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

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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*

#61 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 22 January 2015 - 06:05 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

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.

Find a judge to believe you.?
1

#62 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1921
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 06:25 PM

whoms protecting whom . greg whether its judicial . personal or whatever if mr thomas like any one ese has an input . should it be disregarded or i am off topic
0

#63 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1921
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 06:39 PM

tenacity can prevail if
0

#64 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 22 January 2015 - 06:55 PM

 tommy, on 22 January 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

whoms protecting whom . greg whether its judicial . personal or whatever if mr thomas like any one ese has an input . should it be disregarded or i am off topic

If a judge in NZ believed any of his claims were real , then the case should be reopened ?.
1

#65 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 07:05 PM

 greg, on 22 January 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

Find a judge to believe you.?


The problem is not only a judge to believe me but rather a judge to hear me.
The persistent problem I have had is that the ACC have always managed to be one step ahead of the judicial procedure and prevent the judge from ever seeing any form of exhibits such as medical reports.

The Court of Appeal expressed concern that it would be a pity for the junior courts to be continuing to Be making decisions based on jurisdictional issues and failing to hit the substantive issues. Obviously we are rapidly heading back in the direction whereby insurance companies would manipulate judicial procedures to prevent hearing of the substantive matters which caused the ACC to come into existence in the first place. However now we are worse off because we have one insurance company that is a monopoly.
0

#66 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 07:07 PM

 tommy, on 22 January 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

whoms protecting whom . greg whether its judicial . personal or whatever if mr thomas like any one ese has an input . should it be disregarded or i am off topic


You are not off topic because this topic is about the ACC arranging the court to hear 118 jurisdictional issues resulting in the court not hearing my Appeal. Naturally I feel justice has been defeated with the use of a technicality that could have been so easily overcome by the judge using discretion to ensure that substantive matters are heard, seem to be heard and I most certainly the primary reason for the courts existence rather than becoming preoccupied with administrative matters.
0

#67 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 07:10 PM

 greg, on 22 January 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

If a judge in NZ believed any of his claims were real , then the case should be reopened ?.


Absolutely correct.

The problem is ACC are doing all they can to prevent anybody looking at the actual facts of the matter.

In essence whole matter gets back to whether or not I can return to my preinjury occupation with an artificial wrist joint or at the time of the ACCs decision to cancel my claim when I did not have an artificial wrist joint. The wrist joint increases by incapacity from zero up to 4 KG. My preinjury occupation requires more than four KG therefore itsince then injured have I ever had a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation and as it happens never will have which explains why the ACC are so desperate to get me off the box because there is no opportunity for someone who is permanently incapacitated under the 1982 legislation to ever be removed from the ACC liability.


Greg the reason why there is a large number of appeals is that the ACC keep on ignoring the doctors requests for medical intervention funding and suchlike. Senior ACC staff have acknowledged liability to carry out various procedures, issue decisions for this to happen but it never happens creating a delay of process of which under the current legislation can go to review hearing. Put simply the ACC are desperate not to hear any information that challenges the assumptions of their informants. The ACC are additionally desperate to keep intact the illegal practice of relying upon unqualified assumptions from members of public as an alternative to the medical profession. It involves not just millions of dollars but billions of dollars
0

#68 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 22 January 2015 - 07:34 PM

Who cares Find a Judge...
1

#69 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:14 PM

The future of many unknown ACC Claimants will depend on what Mr Thomas does next in the Courts system.
Can ACCForum.org future Claimants rely on Mr Thomas to do the right thing for These claimants?
0

#70 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:55 PM

 greg, on 22 January 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

The future of many unknown ACC Claimants will depend on what Mr Thomas does next in the Courts system.
Can ACCForum.org future Claimants rely on Mr Thomas to do the right thing for These claimants?


So do you want to help the future claimants?
0

#71 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:11 PM

With postings that contain this type of material as follows it is absolutely clear that your postings are complete windup and that you have absolutely no intention of being responsible member of the site addressing ACC issues with any form of integrity. You madam are the scum of the earth.
ATM I am not sure which claim you have linked to eg

Why a toothbrush for an alleged covered PTSD claim? or
Why a toothbrush for an alleged covered chemical injury? or
Why a toothbrush for an alleged covered brain injury?

I also have no idea how your friendly doctor would properly evidence a specific causal link to these alleged injuries either ..........


You are completely aware that I have an accepted claim for a elbows wrist and hand injury with the most serious part being that my hand was nearly separated from my arm and there has been very little structure left by which I have any form of stability. If I have no work capacity to command a keyboard or mouse in a reasonable fashion how on earth can I safely shave myself or brush my teeth without hope myself in the eye. Even the ACCs own home help assessor made recommendations to the ACC to follow the medical professionals guidance to the ACC to assist me with an electric shaver and toothbrush. At the same time the ACC did accept another suggestion which was to provide me with an electric can opener and jar opener, which by the way they never paid for.

