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

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • 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*

#41 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:13 PM

also inputs of opinins , abuse , are still tolerated on the forum , apart from the whom has the right to intervene and wander off the subject matter which was originally intentioned
0

#42 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:17 PM

anonymousey

The majority of the cases before Powell J the reviewer claimed no jurisdiction and that it was found that the reviewer did have jurisdiction they were simply gone back to benefit from actual review hearings as required by legislation. For example if my doctor describes the need of an electric toothbrush and shaver in the ACC delayed in the process of deciding the matter then made a decision not to provide any entitlements without any form of assessment procedure to determine the need and entitlement and on there being a review hearing application for a reviewer to determine these entitlements with the reviewers saying as no jurisdiction because the ACC haven't issued a proper decision which has resulted in a district court appeal it is more probable than not that the judge would have decided that the reviewer did have the jurisdiction to determine the issue is leading up to the ACC declining the application for entitlements then the matter certainly would have gone back to the reviewer for a proper hearing or in the alternative the judge may simply have decided to determine the claim in my favour.

However there are a very large number of appeals that involved review hearing applications whereby the ACC had allowed three months to go by without setting a hearing which automates the decision in my favour. In cases such as these the issue is not whether or not the entitlement existed or even whether the reviewer had jurisdiction but only whether or not there was an application and whether or not three months went by. If ACC found that what is effectively a reviewers decision by way of deemed decision was wrong will then they would have to appeal to the district court themselves however they would certainly be well out of time as they to would have to make an application for an appeal within three months of the deemed decision. Most of the deemed decisions are in relation to the requirement for ACC to fund medical assessments and carry out various medical determinations for purposes of factoring into calculations that will in turn ddetermine other entitlements. These deemed decisions simply require ACC to fund medical assessments. ACC are extremely resistant to any kind of medical authority that determines degree of disability and incapacity with the reasons why they are resistant when the obvious to a large portion of the legal community.

I am therefore quite perplexed as to why you are so vigourously fighting on behalf of the ACC an argument that has no basis in fact or law!

0

#43 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:19 PM

bomb plots are out . positive thinking in. as in good inputs of advice , opinion . as in whom can give it on the forum as in if the forum can be of that of assisstance , if not does it matter
0

#44 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:22 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

As I pointed out you were wrong and you have never at any stage provided any form of evidence to support your false allegation. Why would anyone set out to falsify information and defames someone's name?

Well here's the list of your losses to date. neither false allegation nor defamatory


0

#45 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:23 PM

View Posttommy, on 22 January 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

i would apart of controversies of opinion among a few disgruntled claimants , the person of reckoning as in if a court hearing as in mr thomas , would then give an outcome of a if the man has credibility of a win or loss financially or vocationally


Unfortunately Tommy the ACC has taken upon itself to discredit claimants for the purposes of determining entitlements rather than the medical reporting which of course is completely illegal as it is simply another form of insurance fraud.
0

#46 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:26 PM

as anonymousy has reiterated your toothbrushes etc have been sidelinks to the overall of the overall of an ongoing saga of court inputs on your submissions which are presented and should be addressed in court
0

#47 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:29 PM

anonymousey

Your input into this thread is of absolutely no value if you get off the point which is addressing the issue of combining of 118 appeals into one hearing in total disregard of the medical advice concerning the impossibility of making submissions within the timeframe and then the failure to use discretion when that timeframe could not be met. As I pointed out both Barber J and Powell J have both used this technique of witch dunking which has been outlawed in, while for including New Zealand law for centuries.

It seems that you have put up the judgement for the purposes of ridicule rather than critique.

0

#48 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:33 PM

to add to your comment why are a few discredited to being in attempt to gain a successful outcome for themselves against the corporation. and as if as an insurer they are protecting their monetery coffers . as in difficult cases do not want to allow a precedent to arise
0

#49 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:34 PM

Redfox you failed to address the question.

Arguing results from false information doesn't in itself establish anything.

In order to address the merits of any given dispute on is to examine the legislated criteria against proven fact. That has not been done in fact perjury has been established by the individuals involved own statements under oath.

