ACCforum: Alan Thomas case NZACC 332 (19 December 2014) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Alan Thomas case NZACC 332 (19 December 2014) 118 Appeals dismissed & *unless orders*

#121 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 January 2015 - 11:28 AM

I would take this time to help you get back to ground zero so you can form a foundation for your thoughts which will assist you understand the legal process.

ACC either make a decision I want to challenge or have delayed in the process to determine entitlements. The review hearing application is made.
Most of these applications ACC failed to arrange for a review hearing initiating the deemed decision in my favour outcome which is followed with further review hearing applications based on ACCs failure to comply with the deemed decision in my favour. Other hearings were set in a timely fashion and heard. Nonetheless we now have a large number of review hearing decisions going through to the district court.
ACC are required to provide the judge and myself a copy of the records including the reviewers notes, exhibits and transcripts.
Without the reviewers notes exhibits and transcripts it is impossible to produce submissions to the district court causing a long delay.
The judge seeks to clear the very extensive backlog by bypassing the legislation requiring the ACC to surrender the information. This is not lawful!
The Judge sets a deadline in regards to a prehearing matter and once the hundred and 118 cases altogether for this purpose. This is not lawful!
The judge Disregards the medical advice given to him by the medical profession stating that limited capacity. ACC did not submit any contrary medical information resulting in the judge only having my information to make a decision by. The judge is invited by myself to have a medical professional set with him on the bench in accordance with the legislation designed for this purpose. The judge refuses!
The judge then makes a decision based on his own personal viewpoint regarding medical matters which is not qualified to do and makes a decision to disregard the medical reports. This is not legal!
The judge set a time for 118 prehearing submissions are to be delivered without regard to the medical constraints.
I deliver my submissions to a delivery service on the day of the time set with the honest belief that this was the correct protocol which resulted in an automatic disposal of all 118 cases too much the same effect as a deemed decision only in the ACCs factor.
As the legislation I am entitled to ask for the applications to be reinstated in reliance upon the judges entitlement to use his discretion. The judge decided against using his discretion and maintain the status quo.

An appeal has been lodged.


Now I notice that this thread seems to be trying to address the merits of judge Powell decision not to reinstate the 118 appeals to the district court based on a one day late delivery. There are no other issues in law capable of being addressed. Judge Powell perception of the facts without benefit of a hearing is irrelevant to the appeal process with the only relevant issue being the elements of fact directly relation to the proper use of his discretion. He does seem to have allowed his imagination to prejudice the decision-making process. Nobody is perfect in a note even yourself is prone to do that is.
0

#122 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 25 January 2015 - 06:21 PM

Fran '
Explained many times - I have issues re answering to things closed up within others posts - hard for eyes to get back to the brain and then to type -back and forth etc and then remember what its all about when the fingers go to type
other things i can write as post which are from me directly out of my own thoughts.
A known quirk re head injuries fran.
id far rather do that -edit as best u can see it t be,than sit there like Thomas with a machine that stuffs up everything he dictates to it.

He injured so i put up with alan and his machines many errors and figure them all out -If it was a walking in on / site id be happy for you to softly walk in here with bare feet instead of demanding you wear shoes .

the sites for the injured as well as you mate and i use it as i can best i can
davePosted Image
0

#123 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 26 January 2015 - 09:05 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 25 January 2015 - 06:21 PM, said:

Fran '
Explained many times - I have issues re answering to things closed up within others posts - hard for eyes to get back to the brain and then to type -back and forth etc and then remember what its all about when the fingers go to type
other things i can write as post which are from me directly out of my own thoughts.
A known quirk re head injuries fran.
id far rather do that -edit as best u can see it t be,than sit there like Thomas with a machine that stuffs up everything he dictates to it.

He injured so i put up with alan and his machines many errors and figure them all out -If it was a walking in on / site id be happy for you to softly walk in here with bare feet instead of demanding you wear shoes .

the sites for the injured as well as you mate and i use it as i can best i can
davePosted Image


I copy and paste the post then write "Re:" in front of the parts I wish to comment on then when finished I delete what I don't comment on. As like ....

'
Re: "Explained many times - I have issues re answering to things closed up within others posts - hard for eyes to get back to the brain and then to type -back and forth etc and then remember what its all about when the fingers go to type
other things i can write as post which are from me directly out of my own thoughts."

What ever.

Re: "A known quirk re head injuries fran."

Put up some evidence that you have a brain injury Mr Butler. No disrespect to you but you have never provided any documents or the like to actually confirm you are injuried.

You keep asking everyone else for evidence etc so how about you doing the same for a change.
1

#124 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 January 2015 - 09:41 AM

Fran Get off David Butler's back it is obvious that he has suffered from a significant brain injury. We even see is disability affecting him to various degrees from month to month. You should have more empathy for the injured. He does his best with what he has got left.
0

#125 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 26 January 2015 - 10:01 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 January 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

Fran Get off David Butler's back it is obvious that he has suffered from a significant brain injury. We even see is disability affecting him to various degrees from month to month. You should have more empathy for the injured. He does his best with what he has got left.


