ACCforum: Bogle v ACC 2015 NZACC 79 - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Bogle v ACC 2015 NZACC 79 Vocational Rehabilitation

#1 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 02 April 2015 - 06:20 PM

For members' info and use - this decision from Judge Powell has just been received. The Appellant gave her permission for me to post it here. It says some fairly damning things about ACC's Alexandra RIS unit, which won't surprise anyone who's had anything to do with it in recent years. Also: the Appellant completed her degree at the end of last year and gets capped next month. A long, hard battle that's not over completely but we're hopeful of a good outcome now.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 April 2015 - 04:30 PM

View PostSilenced!, on 02 April 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

Great work!! Well done Ms Bogle!! You are amazing undertaking a degree and taking on the ACC at the same time - how stressful!! Now you have completed your degree the IOA may have some meaning. From experience ACC and RIS Alexandra and SCU chose NOT to read anything on our claimant files ......

Gosh with RIS Alexandra getting a battering here and Sensitive Claims unit in K v ACC and R v ACC - it is amazing that the CEO still does nothing!?!?!?!

The win rates in the District Court at present are favouring claimants 2.5:1 so go figure ACC. You decisions are fundamentally flawed at all levels, including the OCI!


I have noticed a few cases coming thru recently undoing the wrongness done by the previous Judges last year. In particularly timeliness of getting application in for appeal DC and higher. The 21 days straight, incl. holidays.

This of course means that the law was not only being interpreted wrongly by the previous Judges, it will need all such cases to be reheard, to make sure they have been heard fairly and justly.

With the start of Kearney, this has meant, these wrongness's are beginning to show more and more. And hopefully this is but another way we have of receiving Justice as is supposed to happen.

MIni
1

#3 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 04 April 2015 - 01:30 AM

ACC's greater loss rate in the District Court probably explains why it is so keen to do away with appeals to it and replace it with a "Fairways" [sic] type tribunal.
1

#4 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 04 April 2015 - 09:44 AM

View PostMG, on 04 April 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

ACC's greater loss rate in the District Court probably explains why it is so keen to do away with appeals to it and replace it with a "Fairways" [sic] type tribunal.


Well something should be able to be done about our appalling access to Justice now that we have $37,000 working for us.

I certainly have just the case that takes in wrongness's from DRSL (Fairways) that was through to Special Leave. When one point of law doesn't fit they use another against me. BUt that is only one of many wrongness's.

Mini
0

#5 User is offline   china 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 05-April 15

Posted 07 April 2015 - 10:18 PM

where in judgement does it mention alexandra ris
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 08 April 2015 - 12:18 PM

View PostMG, on 04 April 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

ACC's greater loss rate in the District Court probably explains why it is so keen to do away with appeals to it and replace it with a "Fairways" [sic] type tribunal.
MG

Have you heard when the tribunal process will come in??

And will it mean no more Judges and good outcomes that we are seeing now?

Reply from anyone who has heard anything would be appreceiated.

mini
0

#7 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 09 April 2015 - 09:56 PM

Fairways are not very helpful either. Why?

View PostMINI, on 04 April 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

Well something should be able to be done about our appalling access to Justice now that we have $37,000 working for us.

I certainly have just the case that takes in wrongness's from DRSL (Fairways) that was through to Special Leave. When one point of law doesn't fit they use another against me. BUt that is only one of many wrongness's.

Mini

0

#8 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 10 April 2015 - 04:51 PM

View PostRosey, on 09 April 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

Fairways are not very helpful either. Why?


Maybe because they have shareholders who are govt dept and mInister in Parliament at 50/50 proportion each (you scratch my back, I will scratch yours), and have vested interest in ACC claimants not getting their entitlements so that they can skite about the extrodinary amount of income they have over expenditure ie Profit each year.

Watch and see if Fairways is Bought forward into the non-taxable income of ACC this year. There you have your answer, it has never been Independent from ACC and is not Now, if that is what happens.

