[Alan Thomas]

Grant-Mac, on 26 March 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

While this most likely is true, the test in court will remain the same, viz, if a layperson provides evidence [an opinion] that there is no incapacity but a medical professional contradicts that opinion with a medical finding, then the judge will weight the evidence accordingly.

Your case however turned on different facts. In your case the evidence was given [by laypersons] that you were in point of fact working. Was there any medical evidence to the contrary [that is referred to by the judge at the DC?].

Grant

What you have said about the test in the court remain in the same has just been set aside by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The court has made a decision of fact to contradict the medical findings with nothing more than the assumptions of members of the public and judge himself. Have a read of the decisions. This has opened a new development in ACC judicial processes and decisions. My question is now that the court has made the way open for the medical profession to be disregarded by way of the ACC fraud unit relying upon assumptions of members of the public at the highest level in the appellate process, what is the way forward for all of those who have had their claims or entitlements cancelled in this way?

You are wrong when you assumed that the evidence given to the court by laypersons was that I was working. While that may have been initially the case those witnesses when brought into court and examined under oath confirmed that they did actually lie to the ACC and the courts. The primary witness even acknowledged he had lied in the morning been confessed to was lying in the afternoon directly to the judge. For example he said that I was the manager of the companies I owned then he confessed that he was in fact the manager. He then went on to confess that he did not actually know what I was doing with my time and had just assumed that I was working. The ACC staff involved with the case who had also assumed I was working claimed not to be aware that other staff members had issued ultimatums that I work on my rehabilitation plans and produce business plans within certain time limits. They acknowledged that they had no idea what I did as per work task activities in my pre-injury occupation and therefore could not possibly made any form of comparison of work task activities that they had assumed. In other words they had no information whatsoever about working. The judge recognised that there was no information so then he took it upon himself to determine that I was working by comparing the work I was doing on light duties after I was injured with the work that he imagined I might have been doing given the existence of the companies I owned with the assumption that I had created and developed those companies. He then extrapolated those assumptions of fact when challenging the medical profession by concluding that I was no longer incapacitated, in other words no longer needed surgery to return to my preinjury occupation. The 1992 decision requiring the ACC to fund reconstructive surgery so I could return to my preinjury occupation was not on the table for the Judge to rule on as the ACC had not appeal out of time and was not a matter before the judge at all. He simply remove all barriers in law to achieve the final decisio that he wanted to achieve without regard to any facts aat all. In other words the judge generated information based entirely upon his own speculations.

All of the medical professionals reports including the ACCs own medical assessors were in agreement that my injuries were very significant and that I could not perform the task activities of my preinjury occupation. The judge disregarded the medical information based on this assumptions of fact which left them with the conclusion that I could only have somehow tricked the medical profession. They are in mind that the medical profession did not ask me a single question but rather focused their attention on the biological components with the use of high-tech imaging equipment such as CT and MRI scans that established my hand was not properly connected to my arm leaving no real capacity to manipulate will take any form of load. Now they have had reconstructive surgery in the form of an artificial wrist joint to connect my hand back onto my arm I have gone from zero capacity up to 4 KG which still isn't enough to perform the tasks of my preinjury occupation. Not only that I still have nerve damage and do not have the fine dexterity that is necessary as well and then waiting for more surgery. The judge was provided with the full complement of medical reports. The ACC did not provide the court with a single medical report but rather relied entirely upon two of their informants who were caught red-handed stealing from the company owned by myself that they were managing.

The Court of Appeal has decided that once a judge makes a decision of fact regardless as to how bizarre or ridiculous that judgement is it is not appealable at all. Nonetheless issues of fact were not before the Court of Appeal but rather the criteria by which decisions of fact are to be made. In other words the Court of Appeal made a decision irrelevant to the questions and as this was an application to be heard by the Court of Appeal there is no possibility of taking the matter further in this jurisdiction.

[Grant-Mac]

What you have said about the test in the court remain in the same has just been set aside by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The court has made a decision of fact to contradict the medical findings with nothing more than the assumptions of members of the public and judge himself. Have a read of the decisions. This has opened a new development in ACC judicial processes and decisions. My question is now that the court has made the way open for the medical profession to be disregarded by way of the ACC fraud unit relying upon assumptions of members of the public at the highest level in the appellate process, what is the way forward for all of those who have had their claims or entitlements cancelled in this way?