Judges who alter the ACC decision to a decision more of their liking and then rule on that are entirely out of order particularly when claiming an end of incapacity without having any idea whatsoever of the preinjury occupation to determine the safety to return to that occupation against all of the medical advice from highly qualified and experienced medical professionals. The judge of this calibre ridicules not in himself that the entire judicial system when claiming to have special magical type fairy dust powers of determining someone is a liar and has tricked all the medical profession in the medical profession don't use magic to imagine reality but rather use Xray, the and MRI scans in conjunction with actual surgery in order to report on real things and provide measurements and suchlike. What kind of a person places their imagination ahead of the medical profession and then boast about in the judgement?
0

#50 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:35 PM

View Posttommy, on 22 January 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

to add to your comment why are a few discredited to being in attempt to gain a successful outcome for themselves against the corporation. and as if as an insurer they are protecting their monetery coffers . as in difficult cases do not want to allow a precedent to arise


So are you pointing towards the propensity of the judiciary justifying insurance fraud by the insurance Corporation?
0

#51 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:37 PM

View Posttommy, on 22 January 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

as anonymousy has reiterated your toothbrushes etc have been sidelinks to the overall of the overall of an ongoing saga of court inputs on your submissions which are presented and should be addressed in court


Yes the toothbrush and the shaver episode was something of a test case where the legislated criteria in fact of the matter was absolutely straightforward but nobody could have possibly made any mistakes.

The failure to address such a simple issue in accordance with the law and the facts supplied by the best medical professionals truly demonstrates the overall impression and evasion of judicial duty and insurance liability by the parties involved by all manner of jiggery-pokery.
0

#52 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:49 PM

Red fox you have referred to 20 court decisions however you have failed to recognise the interrelationship between each of these decisions where some are related to preliminary issues to yet other ongoing issues.

Sadly we have a situation where one thing create ever-increasing complexity and further and further judicial involvement by way of jiggery-pokery. Insurance corporations throughout the world and perhaps throughout history have been guilty of unnecessarily compounding issues in order to create an overwhelming amount of court work to make it financially impossible for any claimant to achieve pay out on their claims.

The purpose of this site is to address the misbehaviour of the ACC particularly when the ACC abuses both the administration of the act and the judicial procedures designed to protect the act and the claimants entitlements in order to meet the spirit of the Act.
0

#53 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:50 PM

propensity of as you mentioned is a possibility allan , untill as in being challenged and won . like as most insurers do not want long standing cases accumulating to extremes of financial payements
0

#54 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:58 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

Redfox you failed to address the question.

Arguing results from false information doesn't in itself establish anything.

In order to address the merits of any given dispute on is to examine the legislated criteria against proven fact. That has not been done in fact perjury has been established by the individuals involved own statements under oath.

Judges who alter the ACC decision to a decision more of their liking and then rule on that are entirely out of order particularly when claiming an end of incapacity without having any idea whatsoever of the preinjury occupation to determine the safety to return to that occupation against all of the medical advice from highly qualified and experienced medical professionals. The judge of this calibre ridicules not in himself that the entire judicial system when claiming to have special magical type fairy dust powers of determining someone is a liar and has tricked all the medical profession in the medical profession don't use magic to imagine reality but rather use Xray, the and MRI scans in conjunction with actual surgery in order to report on real things and provide measurements and suchlike. What kind of a person places their imagination ahead of the medical profession and then boast about in the judgement?

What question

You accused me of falsifying information and defaming someones name.

I did not include your partial success in your 3 appeals to the highcourt because at the end of the day the case law set was disadvantageous to all ACC claimants.

Not something to be proud of!
0

#55 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:12 PM

View PostRedFox, on 22 January 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

What question

You accused me of falsifying information and defaming someones name.

I did not include your partial success in your 3 appeals to the highcourt because at the end of the day the case law set was disadvantageous to all ACC claimants.

Not something to be proud of!

agreed.
0

#56 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:17 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

Red fox you have referred to 20 court decisions however you have failed to recognise the interrelationship between each of these decisions where some are related to preliminary issues to yet other ongoing issues.