Why then would you refer to other accepted claims in reference to toothbrush and shaver Unless of course you are making a direct attempt to manipulate the reader of your postings into believing that the ACC had some form of basis for denying the necessities of life with every single element of the claim including the payment for the maximum dose of opiate type medication?



0

#72 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2015 - 12:56 PM

 anonymousey, on 23 January 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

FYI Alan Understanding some simple different processes in law and discussion relating to Burden of Proof issues

http://en.wikipedia....entation_theory

##For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.

##In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.


Please stop blagging your same old same old noisy nonsensical static Alan. Please describe evidence or valid sound cogent arguments to support your statements and opinions concerning this Decision from Judge Powell- and facts for your claims and blah blah ...........


With regards to your extensive interests in my case which is clearly involved vast research on your behalf have you found how the ACC burden of proof has been expressed by the ACC when challenging the 1992 review hearing decision, that remains binding until they do, and what evidence they used to cancel my claim in 1997 and what evidence they used to secure a criminal conviction and what evidence they used to report their decision during the of appeal to the district court?

Are you aware that there have been over six review hearing decisions in my favour concerning this claim with the most recent three wins requiring ACC to carry out medical reassessment to determine the degree of disability as they have never done that. In fact for the last three or four years each time the reviewer has given ACC 20 days to start the assessment process.


Are you in agreement that the legislation only requires me to provide a medical report in the form of the ACC 45 and ACC 18 forms and once accepted the ACC are required to fund any subsequent medical assessment if they disagree with the information contained within those two forms. In other words legislation states that my burden of proof is to simply provide the ACC 45 form and ACC 18 forms.
0

#73 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2015 - 02:33 PM


anonymousey
If you are claiming to have a good memory you would remember that the 1992 review hearing decision remains binding until the present. The ACC have reconfirmed this many times including agreeing to pay for the surgery, pain medication, home help and suchlike. As for the decision itself ACC certainly has not tampered with the 1992 reviewers decision at all but made a completely different decision. In other words they cancelled the claim on the basis that they possessed information I was working and certainly not anything to do with the 1992 review hearing decision concerning my continuing to be incapacitated until the ACC funded reconstructive surgery.

Although the wording of the 1997 decision letter claimed to totally declining the claim repeatedly the ACC have stated to the appeal Court that they have not. The ACC have been asked to rescind their 1997 decision and issue a new decision but they have left the situation with the original decision still remaining standing while re-explaining the decision to the effect that they did not rely upon s78 to cancel the claim but rather relied upon s37A to assert that I was no longer incapacitated even though they had not carried out any s37A assessment procedure. Confused? Of course you are and so I but that is what is on the documents up until the present, no clear decision yet the status quo remains.

The reason ACC have not clarified the decision is that they do not want any specifics laid down that would be exposed to challenge.

You have replied with the answer yes to clarification about what evidence you have perceived without you actually showing in the evidence.

You seem to be extremely prejudice to the extent that you have given yourself permission to completely ignore the evidence. If you do not know the evidence to both sides and how the judiciary interpreted that evidence you have no ability whatsoever to make any rational comment. Your imagination is of no value whatsoever.


Perhaps you shouldvery carefully read Barber J decision to see if he actually looked at a single shred of evidence I submitted to the court. You won't find anything let alone any submission that I put before him. All you will see is ACCs interpretation given to the judge in their submissions being referred to.

When we come to Powell J you will of course recognise that as no hearing exactly taken place regarding the substantive matters noted that the matters were ever before the judge for him to make any comment. Speculations as to what I might present is of no value.

Once the ACC have accepted the claim for cover under ACC 45 in the ACC continue to accept ACC 18 medical certificates are you able to point to any legislation that describes any additional information the appellant is required provide the ACC their own cost. Of course I'm not referring to a claimant making themselves available to ACC and their assessors for examination as that involves the ACC burden of proof, not the claimant.


Another question for you. If the only medical information on the file has originated from the claimant and the ACC have not obtained any contrary medical evidence is there any basis of law by which the ACC can cancel or suspend entitlements? This will clarify your thinking. Please refer to legislation in relation to the statements you have made concerning the claimants foundation information in ACC 45 and ACC 18 forms signed off by medical professionals.
0

#74 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2015 - 06:12 PM


anonymousey
I tried to encourage you to go back to see what the legislation stays and then work from there in order that you avoid making assumptions based on speculations and in seeking fragments to support your irrationality. You have failed to hit my counsel and so therefore there is nothing more I can do to help you comprehend the nature of what has been happening.



0

#75 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2015 - 06:17 PM


anonymousey
I tried to encourage you to go back to see what the legislation stays and then work from there in order that you avoid making assumptions based on speculations and in seeking fragments to support your irrationality. You have failed to hit my counsel and so therefore there is nothing more I can do to help you comprehend the nature of what has been happening.