Incorrect.

The medical opinion was that you were [i] injured, [ii] had some 18% disability at that point, [iii] were capable of light duties and management type of work. The evidence adduced in testimony was that you were running a number of companies with quite significant cash-flow, and therefore by the case law cited, were judged to be working.







You are wrong when you assumed that the evidence given to the court by laypersons was that I was working. While that may have been initially the case those witnesses when brought into court and examined under oath confirmed that they did actually lie to the ACC and the courts.

If those are the facts, then provide the link or citation of the case where this is accepted by the court.





The primary witness even acknowledged he had lied in the morning been confessed to was lying in the afternoon directly to the judge. For example he said that I was the manager of the companies I owned then he confessed that he was in fact the manager. He then went on to confess that he did not actually know what I was doing with my time and had just assumed that I was working. The ACC staff involved with the case who had also assumed I was working claimed not to be aware that other staff members had issued ultimatums that I work on my rehabilitation plans and produce business plans within certain time limits. They acknowledged that they had no idea what I did as per work task activities in my pre-injury occupation and therefore could not possibly made any form of comparison of work task activities that they had assumed. In other words they had no information whatsoever about working. The judge recognised that there was no information so then he took it upon himself to determine that I was working by comparing the work I was doing on light duties after I was injured with the work that he imagined I might have been doing given the existence of the companies I owned with the assumption that I had created and developed those companies. He then extrapolated those assumptions of fact when challenging the medical profession by concluding that I was no longer incapacitated, in other words no longer needed surgery to return to my preinjury occupation. The 1992 decision requiring the ACC to fund reconstructive surgery so I could return to my preinjury occupation was not on the table for the Judge to rule on as the ACC had not appeal out of time and was not a matter before the judge at all. He simply remove all barriers in law to achieve the final decisio that he wanted to achieve without regard to any facts aat all. In other words the judge generated information based entirely upon his own speculations.

Quote

All of the medical professionals reports including the ACCs own medical assessors were in agreement that my injuries were very significant and that I could not perform the task activities of my preinjury occupation.

Again, cite the case. In the DC, which will be the finder of fact, the medical opinion was that as already stated: [i] you were injured, [ii] it had been assessed at the time at 18% and [iii] you were capable of light work which included management type duties.




The judge disregarded the medical information based on this assumptions of fact which left them with the conclusion that I could only have somehow tricked the medical profession. They are in mind that the medical profession did not ask me a single question but rather focused their attention on the biological components with the use of high-tech imaging equipment such as CT and MRI scans that established my hand was not properly connected to my arm leaving no real capacity to manipulate will take any form of load.

The structures of the wrist include [i] bone tissue, [ii] ligamentous tissue, [iii] muscle & tendon tissue [iv] neural & vascular structures. So which of all these structures were so badly damaged/missing, as to threaten the hand "dropping off"? If, in point of fact your hand's structures were so badly compromised by the accident, this would have been dealt with in A&E, with the result that the hand would have been stabilised structurally, and only functional impairment would have remained. Functional impairment is of course serious and I do not intend to trivialize your injury.





Now they have had reconstructive surgery in the form of an artificial wrist joint to connect my hand back onto my arm I have gone from zero capacity up to 4 KG which still isn't enough to perform the tasks of my preinjury occupation. Not only that I still have nerve damage and do not have the fine dexterity that is necessary as well and then waiting for more surgery. The judge was provided with the full complement of medical reports. The ACC did not provide the court with a single medical report but rather relied entirely upon two of their informants who were caught red-handed stealing from the company owned by myself that they were managing.

That you now admit ownership contradicts the assertions to the judge. At the DC you were simply an 'investor' who had no property rights in the company.




The Court of Appeal has decided that once a judge makes a decision of fact regardless as to how bizarre or ridiculous that judgement is it is not appealable at all. Nonetheless issues of fact were not before the Court of Appeal but rather the criteria by which decisions of fact are to be made. In other words the Court of Appeal made a decision irrelevant to the questions and as this was an application to be heard by the Court of Appeal there is no possibility of taking the matter further in this jurisdiction.