Re: "Fran Get off David Butler's back it is obvious that he has suffered from a significant brain injury. We even see is disability affecting him to various degrees from month to month."

If it is ok for David Butler to keep asking others for evidence all the time it should be ok for us to ask the same from him Mr Thomas! If he has nothing to hide and is being honest with us then he will understand that.

Re: "You should have more empathy for the injured."

I do have Alan Thomas.

Re: "He does his best with what he has got left."

And so do I Mr Thomas but he (David Butler) seems to think I have no injuries!

So how about providing some evidence of your injuries Mr Butler.
1

#126 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 27 November 2015 - 02:05 PM

Add another case of ALAN (GORDON) THOMAS also known as Paradigam Shift on http://www.accforum.org to this list of cases to those dismissed.

It would be helpful if he is correctly named in all decisions as ALAN GORDON THOMAS so those also known by a similar name of ALAN THOMAS are not subjected to cases of mistaken identity and are subsequently tarred with the same brush.


Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 321 (28 October 2015)

Last Updated: 13 November 2015

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2015/321.html

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT AUCKLAND

[2015] NZACC 321 ACR 48/14

UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT

BETWEEN ALAN THOMAS

Appellant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent

Hearing: 10 June 2015

Evidence Completed: 3 July 2015

Appearances: The appellant in person

D Tuiqereqere for the respondent

Judgment: 28 October 2015
____________________________________________________________________


RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE DENESE HENARE

____________________________________________________________________

[1] This appeal arises from the Corporation’s decision of 13 August 2013 declining cover for an intracranial brain injury consequential to treatment. This decision was upheld at review.
[2] The decision was made on the basis the Corporation did not have sufficient information to make a proper decision because:

We didn’t receive the authority for the collection and disclosure form, we asked you for in our letter dated 30 July 2013, and had to make a decision on the limited amount of information we had.

Background

[3] In February 2011 Dr Richmond lodged a claim for a brain injury “suspected” arising from:

Arteriogram catheter study of right arm circulation developed loss of consciousness, followed by slurred speech on 11 August 1993.

[4] At the hearing Mr Thomas provided information which he stated supported his claim for cover, being:

[i] A note from radiologist Dr Rodgers regarding a right arm arterial DSA which is headed Greenlane Hospital Vascular Radiology and attached medical notes;
[ii] A report from R A Boas, anaesthetist and pain specialist dated 8 October 1999. Mr Boas noted:

He suffered an initial injury in December 1989 with extensive dislocation and disruption of his right wrist joint. Some three years later, surgery was undertaken to stabilise the joint by Mr Martin Rees with some functional improvement. Persisting neurological changes were then further investigated with an angiogram at Middlemore Hospital which led to some untoward cerebral vascular response and additional symptomatic and functional changes. These changes included speech slurring, further numbness on the right side, altered gait and mental deficits which persisted for some days but did not require any specific therapy or further investigation as I understand. In essence then, his presentation at this time was one of persisting symptomatic, behavioural, emotional and functional changes consequent to the primary wrist injury.

[iii] A report of 20 January 2000 from Dr Newburn who was approached to carry out a neuropsychiatric assessment. Dr Newburn noted that his report was based “on the history obtained from Mr Thomas, and various medical documents that he was able to provide me with”. The report noted a cluster of symptoms experienced by Mr Thomas.
[iv] A report of 8 February 2000 from Dr Emrys, occupational medicine specialist who stated he was approached by Mr Thomas in order to provide a report with regard to Mr Thomas’s “long term disability associated with an injury to his right wrist of December 1989”. Dr Emrys reported that the approach from Mr Thomas followed a “seven week trial with regard to his long term ACC payments and that he has been found guilty of fraud”. Mr Thomas requested Dr Emrys to provide an opinion on a number of issues. The history of the presenting complaint was recorded by Dr Emrys:

In 1993 Mr Thomas underwent investigation involving the vascular system of the right arm. He reports that a catheter was inserted at the right arm and he was aware of its presence in the vessels around his neck. He reports that within 30 minutes of that investigation he suffered various symptoms which appear to be vascular in origin. These included disassociation, inability to comprehend, slurred speech and incoordination or paralysis. He reports some improvement the following day but was aware of altered emotional state combined with feelings of elation and anger. Mr Thomas states that these symptoms improved significantly over the following three months, but he has been left with a number of minor neurological complaints including altered feeling on the right side of his face, persistent headache, and memory loss.

Dr Emrys considered that following his meeting with Mr Thomas and subsequent communications by email that “he retains an above average cognitive ability”.

[v] A CT scan of 1 May 2002 showing “mature left parietal white matter infarct but no other abnormality is identified”. The consultant gastroenterologist Mr Maharaj reported Mr Thomas was admitted to North Shore Hospital with right facial numbness and:

This problem recurred a few times during his two day stay in hospital and neurological examination remained normal. There was also no alteration of consciousness at any stage. According to Alan he was being investigated with angiography for vascular insufficiency of his right upper limb in 1993 when he developed a stroke. This resulted in paraesthesia and altered sensation involving the right side of his body including his right face.
Neurological examination during his hospitalisation in March remained normal. He was discharged on low dose aspirin and arrangements were made for outpatient investigations.
I saw Alan again on the 25th of October. Despite reassurances that no active pathology requiring intervention was found in his investigations, he remains concerned and indicated that he should have an MRI scan. He also wanted answers about the cause of his intermittent paraesthesia, whether we could assure him that it was safe for him to continue driving in the long term and whether he could be employed in jobs that required a high degree of intellectual input.