When you get down to the very basics of the biokinetics involving my injury when the surgeon says no capacity prior to the surgery and then raises the capacity to 4 KG we see here very firm scientific basis for the fact that I am unable to perform the tasks of my preinjury occupation as a capacity requires more than 4 KG. The ACC have now received this information and I have requested that they remake their disentitled decision based on that proof beyond reasonable doubt information. Am still waiting for ACCs answer which legislation requires them to make. There is no possibility that the ACC can have any legal basis or factual argument to the scientifically argued objective fact. I tried to get you to look at the various elements of this case but you wiggled and squiggled to support your wibbly wobbly rationale for no other reason to attack me and support the ACC. Only a person with an evil mind behaves that way.



0

#76 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2015 - 09:18 PM

Are you saying that I should agree with ACC and the judges
and
Are you saying that I should disagree with the whole medical profesion?

Are you saying that I should not be correcting the ACC and judges?

Why don't you acknowledge that as I have had an artificial wrist joint that only gives me four KG and that my pre-work activities which required more than four KG at no stage was ever possible that my injuries could have resolved which can only result in the confirmation of the ACC liability which means that the ACC have been producing false documents and committing perjury to mislead the judges While at the same time seriously defaming my name in socially and hearing the likes of yourself to believe that all of these court cases have been a serious breach of human rights being is not just to my own in an extraordinary large number of fellow claimants? Please give reasons for your answer supported by legislation. When you go through this process you are going to realise the impossibility of both Barber J and Powell J decisions which by all accounts are completely and utterly abusive in as much as the way they had gone about business fragmented disabled people entirely unable to gain access to the judicial system by what can only be described as witch dunking as the mechanism they have followed to get where they have got.
0

#77 User is offline   RedFox 

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

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:48 AM

 Alan 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.


Can anyone identify who on earth Alan seems to think has lied under oath in the Powell Judgement?
................................

The only witness who committed perjury under Oath was Mr Davey a witness appearing for Alan Thomas

[303] Under cross-examination, Mr Davey could not recall many (if not most) of the conversations and events that were described in his affidavit. Following Mr Davey's above concession on 2 December 2008, many paragraphs were deleted from the affidavit as Ms. Davey accepted he could not have had any knowledge of the these matters (they were described as having occurred at a time when Mr Davey had no contact with the appellant) — including paragraphs 22, 24-31 of the affidavit.
[304] Mr Davey had signed an affidavit attesting to events and circumstances that he had no personal knowledge of. If Mr Davey had properly read his affidavit, before signing the same, he should not have signed the document. Mr Tui submitted that the entire document ought to be disregarded and that Mr Davey's execution of a document that he clearly had little knowledge of reflects on the appellant's conduct as well. It is clear that the appellant was involved in the preparation of the affidavit (both Mr Davey and the appellant acknowledged the same). The appellant would have been aware that Mr Davey was attesting to the matters not within Mr Davey's personal knowledge.

0

#78 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 11:10 AM

In order for a witness to come forward the court first considers an affidavit which will be discussed with the witness who will be examined. Mr Davey Was fully involved with the preparation of his affidavit and signed it. The ACC barrister successfully bamboozled and confused Mr Davey, as they do, who could not remember why not to comparatively insignificant points on the affidavit such as the number of rounds which I had in my private accommodation. This type of information has absolutely no relevance to whether or not ACC still have a liability and does not contribute very much towards identifying witnesses credibility yet we do see this type of bias throughout the judgement issued to the extent that ACC witnesses who had never seen what I was doing with my time before I was injured claimed that I could carry out my work with one hand tied behind my back in his affidavit and also could not even describe the type of equipment that was being built which of course is exactly on point yet his evidence was accepted that the man who could not remember the number of charts is in my accommodation 10 years later evidence was not accepted. Go figure.

The connection between judge Barbers judgement and the prehearing decision of Judge Powell is that Judge Powell has relied upon judge Barber's judgement when speculating what my submissions may or may not be about in order to justify not using his discretion. At the moment that judgement is awaiting leave to appeal to the High Court.
0

#79 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 11:11 AM

 anonymousey, on 23 January 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

NO
&
NO



The answer to those two questions were to set the stage for the following questions which you have not yet answered. Failing to answer them cripples your integrity as a person being prepared to address issues in a meaningful way.
0

#80 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 January 2015 - 01:30 PM

 RedFox, on 22 January 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

For your edification Greg.




Doesn't anyone of you wonder why the first case of Thomas is in 2003 but he was taken off ACC for fraud in 1998. For five year all that happen was the civil case. No one challenaged ACC for anything at all. Totally unbelievable. Wag the tongue, whinge and moan, but never ask them through the law why sec 71, 73a and 73b were never carried out. Never ask for a capacity test through the ACC courts. This would have solved the problem instantly if Alan Thomas was correct that he could not work.

Never even think of asking for a occupational test from a well respected specialist, using his own money. (which he had, remember the $10,000 difference in the bank accounts.)

Also remember that this claimant had been many years on ACC w/c and knew the ropes so well that he had a grant from them for education in business. So he was not a newbie who knew nothing of ACC act and what was allowed and what was not. This is but a small bit of what the judge took into consideration.

Why did he have no Lawyer who was actually dedicated to the ACC law, and no occupational specialist report to use as defence?

The questions are endless and pointless to go over again on here for the umpteenth time.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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