Nonsense.

The CA held that the judge at DC was correct as a question of law.

Grant

[greg]

Thank for a simple set of answers for MR Thomas to think about.
He will need 'not opinions' but legal court created documents to support his actions.
Constantly creating an 'opinion' which I doubt he believes to be true will not support his cases.
When he supplies some ACC documents relating to 'rehab' signed by ACC then he will have the start of a case , as
to why he was at certain locations at certain time and living in an area .

[greg]

I see MR Thomas is reading this as I write ; the whole case against him for ' working' is
he or his legals didn't produce any rehab documents when needed.
I understand that it is now normal ACC procedure for your file to be sent to the
claimant being , you ,when you requests a review.
please correct if wrong.

[MINI]

greg, on 27 March 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

I see MR Thomas is reading this as I write ; the whole case against him for ' working' is
he or his legals didn't produce any rehab documents when needed.
I understand that it is now normal ACC procedure for your file to be sent to the
claimant being , you ,when you requests a review.
please correct if wrong.

Gregg

How can he overcome the fact that he has been to the Highest Court possible, so can go no futher?

Why did you need to know if I had given up my Interest case? Is there something I should know other than what my lawyer has told me.

Cannot move further in the courts?

Thanks for letting us know he is up and about!!

Mini

[greg]

MINI, on 27 March 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Gregg

How can he overcome the fact that he has been to the Highest Court possible, so can go no futher?

Why did you need to know if I had given up my Interest case? Is there something I should know other than what my lawyer has told me.

Cannot move further in the courts?

Thanks for letting us know he is up and about!!

Mini

probably because you said so;;. SPELL my name correctly ...
Mr Thomas ;he is not clever enough to sign out so his name still comes up with reader at the bottom of the thread.

[MINI]

greg, on 27 March 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

probably because you said so;;. SPELL my name correctly ...
Mr Thomas ;he is not clever enough to sign out so his name still comes up with reader at the bottom of the thread.

gregg (accompined by the two finger salute)

He might be like me and just not bother to log out. It eventually does it for me usually.

Why do you want my personal case details.

They all come out in the end with a little research. Alan Thomas put a LF posting up here in this thread. Added his own words to call me 'crazy'. if you find that you will find if I am on the form you mentioned.

Go Hard Gregg!!

Mini

[MINI]

tommy, on 25 March 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

In an overview to the ongoing saga if you could use that description to this , thomas versus nz acc law , or policy , or law being re written has it not become a "cat and mouse " or mouse and cat" scenerio whom has the ability , time or money, to achieve an honest result ?

Tommy

Who do you think Thomas is??

The law is made by parliamentarians, not the courts.

No doubt a ton of waffle goes on between the legals of the law needed to be changed. But I think you will find that Alan Thomas actually lost his right to his entitlements because the civil court had already found him guilty of fraudulently trying to take money from the ACC he was not entitled too.

End of!!

He needed to prove the other court wrong that sentenced him to three years, before he would expect ACC to allow his e/r/c and other entitlements back.

I understand his case as it was so much like mine. Only difference was I had not fraudently done anything to have mine disallowed. And I already had cover.

There is other law that I have tried to make plain in courts that is unfair and unjust to us claimants, but alas I only got a partial win but that doesn't stop someone else taking it up and making another case for it. I actually think the answer is sitting in front of our face but didn't get the time to put it before the Judge.

Mini

[MINI]

greg, on 25 March 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Mini ; you are finishing your interest claim.?

Yes of course I am. It had an ACC legal Eagle put a BOD in front of the DC which is illegal.

The Judge was wrong to see that carried a lot of weight. If any one takes my case as caselaw, it should only be on the facts of the Right to appeal the case again on a Matter of Law, and Special right to appeal to High Court on Matter of law.

Once you have read the District court up from their to High Court you may see the reasoning for the decision of the Justice at the High Court but remember, they had changed the time of the day and my lawyer didn't let me know. Waste of travel to Wellington.

Mini

[not their victim]

David 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
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

*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

DAVIDS HATRED OF THOMAS..................

[Hemi]

not their victim, on 25 April 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

DAVIDS HATRED OF THOMAS..................