[vi] On 13 November 2002 Mr Hutchinson visiting neurologist saw Mr Thomas who reported:

In 1993 he had an angiogram of the right arm and this was complicated by a left parietal cerebral infarct. He was apparently transferred from Middlemore Hospital to Greenlane Hospital and was given 1v Heparin.
Since then he has had a wide range of symptoms. He has variable hesitancy of speech and variable numbness involving the right half of face. Thank you for including the list of 48 of his symptoms he had typed out. Most of these are clearly not attributable to a parietal infarct. ...
His mild speech and right facial sensory symptoms are perhaps the result of his stroke. This stroke can be attributed to the angiography and it does not require further investigation. In particular I do not see a role here for MRI. ...
Mr Thomas asked about some way of quantitating his speech disturbance. He is worried about taking on future employment and failing to perform satisfactorily. As far as I can tell his speech deficit is mild and should not cause him significant problems. Mr Thomas did not seem satisfied with this conclusion.

[vii] On 2 August 2004 Mr Hancock, pain specialist saw Mr Thomas on referral from Dr Richmond GP. After reporting the history Mr Hancock provided an opinion:

Opinion
Your patient is intensely involved, if not consumed, by his pain problem, but I don’t see him as suffering from a chronic pain syndrome. This is a loose term used to denote that the chronic pain is more to determined by psychosocial variables than biological ones. More usefully the term has been used for some specificity to determine the outcome in chronic pain where the patient has high pain, high disability and depression.
I am inclined to accept his own assessment that he is not depressed but feel that with suicidal ideation he should be under the wing of a competence psychologist – psychiatrist.

[5] On 31 July 2009 the Corporation provided deemed cover for “other conditions of brain” following injury on 3 August 1982.
[6] In July 2010 the Corporation wrote to Mr Thomas because he had returned an authority for the collection and disclosure of information form and “altered the consent”. Without this consent the Corporation advised it could not refer Mr Thomas for an independence allowance assessment. The Corporation also advised that it had sought other information with appropriate medical certificates and Mr Thomas had faxed a form to the Corporation that was “not fully legible”. The Corporation indicated it would prefer to arrange for copies of the form to be provided directly from Mr Thomas’s GP, and requested his consent to collect the information accordingly.
[7] On 29 August 2010 Mr Thomas wrote to the Corporation, advising a “medical mistake” as a result of surgery performed by Mr Rees in 1992:

When I first reported a problem to the ACC in 1993 before going to live in Fiji ACC responded that it would have cover under the wrist injury. This was confirmed again in 1994 to the Chinese case manager in Takapuna, then November 1995 and mid 1996 to Jan Lorier who repeated that the brain injury was as a consequence of the original wrist injury and did not need claim number as the second injury had cover under the 1989 wrist injury. In 2001 my general practitioner thought otherwise which was supported by the subsequent general practitioner over the following years who has made reference to this injury to the ACC. I am of the understanding that an ACC 45 form had been submitted.

[8] On 25 March 2011 the Corporation informed Mr Thomas it had insufficient evidence to support the claim:

Conclusion
ACC has considered the available medical records and concludes that there is insufficient evidence of an angiogram causing a claim to the left parietal infarct. There were no contemporaneous records on file which evidence that Mr Thomas underwent the angiogram in the late 1980s or early 1990s. In addition to this there are no contemporaneous medical records on file that evidence any adverse effects following an angiogram in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The only discussions of any concerns with an angiogram are made by treating physicians several years after the alleged incident and they appear to be relying on an account from Mr Thomas.
Furthermore the neurological assessment by Dr Hill in 2004 demonstrates that she is unable to explain his current condition. ACC has not been given consent by Mr Thomas to request any further medical records or expert opinion that would substantiate this claim.
Therefore based on the available medical records ACC is unable to establish a physical injury that has been caused by treatment. As such the criteria for a consequential injury are not met and accordingly this claim is declined for cover.

[9] Dr Willoughby, neurologist referred Mr Thomas to Dr MacNiven, clinical neuropsychologist. On 23 October 2014 Dr MacNiven noted Mr Thomas’s background that “he reportedly experienced a left parietal infarct occurring at the time of angiography in 1993”. Dr MacNiven recorded “that no old records are available”, conducted a number of tests, and reported that Mr Thomas’s cognitive performance was intact and that:

Alan’s reported history would also be consistent with a stroke affecting language, and other areas of executive and memory functioning in the early stages, with some improvement over a period of five or more years, and now some residual cognitive impairment associated with this event. Of course, it is not possible to definitively exclude alternative aetiologies for Alan’s current cognitive difficulties.

