, assessment, or even just the wording into consideration before they chuck us 'No w/c right', without ever taking anything except thier own warped perception into consideration.

In fact there are two other cases that say that it is mandatory, but I dont think either is a H/C decision. So in this sence, this case is very important by what has already been said by the High Court in Thomas case regarding section 73 and 37A last year, for us that have not done anything wrong at all. But we believe ACC because they have a job to do and commonsence tells everyone that they must make proper decisions in a timely manner and so does section 54 of the 2001 Act.

Please hold your opinions and thoughts until we have had a chance to read the decision. I may be able to give you the reasoning for the opinion once I have seen it. It is a great pity Alan Thomas has not shared it with up by making it public himself.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:52 AM

MiIn you quite correctly said
"That is where section 37A & B are very important, to all of us that this happens too. These are the sections in the 1992 Act that make it obligitory for ACC to use those sections before using section 73 of the 1992 Act to deny anyone w/c."
The problem is ACC never used s37A as I had already won that decision in the review hearing 1992 and that decision concerning s37A remains binding on them. What the ACC dirges went straight to s73 and called "work" information. Judge Barber recognised this defective decision and attempted to remedy himself by conducting his own occupational and medical certificate based entirely upon his own understanding of medicine when the legislation forbids him from doing this. The Court of Appeal was questioned about the Merits of the application for appeal concerning the legality of both of these actions and the questions but simply did not answer the questions thus blocking the way For the matter to be heard thus fixing the superior courts findings on the matters of law full-time. Mini you will of course recognise that this affects your case concerning s37B. ACC did not need medical information to determine your degree of capacity for incapacity. They are permitted now to make a decision based upon their own intuition, and so as the court permitted to do likewise. Sorry mini that it seems that your case is now doomed for failure. It is such a pity that you didn't come forward to stand up for the law but you only have yourself to blame.

You are correct about what the court has ruled in reference to "it depends" which leaves the ACC the legal out to do as they please without any form of legislated control. This is the point that was being argued that they do not have an unfettered discretion to do as they please but all decisions must be traced back to legislated criteria. It is now law that the ACC have no criteria for the basis of fact to make a decision that the claimant is not incapacitated.

Mini you will now need to reach the threshold of getting your case heard in the Court of Appeal to breach this open-ended "it depends" nonsense in order for you to win your case. Once you have one your case then I will be able to re-enter the legal process in reliance upon the correct understanding of law. Despite you not wishing to be of assistance to me I am of course willing to be of assistance to you. The problem is because the door has been closed on me on this point of law it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to open it again. As things stand now because the High Court uses the words "it depends" the ACC is now free to do as your words put it rely upon " thier own warped perception into consideration"

As an added point of interest the issue of "interest" was heard immediately prior to mine whereby the Miller case was discredited by the court as being a relevant in law, in other words the court felt that legal basis was wrong and ill-conceived. The case was presented by one of New Zealand's most recognised ACC specialists.


Mini as I don't know how to upload a document I will scan the judgement for you given or special interest in the case I do appreciate its importance to you.
Mini even though you have not wanted to work together before my door is still open.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 11:01 AM

The Court of Appeal decision

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA67012013
[20141 NZCA 89
BETWEEN ALAN THOMAS
Applicant
AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
CORPORATION
Respondent
Hearing: 17 March2014
Court: Stevens, White and French JJ
Counsel: Applicant in person
D K L Tuiqereqere 1~r Respondent
Judgment: 24 March2014 at 12.00 pm



JUDGMENT OF THE COURT


The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.



REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Intmduction

[1] Mr Thomas applies [or special leave to appeal against a decision of Gilbert J
in the High Court under s 98(1) of the Accilent Rehabilitation and Compensation
Insurance Act 1992 (the Act).1 Special leave is required because the proposed appeal
would be a second appeal, the decision of Gilbert J itself concerning an appeal fi-om
the District Court


Th,mas vAccident Compensation Corporation [20121 NZHC 3206.


THOMAS vACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA67012013 [20141 NZCA 89 [24 March 20141


Background

[2] The proceeding has a long history but for present purposes the background
can be briefly stated.