Irene,
you state david hates thomas
yet you state that david was setting up a retrial for thomas
you state you NEVER LIE and always tell the truth so here you state hatred of thomas and you also show and do state david as being in the long time involved /assistance and the setting up of a retrial for thomas
very odd issues to state you tell the truth on BOTH of them Irene, as in one instance your WRONG so you DO LIE

[not their victim]

This is from Allans web site before the forum


Accident Correction Commission Trust





The Injury
Rehabilitation
Compensation
Disentitlement
Getting Help
On the Lighter Side
Links
Table of Contents
New Page 1


Welcome

Your Recovery Starts



If we have an accident we would like to put our life back the way it was. If you are injured you may not be able to do this yourself and will therefore need help. Any reasonable person would expect that helped to be provided by the one causing the accident, the one who was responsible. The reality is that people avoid their responsibilities. In most countries the accident victim would take the one responsible for the accident to court to enforce this basic right. Unfortunately this can be expensive and also in the failure or even worse everyone else get paid accept the victim. This is why the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) was brought into being.

Unfortunately the ACC has not provided the answer to that most basic problem of caring for the injured. The ACC is now a single entity protected bylaw that actors own interests rather than the injured. It is more difficult taking the ACC to court that was taking the one responsible for the accident in the pre ACC days. The ACC is now am openly manipulating medical professionals regarding the standard of care provided. The injured are remaining injured and appear to have no voice. This site is designed to provide that voice and collectively draw on what ever resource available to provide all enforce appropriate care and or entitlements including fair and reasonable compensation.

Please Note:

This site will continue to develop.

It depends entirely upon the kind support of the many contributers



"No conduct should be suppressed by law unless it can be shown to harm someone".

John Stuart Mill - 1806 - 1873

Hit Counter





The Accident Correction Commission Trust is a private organization assisting injured people recover physically, emotionally and materially in accordance with New Zealand Law. It is not part of any commercial organization or the government run Accident Compensation Corporation or any of its agencies. Information contributed is assumed to be used for the benefit of the Trust with names and identifying details held in confidence.


Accident Correction Commission Trust
[ Home ] [ The Injury ] [ Rehabilitation ] [ Compensation ] [ Disentitlement ] [ Getting Help ] [ On the Lighter Side ] [ Links ] [ Table of Contents ] [ New Page 1 ]




Entitlements
medical rehabilitation
Social Rehabilitation
Vocational Rehabilitation


Rehabilitation
Once it has been established that the person has an incapacity as a result of injury the person is therefore entitled to rehabilitation assistance from the ACC. They are also expected to self-rehabilitate. The ACC has been instructed by legislation to make regulations relating to matters relating to vocational rehabilitation.
The right to rehabilitation and responsibility by the individual and the ACC to attempt rehabilitation and make provision for rehabilitation having account for injuries. This means describing what the injury actually consists of and how disabled the person. Rehabilitation means to return the person back to their former glory. This means preparing the injury. If the injury cannot be repaired alternatives may be explored which come under the concept of vocational rehabilitation. Social rehabilitation must also be considered.





The Accident Correction Commission Trust is a private organization assisting injured people recover physically, emotionally and materially in accordance with New Zealand Law. It is not part of any commercial organization or the government run Accident Compensation Corporation or any of its agencies. Information contributed is assumed to be used for the benefit of the Trust with names and identifying details held in confidence.



Accident Correction Commission Trust
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ ACC in Action ] [ ACC-isms ] [ Points of Comment ] [ Thoughts to Ponder ] [ More Thoughts ]







ACC in Action

Prevention. Care. Recovery.

We can’t afford to ignore it.

24-hour no way cover

Tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.



However, ACC has found other strategies that they often attempt with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.(35 - 48 year old tyre biters) or (Use a "Birch")

2. Changing riders.(update "Informe" corp. procedure every 2 wk. or re mix staff at branch offices)

3. Saying things like "This is the way we always have ridden this horse."

4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.

5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

6. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.

7. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.

8. Comparing the state of dead horses in today's environment.

9. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."

10. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.

11. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.

12. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."

13. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.

14. Do a Cost Analysis Study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.

15. Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.