Mini
0

#9 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 11 April 2015 - 11:46 AM

It's probably best to use the Fairways/statutory review process as a dummy run for District Court appeals, where claimants now have a better chance of winning. Eventually, a higher win-rate at the District Court, with its much higher costs regime, will raise questions about why reviewers aren't quashing more ACC decisions. Unless, of course, the government succeeds in its plans to scrap the right of appeal altogether and replace it with a Fairways-style kangaroo court, in which ACC "expects" to win a certain percentage of cases (current 80% with the Fairways reviews, but actually about 84%, as Fairways bends over backwards to keep its customer satisfied).
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 11 April 2015 - 02:04 PM

View PostMG, on 11 April 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

It's probably best to use the Fairways/statutory review process as a dummy run for District Court appeals, where claimants now have a better chance of winning. Eventually, a higher win-rate at the District Court, with its much higher costs regime, will raise questions about why reviewers aren't quashing more ACC decisions. Unless, of course, the government succeeds in its plans to scrap the right of appeal altogether and replace it with a Fairways-style kangaroo court, in which ACC "expects" to win a certain percentage of cases (current 80% with the Fairways reviews, but actually about 84%, as Fairways bends over backwards to keep its customer satisfied).


Well thing I for one would be expecting the $37,000 grant to be looking very closely at the extrodinarily close connection between these entities and any first year economics student would be able to tell you, that these entities are not working in arms length attitude, and one is simply making a way for the other to appear to be investigating the case twice on the behalf of the claimant, when it is in fact the same entity, doing both investigations to make sure the outcome is the same each time, and no discrepancies of unlawful action be it process or legal, is ever bought to light in the decision making, report writing.

It doesn't take much time or effort to actually look at the factual setting up of the entities involved. It should be all public knowledge, and therefore, able to be seen by a first year economics/accounting/company type student who is used to commercial law.

Start from there to begin to get any Justice at all. If Fairways is just slipping the profits back to ACC non-taxable income, then it is totally transparent isn't it. And nothing would have changed from DRSL times.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 13 April 2015 - 12:15 AM

It's up to Acclaim otago how they do their report and spend the grant. I don't think it's worth lobbying them to expand their work because of individual grievances. it's always the problem with this sort of thing.
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 13 April 2015 - 09:49 AM

MG

You are completely right of course. If the Donor wanted me to have the grant, they would have given it to me. And well done Otago for putting in such a request that has made them give the grant in the first place.

What I would like to see is the submission that was put in for the grant to be given. This would allow me to see if the concerns I have are in the criteria that was given in that document as part of the reasons it was given.

What I speak of is the set steps we take to Justice (so called) which not unique to me. We all have to do the same thing = disagree with decision, Review, DC etc etc. It is just that I have all the paper work to show what is going on and how it is being altered by ACC to allow the decisions to be in favour of "not paying any money" to us. ie wrongful action.

It is certainly not a unique happening to me. If anyone read what was coming through on this forum and overlooked the self-made happenings of naming defaming, criminal harassment, threatening etc, one can see easily that all major non-payments (justice) are the kind that have been going on for many years and they are the kind that rob claimants of their pocessions, houses etc, because they are not being paid as should be.

The increased tax on the backpaid w/c erc that have been denied wrongly is a very good example. The tax law that has been in since before ACC began that is used to rob us of our rightful amount of tax being deducted, is not meant to cover the likes of injured persons and yet it still goes on, many years later.

The fact that ACC does not allow us our right to be told what we are entitled too, is also intentionally used to deprive us of our rights, which in turn leaves us with a lot less than 80% of our income by the time it is paid to us, after we have found out by our own devices what we are entitled too and the lengths we have to go to know what those entitlements are.

There is no life except this one that then goes and names and defames and belittles people and threatening them just for their own agenda, whatever that happens to be.

While we fight hard to cover the latter and to get the entitlements we can, a few have the right to fight on everyone's behalf (not individually), but collectively for the most monies that have been commonly held from us because of ACC wrongness's, unlawfulness.

If this was to happen most of us would have no reason to belong to forums that we have no idea who runs them until it is too late, especially for as long as we do.

Lets face it most on here cannot afford to feed themselves properly, all because they have been paid wrongfully.

I would do anything to help Acclaim Otago. I am not critising them. I am hoping that at long last we will get the recognition as injuried persons that we deserve and that is the promise that has been made to "get us as close practicably to what we were, mentally, physically and financially, before we had the injuries, that have us reliant on ACC". If we had that very few of us would need any further financial assistance.

And besides I am not asking for anything than their own law already allows.

Concentrating on the payments we should be given for us to get Justice, is the most beneficial thing that grant can actually do for us. I am sure that if all workers saw and knew that their actual ACC Insurance fees didn't cover what is written in the Act, would be very amazed as I was when I found out that I did not receive any or all I was covered for.

Regards

Mini
0

Share this topic:


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

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