[3] Mr Thomas claimed he sufl~red a wrist injtuy in December 1989 that
prevented him from working He lodged a claim with the Accident Compensation
Corporation (ACC) and was paid weekly earnings-related compensation In 1997,
ACC advised Mr Thomas under s 73 of the Act that it was cancelling all future
payments on the grounds that Mr Thomas had been working full time while
receiving accident compensation ACC initiated criminal charges a~inst
Mr Thomas. He was convicted of fraud and sentenced to a term of imprisonment


[4] Mr Thomas applied for a review of ACC’s decision to cancel his entitlements
but was unsuccessful He then appealed to the District Court. The appeal was
dismissed by Judge Barber, who held that Mr Thomas was not incapacitated or
unable by reason of personal injury to engege in his pre-accilent employment2
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr Thomas appealed to the High Court, having
obtained leave to appeal on four questions of law3 The appeal was heard by
Gilbert J, who dismissed it. In a subsequent decision, Gilbert J declined to grant
Mr Thomas leave to appeal to this Court,4 prompting Mr Thomas to file the
application now befOre us.


The application for special leave

[5] Mr Thomas kientifed the fOllowing fOur questions of law as requiring
determination by this Court in his proposed appeal:


(i) Did the High Court err in not remitting the case back to the District
Court (or in not considering the factual matters itself)?



2 Thomas v Accident Rehabilitation Compensation Insurance Corporation DC Auckland

DCA129/98, 21 April2010.
Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZHC 1073. Judge Ongley had earlier
dedlir~d leave in the District Court: Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011]
NZACC 111.
~ Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZHC 2296.


(ii) Did the District Court, when considering ACC’s decision under s 73,
have jurisdiction to rely on evidence other than that in ACC’s
possession at the date of its decision?


(iii) Does the operation of s 73 require prior consideration of ss 37
and 37A ofthe Act?


(iv) Does the ref~rence in s 73 of the Act to “information” require
objective evidence ofa lack ofeapacity?


Assess ment

[61 In order to obtain special leave, Mr Thomas must satisif~’ us that his proposed
appeal will raise a question of law that is capable ofbona flde and serious argument
and that there is some interest, public or private, ofsuflicient importance to outweigh
the costs ofanother appeal


[7] In our view, the proposed appeal is misconceived and has no realistic
prospect of success.


[8] As re~rds the first question, we note that under the Act the jurisdiction ofthe
High Court on appeal from the District Court is limited to questions oflaw5 There
were Ibur questions of law beI~re Gilbert J and he answered all f&ir in favour of
ACC. Therefore there was nothing to remit back to the District Court. Given its
limited jurisdiction, the High Court could not itself embark on an analysis of the
làcts.


[9] As regards the second proposed question, the Act expressly provides that
appeals to the District Court from a decision of a review officer are to be conducted
by way of rehearing with respect to both facts and law6 The District Court may
consider new evidence and did so properly in this case.
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, s 97.
6 Seess9land92.


[10] The third question raises issues about the interaction of ss 73, 37 and 37A.
The scheme of the Act is that where ACC is satisfied that a claimant is no longer
incapacitated under s 37 and 37A, it must cancel that claimant’s weekly
compensation payments under s 73. Mr Thomas contends that a decision under s73
is “unilateral” and that such a decision cannot incorporate ss 37 and 37A, which by
inference must be “bilateral”. However, as Gilbert J ~und, the application of s 73
must as a matter of logic require prior consideration ofss 37 and 37A. The decision
ofthe District Court expressly follows that approach.


[11] The f)urth question relates to the quality of the evidence before ACC at the
time it made its decision under s 73. The problem fOr Mr Thomas, however, is that
regtrdless ofthe quality ofthe infOrmation befOre ACC, the District Court has fOund
as a fact that he was not incapacitated.


[12] Tn our view, none of the questions raised by Mr Thomas are~ seriously
arguable and none are ofgeneral importance.


[13] The application fOr special leave to appeal is dismissed.


Solicitors:
Medico Law Ltd, Auckland fbr Respondent
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 12:08 PM

I have not posted my submissions because I don't know how. I try to cut and paste but there were too many words. In brief the questions put to the court of appeal have not been answered.
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 25 March 2014 - 12:16 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 25 March 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