16. Declare the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.

17. Form a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.

18. Revisit the performance requirements for horses.

19. Declare this horse was procured with another department's budget.

20. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

21. Add more riders to the dead horse. (ICIL Group)

22. Provide status reports daily on the dead horse.

23. Change the ratio of hay and oats in the feed bag.

24. Provide more managers / supervisors per dead horse.

25. Provide an incentive bonus for the Jockey. (Case Manager)

26. Open a ticket to upgrade the dead horse

27. "Reboot" the dead horse.

28. Terminate all live horses to redefine productivity.

29. Schedule a meeting with the dead horse to discuss his productivity problems.

30. Rename the horse.

31. Retrain the dead horse.

32. Sell the horse to a qualified employer.

33. Hire a consultant to give their opinion on dead horses.

34. What about glue?





The Accident Correction Commission Trust is a private organization assisting injured people recover physically, emotionally and materially in accordance with New Zealand Law. It is not part of any commercial organization or the government run Accident Compensation Corporation or any of its agencies. Information contributed is assumed to be used for the benefit of the Trust with names and identifying details held in confidence.



Accident Correction Commission Trust
[ Home ] [ The Injury ] [ Rehabilitation ] [ Compensation ] [ Disentitlement ] [ Getting Help ] [ On the Lighter Side ] [ Links ] [ Table of Contents ] [ New Page 1 ]







Disentitlement

Except advice from medical and vocational professionals regarding continuing disability.

Insure that the medical and vocational professionals have made actual calculations as to disability and incapacity based on the regulations set down or that of the American Medical association calculation methods.

Section 49 gives the ACC the capacity to cease earnings related Compensation once it has been established there is now capacity for work. The mechanism used is contained in section 51 and once the threshold described is reached the earnings related Compensation will be terminated three months after that point.

Section 50 describes the requirement to develop a procedure used for in section 51. It states that the ACC must develop a procedure of assessment to describe the capacity for work of a person who has had the benefits of the ACC. The procedure is to have to separate steps as described in the Gazetted document. This procedure may not have come into effect until 1996. It may be that the legislation that came into effect at that time superseded the need or requirement for ACC to develop this procedure as I suspect that it had failed to do so of until this time for reasons as is described later on. I have not researched that concept that the stage. The object was to develop a reasonable procedure. The focus was to be in regard to what they were capable of doing rather than what they actually did do or what work was available to them in the community.

Section 51 describes the assessment of the capacity for someone to carry out work in order to identify themselves as being rehabilitated after an incapacitating injury.

Section 51 (1) the ACC shall assess the person's capacity for work in accordance with the section.

Section 51 (2) the work must be identified within the meaning of the persons capacity to engage in it with regards to their suitability by reasons of experience, education, or training or any combination having regards to their injury.

Section 51 (3) the assessment must be carried out in accordance with the procedure. If there is no procedure the assessment cannot be carried out. The procedure must be carried out under the principles of natural justice and therefore are based on qualified information and have a proper procedure for reaching unlawful conclusion.

Section 51 (4) ACC must pay for this assessment therefore they are the only one authorised to make the assessment.

Section 51 (5) The Corporation can carry out this assessment at any time.

Section 51 (6) The Corporation continues to be responsible for making assessments regardless as to whether person has gained a capacity then lost it became for whatever reason but typically deterioration of a condition.

Section 51 (6) ( If the person has an incapacity to work the ACC must pay unit related Compensation.

Section 51 (7) (a) If the person after being assessed under section 51 has a capacity for work then in relation to section 37(a) the assessment can be accepted that the person can return to there former occupation.

Section 51 (7) ( if the person after being assessed under section 51 has a capacity for work in relation to section 37 ( The assessment can be accepted that the person can be made available to engage in work that they have experience, education or training for. This recognises the situation whether person has been able to develop alternative options to employment by reason of re-qualification that has occurred as a result of rehabilitation.





The Accident Correction Commission Trust is a private organization assisting injured people recover physically, emotionally and materially in accordance with New Zealand Law. It is not part of any commercial organization or the government run Accident Compensation Corporation or any of its agencies. Information contributed is assumed to be used for the benefit of the Trust with names and identifying details held in confidence.



Just remember that this is set under the 1998 Act and not the 2001 Acts. The Purpose of this web site was to gather an income from helping claimants gain and keep entitlements.