[10] On 15 January 2015 Dr Giado, Emergency Medicine Consultant at North Shore Hospital, wrote to Mr Thomas’s GP recording the clinical management of Mr Thomas following his self presentation to the hospital. He recorded the 1993 limb angiography and longstanding history of episodes of right facial numbness, difficulty “with word finding” but symptoms improving since his arrival in the hospital. Dr Giado noted these symptoms were associated with fatigue. Dr Giado’s advice to the GP was to refer Mr Thomas to neuropsychology for further psychological therapy to reduce symptoms.

The Case for Mr Thomas

[11] Mr Thomas submitted that he suffered a brain injury which arose from treatment (the angiogram) in 1993. Mr Thomas submitted that the Corporation attached the brain injury claim to the wrist injury claim number. Mr Thomas stated that:

In 1993 I applied to the ACC for the paperwork for cover for a new accident event and injury under the 1992 legislation that ACC refused to provide that paperwork and decided that because the brain injury was subsequent to treatment for the 1989 claim that the accident event injury and disability belonged to that original claim.

[12] Mr Thomas also submitted thirty months after his claim was lodged, in February 2011, the Corporation decided not to accept the claim alleging he had not provided consent for collection of information. Mr Thomas submitted he had provided such consent on many occasions. Mr Thomas submitted he was entitled to a deemed cover decision.

Review Decision

[13] On 23 December 2013 the Reviewer dismissed the review for reasons that Mr Thomas was not eligible for a deemed decision on cover, and the Corporation properly declined the claim because Mr Thomas did not provide the Corporation with an updated consent which “effectively shut down ACC’s ability to investigate the claim further”.

The Appeal

[14] The fundamental issue concerning Mr Thomas is his eligibility for cover for a brain injury suffered in 1993. At the hearing Mr Thomas provided the extensive documents referred to at paragraph [4] of this decision. At the hearing, I directed the Corporation to obtain further information in support of the claim as a result of Mr Thomas’ submissions, namely:

Mr Thomas stated that in or about 1994-1995 he sought cover for the 1993 brain injury and the Corporation advised him that he had cover for this condition.
Mr Thomas stated he had signed a consent form permitting the Corporation to investigate his 2011 claim for cover, subsequent to either the first review hearing (in July 2012) or subsequent to the second review hearing (in November 2013).

The Issues

[15] There are three major issues in the appeal:

[i] Whether the Corporation has already provided cover for the brain injury in 1993;
[ii] Whether there is deemed cover; and
[iii] Whether consent has been provided.

Discussion and Analysis

[16] There is no doubt that the evidence before me shows Mr Thomas’ interactions with the Corporation are difficult and somewhat confusing.
[17] The review decision of 12 January 2011 records that Mr Thomas has lodged more than 200 applications for review. In addition, there have been a number of appeals. Mr Thomas’ claims are managed by the Remote Claims Unit. The case manager there has felt bombarded with a series of emails from Mr Thomas as noted in the letter of 10 August 2012 from the Corporation. The email of 23 June 2015 indicates the case manager appreciates there is need to find ways “we can manage this particular case better”.
[18] It is the case too that many of the specialist reports point to Mr Thomas’ symptoms, worsened by stress and overwork. These reports indicate Mr Thomas’ stress and overwork appears to be channelled into his continuing battles with the Corporation. There is no doubt that new ways to manage Mr Thomas’ case are required.
[19] I turn to consider the issues.

Issue One - Whether the Corporation provided cover in 1994/95

[20] Subsequent to the appeal hearing, Mr Tuiqereqere provided a copy of Mr Thomas’ schedule of claimant injuries. Notwithstanding Mr Thomas’ submissions about errors and confusion caused by the Corporation in identifying his claims, it is clear there is no documentary report produced in evidence that the Corporation previously granted cover for a brain injury arising from the events in 1993.
[21] I conclude this issue is now eclipsed by the provision of consent by Mr Thomas which means the Corporation can now get on with investigating the claim, as discussed in the third issue of this decision.

Issue Two - Whether there is deemed cover

[22] Mr Thomas submitted he is entitled to a deemed cover decision under s 58 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) in respect to the claim lodged in February 2011. There are two difficulties arising in respect to this contention. First, the review decision of 12 August 2011 has determined Mr Thomas is not entitled to cover under s 57 or S 58 of the Act as the Corporation’s decision of 25 March 2011 (which declined cover) issued within the requisite timeframes under the Act. The 2011 review decision determining this issue has not been overturned and remains binding.
[23] Secondly, I accept the submission of Mr Tuiqereqere that the revised decision of 14 July 2011 did not restart the clock as contended by Mr Thomas because there is no provision under the legislation to revive s 58, once a decision has issued.
[24] In Van Helmond[1], the Corporation issued a decision on 7 July 2005, within the prescribed timeframes under s 57 and 58, determining that the claim for cover was in fact a duplicate. On 30 November 2006, the District Court, on appeal, quashed the Corporation’s decision determining it was not a duplicate. The Corporation subsequently investigated the claim and issued a decision on 13 July 2007 declining cover. The appellant sought cover under s 58 on the basis that the 2007 primary decision was not issued within the prescribed timeframes; the clock either starting from the date the claim was lodged in 2005 or restarting from the date of the District Court’s decision.
[25] The District Court rejected both arguments. Judge Joyce QC held:

