ACCforum: Ratshit Rehab Records - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Ratshit Rehab Records Tales of incompetence

#1 User is offline   ernie 

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

Posted 21 December 2004 - 02:33 PM

How about this for a track record of incompetence and failure to carry out statutory obligations?

July 1997 - claimant injured. Receives a few months physio and chiropratic, that don't seem to help much. No further rehab provided, claimant realises he cannot return to his old job and gets some part-time light work. W/C abated.

May 1999 - after 18 months of no rehab put through first WCAP. Found by medical assessor to be unable to work 30 hours a week. Pain management recommended.

November 1999 - referred to Pain Clinic for assessment, but no follow-up rehab provided.

October 2000 - referred to occupational specialist who recomends exercise programme and Pain Clinic. Rehab plan drawn up incorporating these components. However, exercise programme doesn't happen.

June 2001 - finally referred to exercise programme after further recommendation from occupational specialist.

April 2002 - exercise programme unilaterally terminated by ACC, despite both rehab plan and occupational specialist's recommendations saying it should still continue. Claimant told he has to attend Work Preparation Programme, despite him being in work 25 hours a week and WPP not being in his rehab plan. Claimant objects to WPP on basis that he's already in work and his employer won't give him time off to do it. ACC instead agree to refer him again to occupational physician to determine futher rehab. Occupational specialist recommends graduated increase in hours and further exercise programme, which doeesn't happen.

November 2002 - referred to IOA

December 2002 - referred to IMA

December 2002 - Signed off as having completed exercise programme December 2002, despite having had it unilaterally terminated in April 2002. Signed off as having completed vocational rehab and referred to VIAP.

March 2003 - VIOA and VIMA. VIMA report says applicant can work 35 hours a week in 3 identified occupations

April 2003 - advised weekly compensation will cease in 3 months due to vocational independence. Claimant applies for review of decision.

July 2003 - VIAP challenged at review hearing. Reviewer quashes vocational independence decision, finding VIAP shouldn't have even been started because exercise programme in rehab plan not completed. Orders new rehab plan, to include exercise programme, the duration of it to be medically determined.

October 2003 - claimant signed off as ready to enter VIAP again, despite reviewer's decision not having been complied with and no more rehab having been provided.

November 2003 - VIOA

December 2003 - VIMA. Medical assessor finds claimant not vocationally independent because rehab not complete. Assessor recommends 6 months further exercise programme.

January 2003 - rehab plan modified, but includes exercise programme for only 14 weeks, to be medically reviewed at that time.

March 2004- Exercise programme commences, but 14 week medical review of it doesn't happen and programme then ceases.

November 2004 - claimant asked to sign new rehab plan - signing off exercise programme as having been completed. Claimant applies for review of new rehab plan on basis that exercise programme not competed and the review decision that its duration was to be medically determined not complied with.

December 2004 - ACC ask for mediation, which fails to achieve an agreed outcome. Review application proceeds to hearing.

At hearing, complete capitulation from ACC, who agree reviewer's direction in July 2003 not complied with, and rehab not complete. ACC agree to send claimant to occupational physician to determine duration of exercise programme now required.

When will they ever learn?
0

#2 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 21 December 2004 - 03:14 PM

Send this travesty to Ruth D and tell her ACC is sabotaging her government's intentions by failing to give effect to the purpose of the Act.
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1700
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 21 December 2004 - 06:05 PM

looks like to me that the CM is looking tohave a schedule completed by a certain time. are they trying to cut corners to get there HAY
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1700
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 21 December 2004 - 06:10 PM

looks like to me that the CM is looking tohave a schedule completed by a certain time. are they trying to cut corners to get there HAY

http://www.accforum....p?showtopic=855
0

#5 User is offline   ernie 

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

Posted 21 December 2004 - 06:18 PM

Well, a series of case managers, actually. The bizarre and sad thing about this case is that if they had provided him proper rehab at the start, they would have had him back into full-time work and off the books in a couple of years.

Instead, they have tried to cut corners the whole way through, he now has a chronic pain syndrome diagnosed as consequential on his original injury and, while he may eventually become vocationally independent for a period, will probably never be able to sustain this without ongoing rehab.

However, he will eventually reach the three year time limit set out in the Act for vocational rehab - despite how Mickey Mouse it has been to date, having provided only 1 1/2 years of sporadic vocational rehab in total over 7 years from his injury - after which they have no liability to provide any more, and then will be back on weekly compensation until he is 65 as a result of his consequent loss of vocational independence.
0

#6 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 21 December 2004 - 10:52 PM

Bens case is the same. Review says do a full TFI assessment and issue a new decision. nearly 2 years later another review says the same. This is a scam to keep delaying and denying entitlements and DRSL is involved. ACC have; Code of rights, complaints investigators, technical claims managers,DRSL and you still can't get any where. There is a whole industry set up around claims embezzlement. Needs assessors, Occupational vocational assessors,Initial medical assessors, Occupational medical specialists Vocational medical assessors, Pain clinics and on and on it goes
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1700
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 22 December 2004 - 10:24 AM

my own case is the same but with no rehabilitation. I have to fight for compensation all the time every time that vocational rehabilitation is requested.

in 1981 I had a paraspinal musculature problem which needed itme ti heal.. because ACC denied the make up compensation and them advising me of different advice fron Dr's i now have disc problem to add to the problem.

I've still got 3 years of vocational rehabilitationto come as yet.
0

#8 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3338
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:14 PM

Refresh
0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:53 PM

sadly, you will find once you get your IT sweep file....no matter how injured you are, the process will be hastened...and retried until exit is achieved!

guess why? cos the C/M's want their KPI bonus!

simple...we are their targets...
0

Share this topic:


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

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users