[Compassion]

hi

does anyone know the case/s that a judge said that with Vocational independence, must show that your coping skills/pacing strategies are transferable to the jobs recommended? not sure if have worded correctly.

Thanks

xx

[Alan Thomas]

Compassion, on 15 August 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

hi

does anyone know the case/s that a judge said that with Vocational independence, must show that your coping skills/pacing strategies are transferable to the jobs recommended? not sure if have worded correctly.

Thanks

xx

As the ACC has disregarded the legislation on this matter there is much confusion in regards to what constitutes vocational independence.

The way it works is that if there is no medical remedy to return you to your pre-injury occupation the ACC may explore ways to reduce their liability by funding rehabilitation into a new occupation to the extent that you gain an earnings capacity. If you succeed in getting a job under than you occupational title then ACC are required to fund the difference between the earnings of your old job and the earnings of the new job.

The ACC arrange for an occupational specialist to quantify each of your qualifications, experience and skill level in your old occupation and then determine what occupation those qualifications, experience and skills can be used in a new occupation together with what further qualifications, experience and skills will be needed in order to be employable on the open market. A medical assessor then determines whether or not the individual work task activities of the new occupation is are in conflict with the medical certificates and other medical reports. The assessors must be subservient to the actual facts concerning yourself and may not concern themselves with generic assumptions.

If you feel that you are having coping difficulties because of your injury then of course the medical reports must be factored into the employability in the new occupation suggested.

The next stage is that the ACC manage the rehabilitation process to the extent that funding arrangements are made for the various educational courses to obtain the right qualifications and then facilitate the opportunity to gain the necessary experience level in order to gain the necessary skills to be employable in a new occupation.

Once the ACC have reason to believe that rehabilitation into a new occupation has been achieved it is only then that the ACC can arrange for a measurement of that new capacity and make a decision whether to continue to rehabilitation or bring to an end entitlements of earnings compensation when making a decision that you are vocationally independent.

Do not forget that since the ACC were required to rely upon the new occupational categories under the Australian New Zealand Classification of Occupations there is a new feature included which is a skill rating. The rating is 1 to 5. this means if you're preinjury occupation was 3 then you must be rehabilitated back into a skill rating of 3. Obviously if you are a 747 pilot you will not be rehabilitated into a office clerk such as an IRD investigator who has almost the lowest level of skill rating.

[greg]

his statement is incorrect .

"The way it works is that if there is no medical remedy to return you to your pre-injury occupation the ACC may explore ways to reduce their liability by funding rehabilitation into a new occupation to the extent that you gain an earnings capacity. If you succeed in getting a job under than you occupational title then ACC are required to fund the difference between the earnings of your old job and the earnings of the new job."

Most of what Mr Thomas describes are his opinion of what He wants ACC to do.
Case Law does not back up this statement as some have tried.
Even Mr. Wadsworth could not get this done , even though I agree with this claim..

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 15 August 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

his statement is incorrect .

"The way it works is that if there is no medical remedy to return you to your pre-injury occupation the ACC may explore ways to reduce their liability by funding rehabilitation into a new occupation to the extent that you gain an earnings capacity. If you succeed in getting a job under than you occupational title then ACC are required to fund the difference between the earnings of your old job and the earnings of the new job."

Most of what Mr Thomas describes are his opinion of what He wants ACC to do.
Case Law does not back up this statement as some have tried.
Even Mr. Wadsworth could not get this done , even though I agree with this claim..

Greg you are misleading in the most horrible way imaginable.

The legislation is absolutely clear in regards to the criteria of each step along the way.

Sadly all too frequently the ACC bypass and leapfrog legislated procedure with reviewers who have inadequate knowledge of legislation who in turn failed to have proper regard for submissions placed before them get it wrong.
It is doubly sad that a significant number of district court judges are likewise incompetent and also failed to have proper regard for the the submissions placed before them describing each step of the legislated criteria.


Greg if you think that I am wrong in my summary of the legislation how about you actually go to the trouble of examining the legislation and come back to this thread with what you say the legislation is saying.

Under no circumstances should we ever capitulate to what the ACC, reviewer and even district court judges are actually doing or deciding but rather we must resolutely stick to the legislation and press on with our cases.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 15 August 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

Greg you are misleading in the most horrible way imaginable.

The legislation is absolutely clear in regards to the criteria of each step along the way.

Sadly all too frequently the ACC bypass and leapfrog legislated procedure with reviewers who have inadequate knowledge of legislation who in turn failed to have proper regard for submissions placed before them get it wrong.
It is doubly sad that a significant number of district court judges are likewise incompetent and also failed to have proper regard for the the submissions placed before them describing each step of the legislated criteria.


Greg if you think that I am wrong in my summary of the legislation how about you actually go to the trouble of examining the legislation and come back to this thread with what you say the legislation is saying.

Under no circumstances should we ever capitulate to what the ACC, reviewer and even district court judges are actually doing or deciding but rather we must resolutely stick to the legislation and press on with our cases.

why bother . you don't accept anything but your own Myth belief.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 15 August 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

why bother . you don't accept anything but your own Myth belief.

Your answer served to confirm that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are just ranting and raving objecting to anything I say simply for the sake of it like someone who was politically or emotionally aligned with another irrational entity hellbent on supporting the conduct of the ACC departing from legislated criteria. Unless you do the research and put up proper comments your postings are of absolute no value because always your words are empty and devoid of statement referring to any particulars.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 15 August 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Your answer served to confirm that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are just ranting and raving objecting to anything I say simply for the sake of it like someone who was politically or emotionally aligned with another irrational entity hellbent on supporting the conduct of the ACC departing from legislated criteria. Unless you do the research and put up proper comments your postings are of absolute no value because always your words are empty and devoid of statement referring to any particulars.

Mr Thomas ;; as you have never been through these assessments with ACC you don't any experience of such.
go away and eat more of your myth pills.
This is why so many who have dealt with ACC disrespect your opinion as foolish and plainly wrong.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 15 August 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

Mr Thomas ;; as you have never been through these assessments with ACC you don't any experience of such.
go away and eat more of your myth pills.
This is why so many who have dealt with ACC disrespect your opinion as foolish and plainly wrong.

I have sat in on many assessments.

[GCSB]

Compassion copy and paste "must show that your coping skills/pacing strategies are transferable to the jobs recommended"in the http://www.nzlii.org/databases.html search and see what comes up.

[GCSB]

try utilising pacing and chunking strategies
this is a very recent case and was found in favour of the claimant
http://www.nzlii.org...C/2014/170.html

[Compassion]

GCSB, on 18 August 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

try utilising pacing and chunking strategies
this is a very recent case and was found in favour of the claimant
http://www.nzlii.org...C/2014/170.html

Perfect thank You, is exactly what i needed, big thank You for all YOur time and efforts (all)