Sadly we have a situation where one thing create ever-increasing complexity and further and further judicial involvement by way of jiggery-pokery. Insurance corporations throughout the world and perhaps throughout history have been guilty of unnecessarily compounding issues in order to create an overwhelming amount of court work to make it financially impossible for any claimant to achieve pay out on their claims.

The purpose of this site is to address the misbehaviour of the ACC particularly when the ACC abuses both the administration of the act and the judicial procedures designed to protect the act and the claimants entitlements in order to meet the spirit of the Act.

And neither can any Judge in NZ. find that link either , in regards to Alan Thomas numerous court cases.?
0

#57 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:20 PM

View Posttommy, on 22 January 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

propensity of as you mentioned is a possibility allan , untill as in being challenged and won . like as most insurers do not want long standing cases accumulating to extremes of financial payements


Thats why we have the court system.
0

#58 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:28 PM

View Postgreg, on 22 January 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

And neither can any Judge in NZ. find that link either , in regards to Alan Thomas numerous court cases.?

For your edification Greg.


0

#59 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:36 PM

View PostRedFox, on 22 January 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

For your edification Greg.



Who cares ;; neither AT or Blurb are paid a weekly ACC payment and as you have stated some case law are now not in favour of ACC claimants.
'
0

#60 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10620
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:59 PM

View Postgreg, on 22 January 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

And neither can any Judge in NZ. find that link either , in regards to Alan Thomas numerous court cases.?


The situation is extraordinarily simple.
The ACC have accepted coverfor numerous accident events resulting in injury while I was an earner.
The only issue is whether or not the medical profession sloppily diagnosed the degree of incapacity For the purposes of determining the degree in an incapacity to return to the preinjury occupation and the numerous entitlements.
In other words the bottomline is in my injured or not.

There appears to be an extraordinary high level of effort by both the ACC and the judiciary to avoid coming into contact with any medical evidence. This is involved all manner of different legal backward somersaults whereby the substantive issues (medical reports) are simply not heard.
ACC for example transferred my claims file from case management to fraud investigation and the fraud investigation acknowledging court they had no interest whatsoever in anything medical and made a decision to cancel the claim is based entirely upon the assumptions made by members of the public. When examining those members of the public in court they confirmed that the information ACC presented to the court was in fact not true. For example the ACC forensic accountant was relied upon by the ACC to the extent that the ACC claimed income of $1.3 million but when the frantic accountant was examined he said bollocks or words to that effect. It was discovered that ACC obtained a search warrant to find the information and then not only did not provided information to the frenzied accountant but went to great lengths to hide that information from the court and refused to return the information to me so I could present it. The ACC claim that I was the manager of the company I owned based on their primary witness claiming this to be the case yet when their primary witness was examined under oath and asked to show the exhibits to the court it was confirmed that not only was I not his employer but that my former partner employed and when she left the actually did become the manager and promoted himself as the manager and even went on to set up an opposition company to my company which he was managing a further confessed to the court that he embezzled money clients, intellectual property and even transferred the staff and is managing my company into his own yet bizarrely Barber J found him to be a credible witness despite committing massive levels of crime involving all manner of things including perjury, embezzlement and suchlike. What I have noticed is the high incidence of the ACC fraud investigation unit encouraging the managers of companies who are managing behalf of ACC claimants to take over the company owned by injured claimants and lie about them court. Undoubtedly this dishonest behaviour comes about because people think the ACC will provide them ultimate protection when in fact the ACC is just using them as a firewall or buffer zone from prosecution themselves whereby the ACC ensure that other people lie instead of themselves.

In the ACC bundle large numbers of cases together, rely upon the defamation of character that brings the claimant into disrepute to the extent that the massive volume of allegations being brought against the ACC claimant appears to be overwhelming the claimants case whereby the court simply disregards the fundamentals such as whether or not the claimant is actually injured.

I'm very surprised that so many people are so gullible so much of the time.

But then we must remember the purpose of this Internet site whereby we examine actual fact rather than the ACC propaganda in attempts of social engineering. Sad to say that many members of the site have fallen into a negative category.
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • 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