[32] In the present case that which was the relevant claim (the one lodged on 5 July 2005) had initially been determined (albeit inappropriately as the Court subsequently held) well within time and no further claim had been made.
[33] There was no need for a further claim to be made (and none was) for the Court had then stepped in and required the Corporation fully to investigate and then to decide the claim afresh. It does not follow from that event (the Court’s intervention) that s 58 is to be recognised as having swung back ready for action, as it were.
...
[36] That on appeal the Court directed the Corporation to reconsider did not, in terms of any provision I can see in the statute, give s 58 revived effect.

[26] Thirdly, the letter of 14 July 2011 though noting that Mr Thomas had provided a copy of a radiological report of 11 August 1993 from Greenlane Hospital, indicated that the Corporation sought confirmation of consent to undertake further investigation.
[27] Fourthly, the information before me for the material time in 1993 is sparse. The information referred to at paragraph [4] from 1999 is incomplete. It appears the authors of the reports rely on Mr Thomas’ own accounts. It will be necessary for any contemporaneous information to be provided starting with the 11 August 1993 radiological report.

Conclusion

[28] For the reasons stated, the revocation of the decision on 25 March 2011 did not restart the clock in terms of the statutory timeframe for making a cover decision. I conclude Mr Thomas is not eligible for a deemed decision on cover.

Issue Three - Whether consent has been provided

[29] At the appeal hearing, Mr Thomas stated he provided a signed consent form to the Corporation to permit investigation of the 2011 claim for cover. The Corporation confirmed it received the signed consent form of 13 January 2014 and the Corporation is now in a position to investigate the 2011 claim. However, that consent was in respect of all of Mr Thomas’ claims.
[30] In the email of 23 June 2015, the Corporation considered it now has a valid consent but is exercising care not to embark on a “fishing expedition”. For this reason, the Corporation requested Mr Thomas to provide the names “of doctors, specialists, or places of treatment from which we can collect the required information”.
[31] Mr Thomas disputed that he has not provided consent in the past. First, Mr Thomas stated that the ACC 45 Claim Form of 2011 was signed by him and his doctor and that signed consent should have been made available to the Court, rather than an unsigned copy. Secondly, in Mr Thomas’ own words:

...the Corporation have little to no regard for the appellant’s consent by informing all and sundry that the appellant has an ACC claim when seeking further information from people not known to possess any information followed by the Corporation providing those individuals was more private information in order to solicit an opinion resulting in the Corporation claiming to them possess information used to challenge the medical profession in as much as assertions that the appellant is no longer incapacitated.

[32] It is apparent Mr Thomas’ concerns underscore why the Corporation’s approach to is to take care in its investigation. It is also the case that Mr Thomas’ letter to the Corporation of 12 March 2011 has put the Corporation on notice that:

Obviously the ACC legislation does not under any circumstance provide the ACC an unfettered information fishing licence that could potential gather all manner of information that they are not entitled to have. Should the ACC perceive the existence of any particular information and have any difficulty accessing that information please write to me detailing the nature of the information requested so as I may provide all necessary assistance with this assurances that I will establish proof beyond reasonable doubt of all information necessary for the proper management of the processing of my claim acceptance.

[33] There is no doubt Mr Thomas’ consent is provided subject to conditions. In any event, Mr Tuiqereqere’s further submissions of 30 June 2015 indicate the matter is resolved because the Corporation has acknowledged it now has a valid consent subject to acting within the parameters of the consent provided by Mr Thomas.
[34] Although the Corporation declined cover, as submitted by Mr Tuiqereqere, that is not the end of the matter (given the declinature was made on the basis the Corporation had not received the requisite consent and was unable to fully investigate the claim for cover). Now that the consent is to hand, the Corporation should get on with investigating the claim for cover, and when it has obtained all relevant medical information, make a new decision on cover.

Result

[35] For the reasons outlined, the appeal is dismissed.







Judge Denese Henare
District Court Judge
0

#127 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 September 2016 - 09:24 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 20 September 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

Just a quick update to the correct thread fyi

My apologies in advance as if I have missed any other rhetoric splattered in other threads etc Unfortunately I still can often find some of the convoluted machinegobbing that Alan practises to be difficult to follow for multiple reasons Posted Image




Can anyone claim any of the applications to be heard had a hearing?
0

#128 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 September 2016 - 10:48 AM

In reading Alan cases

There is
NO SUBSTANTIATING MEDICAL EVIDENCE

as all of Alan symptoms and purported reports are
self described and not difinitive diagnoses..

And no actual difinitive conclusive reports to match the self described symptoms

Stress and hyperventilation can mimic a TIA..
and can even cause temporary paralysis

You name it...
over the years in ICU/ CCU and the ED....

24 years clinical experience....



It's easy to spot someone who is genuinely unwell or in pain...