MiIn you quite correctly said
"That is where section 37A & B are very important, to all of us that this happens too. These are the sections in the 1992 Act that make it obligitory for ACC to use those sections before using section 73 of the 1992 Act to deny anyone w/c."
The problem is ACC never used s37A as I had already won that decision in the review hearing 1992 and that decision concerning s37A remains binding on them. What the ACC dirges went straight to s73 and called "work" information. Judge Barber recognised this defective decision and attempted to remedy himself by conducting his own occupational and medical certificate based entirely upon his own understanding of medicine when the legislation forbids him from doing this. The Court of Appeal was questioned about the Merits of the application for appeal concerning the legality of both of these actions and the questions but simply did not answer the questions thus blocking the way For the matter to be heard thus fixing the superior courts findings on the matters of law full-time. Mini you will of course recognise that this affects your case concerning s37B. ACC did not need medical information to determine your degree of capacity for incapacity. They are permitted now to make a decision based upon their own intuition, and so as the court permitted to do likewise. Sorry mini that it seems that your case is now doomed for failure. It is such a pity that you didn't come forward to stand up for the law but you only have yourself to blame.

You are correct about what the court has ruled in reference to "it depends" which leaves the ACC the legal out to do as they please without any form of legislated control. This is the point that was being argued that they do not have an unfettered discretion to do as they please but all decisions must be traced back to legislated criteria. It is now law that the ACC have no criteria for the basis of fact to make a decision that the claimant is not incapacitated.

Mini you will now need to reach the threshold of getting your case heard in the Court of Appeal to breach this open-ended "it depends" nonsense in order for you to win your case. Once you have one your case then I will be able to re-enter the legal process in reliance upon the correct understanding of law. Despite you not wishing to be of assistance to me I am of course willing to be of assistance to you. The problem is because the door has been closed on me on this point of law it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to open it again. As things stand now because the High Court uses the words "it depends" the ACC is now free to do as your words put it rely upon " thier own warped perception into consideration"

As an added point of interest the issue of "interest" was heard immediately prior to mine whereby the Miller case was discredited by the court as being a relevant in law, in other words the court felt that legal basis was wrong and ill-conceived. The case was presented by one of New Zealand's most recognised ACC specialists.


Mini as I don't know how to upload a document I will scan the judgement for you given or special interest in the case I do appreciate its importance to you.
Mini even though you have not wanted to work together before my door is still open.



Thomas

You have never worked with or for me. You have done it for youself. It is my eagle eyes that dont let a case get past and the assistance of these so-called by you, very well recognised legal eagles who took the cullen case before yours.

I could tell you what the Cullen case is about, but it doesnt have any bearing on your case. And much on 74 & 37A&B, except for after the fact of disentitlement.

So even after me explaining many times how our cases are alike you took no special interest in mine.

The huge difference between yours and mine of course is that I was actually working when I asked if I was entitled to w/c if I had to leave work. I got told 'no' and I believed her as I was not in the slightest interested in w/c law. I had tax law, with is a million times different than ACC law, as ACC law seems to be in the hands of the provider, not as it is meant to be read in legislation and their aim is to keep as much off us as possible, not to pay it back with interest (built into the computer, when in a refund situation, when they make a mistake, as IRD is). I am used to black is black and white is white and seldom is there a shade of grey.

I have been quitcly chipping away getting my entitlements, but it is no go with 'interest on backdated weekly compensation'. However unlike you I do not think I am finished. In fact, because I have done everything I possible can through the ACC courts and legislation, I am now in the best place that I could be. Free of the restriants of ACC I can take the wrongness of their actions through the Civil Courts, which will allow me freedom to use 'commonsence and Human rights.

I will now go read your court case and see what they had to say. All must remember that at this level the Court is only looking at particular issues and not the substantive issues. It is very hard to get past Speacial leave at the best of times, but when you cant use any substantive issues it is impossible.

I may let you know what I think of your decision after I have read it and taken it all in.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 25 March 2014 - 12:37 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 25 March 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

I have not posted my submissions because I don't know how. I try to cut and paste but there were too many words. In brief the questions put to the court of appeal have not been answered.


Alan i am very sorry that this did not go in your favour as you certainly have raised some valid questions that could effect any claimant. I too have been accused of things not done and it is the most humilating experience I have ever been through, thankfully I was able to show I was telling the truth. But to this day, that horrid experience still bites at me now and then.

If you say you couldn't work with your injury and I think people need to realise what we may present with for short spells, has a real consequence and we spend alot of time recuperating from such efforts including the pain it brings on....

I wander even if you believe are in the right, if it is better to move on from the acc and shut that door and mentally start over and distract your brain with mentally stimulating things that stop those horrible thoughts creeping in. You are very smart and if you can use your voice to typing device, and even change your name, start over.

Whatever you do, don't harm the acc as they claim you might do, that won't solve a thing for anyone least of all you. So time maybe to put your acc knowledge into helping others, but i would seriously change directions and focus on something fruitful.

kia kaha Compassion.
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:07 PM


Compassion
I still need more surgery


I still only have a 2 hour per day capacity ( even just using the voice software)

So as you can see I don't have the choose of just moving on accept to just end it all right now as I can not see any future.

There is no fact whereby any one could begin to think I might harm anyone. My name in completly destroyed by the continoued attacks basied on faulse aligations like you just made. I have altready been attacked for helping others. I was put in jail allready for trying to use what little capacity I have within the limits suppervised by my doctor.

I am not trapped.


Please base any advice on real facts and law so I may have real hope as I am now at the end point.






0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:29 PM

Alan Thomas

You say they didnt answer your questions howver I think they did.

However I am a little more than axious that they consider there are none of "general importance". That I consider is untrue.

It would be just about impossible for you to prove that they did not 'consider 37 & 37A, before they used section 73 to disentitle you.

I consider those of us that have not been charged with fraud will have a better chance to prove they havent used 37A or B when telling us No to w/c and when writing " No assistance from ACC from April 1999". No explanation as to why not and no attempt to have assessments done. No letter saying they closed our ACC file on the 1/1/1999. The IRp shows intent to deny any acc assistance, without the information they needed to make a proper decision. Or even be able to show that the declined w/c, after considering under obligatory illegislation their mandatory duty.

I have been using these sections for many a year, but the outcome is the same as yours, however your case is not telling me that they should not still be using this section, even if skipping over the manual assessment part. They MUST be taking 37A &/or B into consideration. The words at question four brings the responce "must as a matter of logic require prior consideration of 37 & 37A".

I do not see how you could contemplate I would fail in my endeavour to prove that ACC have not done any such thing in my case, before, telling me No to w/c, stating words regarding the future of no assistance from ACC in my IRP (post employment) or closing my ACC file altogether on 1/1/1999. These actions with little paperwork show an focused intent to deprive me of my rightful entitlements.

They quote that your problem is that Regardless of the quality of the information in front of ACC at the time of their decision under s73, the DC had found as a fact that you were not incapacitated.

There is nothing stopping you going through wrongful action and showing your evidence in the Civil Court. It will mean big money but then anything worth having generally does. They take advantage of the fact that we have no money. Or should I say only asset rich.

You give up to easily.

Mini

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 990
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:47 PM

Mr Thomas is the second person this week in my little world who continually claimed via their own opinions
that they have been wronged.
Both have several judgements against them and both have judges stating they are wrong in the judgements.
How do you as a layman ,explain to these people they are wrong and will never achieve anything but
are ruining other's chances of justice via their continued selfish court action.?
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 02:16 PM

View Postgreg, on 25 March 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Mr Thomas is the second person this week in my little world who continually claimed via their own opinions
that they have been wronged.
Both have several judgements against them and both have judges stating they are wrong in the judgements.
How do you as a layman ,explain to these people they are wrong and will never achieve anything but
are ruining other's chances of justice via their continued selfish court action.?


Greg that is not my opinion but rather all the medical professionals opinion. How have you not understood that? I surgeon was actually in tears when I surgery was cancelled. The man was so frustrated that a bureaucrat had question his professionalism.

The judges have supported the bureaucrats who have relied on assumptions made by the end of the public as opposed the medical profession. The issue is that basic. How have you missed or misunderstood this extremely basic point of law?How is it that the layperson are able toBe relied upon to cancelled surgery and prevent me from return to my preinjury occupation and effectively shut down all prospect of all of my employees are working in a job that they loved so much stop why would we want to stop me designing and building computer-controlled machinery and exporting to other countries just because a member of the public as that I do not need surgery? No sane or rational person is that stupid. Great we are directly at the face of corruption here. What would you recommend we do to challenge this corruption?
If we do not stand up against this corruption Greg we can only expect more people to be robbed of surgery, help, financial well-being and position society, in other words the ACC scheme is in its final death spiral were only collect money and does nothing. By the Court of Appeal and only ACC to make decisions without benefit of technical expertise in favour of their own personal belief systems out the new possibly imagine in your wildest dreams that the ACC scheme will survive?
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 March 2014 - 02:19 PM

Greg I simply do not understand what you are saying that my appeal requesting clarification of the legislated criteria for the ACC to follow to determine the end of incapacity was selfish. Please explain your rationale.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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