It's easy to spot someone who is pandering to munchausen syndrome...

Their "pain and suffering" is psychological rather than physiological


And acc has a tendancy to use the

Mental v Physical aspect of legislation as a way of saying:

The pain is all in your head as there is no longer a physically valid reason to be holding onto a "spent" injury...

So, with the profiling, know exactly who is genuine and who us not...

Self reporting is not medico legal diagnosis

Alan should stay away from "Doctor Google"
0

#129 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:50 AM

Animosity

You seem to be under the illusion that 118 application to the court had a hearing. Clearly you are wrong as these matters had only been subject to prehearing is and that the striking out involved were simply for yet another prehearing. The word prehearing does not mean a hearing but rather something before a hearing and as such there has been no hearing. I trust this clarifies your comprehension of the situation.

These applications for justice involved, in the main, review hearing applications of which the ACC failed to set down review hearings. The ACC legislation is superior to any opinion of the judge in as much as the only possible outcome is for these decisions to be rented in my favour. The applications to the court was seeking enforcement orders.. As these review hearing applications involves such matters as requirements for the ACC to carry out medical assessments by the medical assessors to determine the degree of incapacity which of course would undermine principal decisions of the ACC involving criminal prosecutions and convictions which would lead to convictions of their own staff in matters of perjury.

So why is it that 118 cases were held up by the registrar for up to 10 years? Why have so many obstacles being placed in the way of these cases proceeding? It would be understandable if there was one to anomalies but it simply is not credible that these 118 cases were individually subject to all manner of different obstacles unrelated to each other. When there are large numbers of unrelated driving forces against my interests and very detrimental to the ACC's interests, should these cases have proceeded, we cannot possibly conclude these delays and obstacles be attributed to myself. The only rational explanation is that there is another interested party causing a failure of my access to the judicial system.

Animosity you might very well think that because of my brain injury I am somehow stuffing things up for myself. My preparations and submissions had been checked by very well-qualified legal professionals who would disagree with you as out of all of the approaches I have made there appears to be only one mistake which is to rely upon other legal precedents that consider my submissions to have been delivered once the submissions have been delivered into the hands of a delivery service. Even if this is incorrect the judge still had the discretion to accept those submissions yet he elected not to use his discretion. One can only wonder why a judge of his standing word elect to throw 118 cases waiting patiently for up to 10 years in the rubbish bin along with my life.
0

#130 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 12:03 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 September 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

In reading Alan cases

There is
NO SUBSTANTIATING MEDICAL EVIDENCE

as all of Alan symptoms and purported reports are
self described and not difinitive diagnoses..

And no actual difinitive conclusive reports to match the self described symptoms

Stress and hyperventilation can mimic a TIA..
and can even cause temporary paralysis

You name it...
over the years in ICU/ CCU and the ED....

24 years clinical experience....



It's easy to spot someone who is genuinely unwell or in pain...

It's easy to spot someone who is pandering to munchausen syndrome...

Their "pain and suffering" is psychological rather than physiological


And acc has a tendancy to use the

Mental v Physical aspect of legislation as a way of saying:

The pain is all in your head as there is no longer a physically valid reason to be holding onto a "spent" injury...

So, with the profiling, know exactly who is genuine and who us not...

Self reporting is not medico legal diagnosis

Alan should stay away from "Doctor Google"


Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm not injured and incapacitated from returning to my preinjury occupation?

Without exception all the medical profession who have examined my injuries have reached the same conclusion in as much as there is significant and greatest damage that has not been repaired to my elbows, right wrist and hand. The chemical injuries remained unchallenged by the ACC despite the ACC toxicology unit explaining to the ACC that they needed to fund a toxicologist to produce a report if they want to form a different opinion. As for the brain injury each successive medical report produced by the treatment providers have continued to demonstrate significant damage. These assessors rely upon high-tech scanning equipment and very careful and in-depth clinical analysis.

We need to look at what the ACC legislation requires of the ACC and other decision-makers such as the courts for purposes of determining medical fact. We then need to see if ACC and the courts have been obedient to that criteria.

You speak of pain yet I have never complained about plain as being the basis of any claim. In fact I have never provided any reason why I cannot do my old job as this is always been done by the medical profession. Leaving me out of the factual equation like this disarms the ACC and the courts from any criticism against myself. For example when someone calls an ambulance for me and I say I am okay but the ambulance staff looking at the size of my pupils determine that because one is large and the other is small I am not okay take me to the hospital. When the hospital staff produce a report after the high-tech scanning equipment has been used confirming that I'm not okay and prescribed medication none of this is as a result of my self reporting. I think everyone is aware that it is not possible to manipulate the size of individual pupils nor fool an MRI scan. Yet sadly both ACC staff and even district Court judges have demonstrated, by way of extraordinary arrogance, that they know better than the medical professionals which cause absolute nincompoops in our community to be likewise foolled. Clearly those idiots in the community are being foolled not by others that a full list but rather by those who are corrupt as they are clearly educated and experienced to know better.

So Not Their Victim when two different review hearing offices in 1992 confirm I remain incapacitated and entitled while waiting for surgery we are not talking about some perceived pain or imaginary condition. We are talking about structural items that have broken that can only be addressed by way of surgery. This renders your entire argument irrelevant. Proof of your error is demonstrated in very recent times whereby I have received an artificial wrist joint. People do not get $40,000 artificial wrist joints because they perceive pain. What kind of idiots or monsters do you think surgeons are? Do you think ACC, judges and yourself no better than the surgeons based on your life experiences. This only serves to underline the magnitude of your arrogance and the arrogance of ACC and judges alike while also demonstrating total disobedience to the legislation requiring the submission to those who are authorised and qualified to provide information, the medical profession to the exclusion of yourself and your kind.
0

#131 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 September 2016 - 02:40 PM

Post up the latest photos Alan

As long as you use a real photo...!

Not one off the front page of an American orthopaedic magazine...

Also noted by the Judge!
0

#132 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 September 2016 - 02:45 PM

Ps

JUDGE HENARE STATED QUITE CLEARLY IT WAS AN APPEAL TO THE D/C THAT FAILED...

AND SHE GRACIOUSLY ALLOWED ALL OUT OF TIME 118 REVIEWS TO BE ADRESSED IN THE APPEAL

CASE CLOSED....
0

#133 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 03:06 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 September 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

Yup unfortunately I would agree NTV... even worse is the clear indiciations from multiple medical assessments that rather than "Stress and hyperventilation can mimic a TIA ... and can even cause temporary paralysis" ....


... that only 18 months ago Alan was told this and the consultant records back then that his GP should have referred Alan for more psychological therapy etc Mind you as Alan is now claiming that he is back working to his old profession, so it seems all of these alleged ^problems^ have now also been resolved thank goodness




FYI when I scanned his court material I noticed that there were at least NINE Specialists who have ALL indicated that Alan was selfreporting his symptoms. Worse is that it appears all of them also simply opined that they could find NO SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL EXPLANATION for his symptoms of alleged facial paralysis or speech impediments aside from fatigue or stress possibly ...




[10] On 15 January 2015 Dr Giado, Emergency Medicine Consultant at North Shore Hospital, wrote to Mr Thomas ’s GP recording the clinical management of Mr Thomas following his self presentation to the hospital. He recorded the 1993 limb angiography and longstanding history of episodes of right facial numbness, difficulty “with word finding” but symptoms improving since his arrival in the hospital. Dr Giado noted these symptoms were associated with fatigue. Dr Giado’s advice to the GP was to refer Mr Thomas to neuropsychology for further psychological therapy to reduce symptoms.




Sadly NTV, imho it appears that Alan usually blames his GP or other doctors for many of his circumstances & belief patterns by claiming that he merely holds out an arm and stays SILENT for them to do their thingy ... &or that he believes he would not also get surgery if not necessary etc TBH I find this somewhat astonishing as there have been various reports that Alan was closely involved with the cosmetic surgery industry in the past &or all intelligent ACC claimants already know how *money can talk* too sometimes ... and imho there will never ever be any surgeon on the planet who could, or should, guarantee 100% operation outcomes for any patients in the 21st century etc

Also ATM I am not sure how different each surgery has been to the other [or if some distinctions are simply due to medical technology advancements]... but yup like you, I fully expect every surgeon and every hospital will have the odd one or two of ^their cases^ like Alan etc I am not sure Alan will be able to discuss this information without Dr Google, but certainly his many court and medical reports already give various cues & clues imho




ps there is a recent case in MSM of a woman being jailed after her dreadful manipulations to have completely unnecessary operations performed on helpless children etc Sorry I am not sure if there has been any investigation into the doctors involved yet being reported ... but I am guessing they will all have undergone significant peer reviews rather than reimbursing taxpayers for wasting resources perhaps? Although if any operations were done privately it may then be a different pathway to recoup costs from this bad guy once they are released from jail etc


There is no relationship between the chemical injury and the brain damage. Once more I have never had any sign of hyperventilation Is the nature of the disorder I have prevented me from recognising CO2 buildup. It seems to me that you are both talking through a hole in your head. Only those who have been involved with clinical examination of any right to have any opinion.
0

#134 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 03:08 PM

There is no point in having any discussions with people who rely upon the opinions of those who are not qualified to have an opinion much less those individuals themselves.
0

#135 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 September 2016 - 03:27 PM

After having had Judge Henares full attention while explaining a Brief of Evidence concerning 700 elements of Malfeasance and Financial Fraud

I thoroughly admire her
Courage

Thoroughness

Interoretation of legislation

Points of law

Investigation over and above assessor reporting ie; contacting the Neurosurgeon and Pain Specialist to write her Medio Legal Conclusions

And her direction to open access to
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES....

so Akan Thomas

After reading your own contradictory musings
Pulling down contradictions when exposed to you
And 1400+ pages of rabid rantings

I'm more than qualified to state my opinion against you as you were begging me to help you overturn 2 criminal convictions

You had your appeal to DC...

You are done...
0

#136 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 03:38 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 September 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

After having had Judge Henares full attention while explaining a Brief of Evidence concerning 700 elements of Malfeasance and Financial Fraud

I thoroughly admire her
Courage

Thoroughness

Interoretation of legislation

Points of law

Investigation over and above assessor reporting ie; contacting the Neurosurgeon and Pain Specialist to write her Medio Legal Conclusions

And her direction to open access to
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES....

so Akan Thomas

After reading your own contradictory musings
Pulling down contradictions when exposed to you
And 1400+ pages of rabid rantings

I'm more than qualified to state my opinion against you as you were begging me to help you overturn 2 criminal convictions

You had your appeal to DC...

You are done...



How so.

Explain
0

#137 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 September 2016 - 03:50 PM

No

You are a self confessed expert on acc

If you can't read caselaw correctly and present irrefutable evidence..

Then I won't be helping you with anything

I'm too busy recouping ALL I LOST
As it was ACC that committed the fraud, not me...

Read, understood and reinstated by Judge Henare
0

#138 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 04:11 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 September 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

No

You are a self confessed expert on acc

If you can't read caselaw correctly and present irrefutable evidence..

Then I won't be helping you with anything

I'm too busy recouping ALL I LOST
As it was ACC that committed the fraud, not me...

Read, understood and reinstated by Judge Henare


The following appears to be remarkably similar to what is posted above found on another thread. Now why would anyone do that?

Alan Thomas is asking me to explain how court works

No

You are a self confessed expert on acc

If you can't read caselaw correctly and present irrefutable evidence..

Then I won't be helping you with anything

I'm too busy recouping ALL I LOST
As it was ACC that committed the fraud, not me...

Read, understood and reinstated by Judge Henare



I certainly would not be going to you to ask how the law works.

You seem to misunderstand a lot about what people are saying to you with the result that your inability to communicate creates confusion.

I was simply asking you to demonstrate your rationale in order to reach your conclusions.

You winning a case and my losing a case cannot possibly form the basis for you to think that you know more about the law than I do. This would be ill-conceived and totally irrational thinking.

In order to claim comprehension you need to demonstrate logs of connection and not anecdotal observations from which you draw assumptions.

If you don't understand what I have just written to you, ask a grown up.
0

#139 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 September 2016 - 05:24 PM

I don't want to grow up.....hahaha

I like what I'm able to achieve

The difference between us Alan


I have never ever used or misused any documentation

And....in spite of "lack of evidence"...
I was able to prove what was missing! ....

Also...in my case.....

it was illegal for a case manager to cross out my ird number

This was undiscovered until 2011...

Acc are embarassed, that one mistake, became a series of mistakes...

then rapid fire into covering their collective arse's once I discovered their MO....

OCI,'s lawyer stated theft of identity was of no consequence....

Boy was she wrong....

And now...the Judge has given me access to exemplary damages....

So...I don't need to grow up at all...

I just need to keep on track with my Criminal Malfeasance in Public Office

Papers nearly ready to file for Judicial Review...

And win she will.....




...
0

#140 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 05:47 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 September 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

I don't want to grow up.....hahaha

I like what I'm able to achieve

The difference between us Alan


I have never ever used or misused any documentation

And....in spite of "lack of evidence"...
I was able to prove what was missing! ....

Also...in my case.....

it was illegal for a case manager to cross out my ird number

This was undiscovered until 2011...

Acc are embarassed, that one mistake, became a series of mistakes...

then rapid fire into covering their collective arse's once I discovered their MO....

OCI,'s lawyer stated theft of identity was of no consequence....

Boy was she wrong....

And now...the Judge has given me access to exemplary damages....

So...I don't need to grow up at all...

I just need to keep on track with my Criminal Malfeasance in Public Office

Papers nearly ready to file for Judicial Review...

And win she will.....




...


You have not been able to address the issues I have raised nor make meaningful comment. I still recommend that you ask an adult the nature of these questions and issues raised.


Almost on a daily basis you are misusing the document is posted on the site for purposes of enhancing yourself at the cost of others. This is called fraud

How are you claiming that I have misused my medical certificates when all the medical profession have continued to supply me with the exact same medical certificates that were relied upon for a fraud prosecution? As the medical profession and the court have diametrically opposed viewpoints and the legislation requires both the ACC and the court to submit themselves to the medical opinions over and above their own how is it possible that I could have misused medical certificates?

Please explain


Have you considered the possibility that the ACC staff had established multiple accounts in your name, cancelled your entitlements with one account while keeping the other account a live with the funds from that entitlement funds from that second account being rebooted to their own personal accounts. This has been known to happen previously so why would you imagine it hasn't continued to happen in your case? Do you really think the ACC were making a series of mistakes or is it possible that the nonce is going on in your case was part of a cover-up? Stealing your identity is one thing but to to steal your entitlements as being the reason to steal your identity is another thing. Do you really think you know what is going on?

Why have you still not gone to the police to investigate through in full nature of what has happened to you? What are you afraid of?

I notice that you refer to yourself as a she when previously claimed to be a he. Is it possible that you are confused about this basic fact as well.
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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