ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

...

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 04 May 2015 - 09:29 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 13 November 2016 - 01:19 PM

Mother with Down syndrome son wins right to sue ACC

CRAIG HOYLE

Last updated 12:58, November 13 2016


http://www.stuff.co....ight-to-sue-acc

A mother whose son has Down syndrome has won the right to sue ACC in what will be a landmark case.

She is fighting the corporation to cover her personal financial losses, which she suffered after becoming a full-time carer.

John Miller, a personal injury lawyer who specialises in ACC claims, isn't surprised the corporation is fighting her claim tooth and nail.

"It will be a tough case to win," he said. "But if it succeeds, it will open up liability for lots of families."

READ MORE
* Christchurch claimant says ACC system a 'money game'
* Fight for right to treatment for disabled teen makes headway in court of appeal

The woman's son was relatively high functioning as a child, and attended mainstream classes at primary school.

However he was segregated at the age of eight after he began to exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviour.

When he was 16 he revealed that he had been sexually abused as a child by a family member, who was subsequently convicted.

He was later diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the abuse.

The teen lived at a care facility for 10 years until he was 24 before moving back to live with his mother in 2004. It was decided he'd be better living with her as she could provide a safe and consistent environment.
Ad Feedback

ACC provided some support, but the mother insisted it did not go far enough; Miller explains that's a common sentiment among those who have to deal with ACC.

"Often the amount they pay for attendant care doesn't take into account the full-time work the family are called upon to put into caring for such a person," he said.

The mother claims she suffered financially and lost her business and home because all her time was spent caring for her son.

The corporation debated with her for several years over how much of his care needs were caused by his PTSD.

ACC refused to help her secure compensation payments, and also refused to pay for transport so the young man could attend scheduled group activities.

A neuropsychological assessment in 2007 found he needed more care than would be normal for someone with Down syndrome, due in part to the PTSD. ACC did not challenge a reviewer's decision that it had been wrong.

The mother now wants the corporation to pay up for the financial hardship she suffered while caring for her son.

Her lawyer said that ACC's failure to provide her with entitlements had a serious knock-on effect on the family's overall financial wellbeing.

Miller is dubious about whether the mother will get the payment she's seeking.

"Frankly, I don't think it has a great chance of success," he said. "But if they do win, then wonderful."

ACC has already tried to have the legal action thrown out, but that was rejected by Justice Patricia Courtney in the High Court at Auckland.

The civil case will now proceed.

- Stuff
0

#3 User is offline   Kewl 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 02-August 15

Posted 13 November 2016 - 03:37 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 13 November 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Mother with Down syndrome son wins right to sue ACC

CRAIG HOYLE

Last updated 12:58, November 13 2016


http://www.stuff.co....ight-to-sue-acc

A mother whose son has Down syndrome has won the right to sue ACC in what will be a landmark case.

She is fighting the corporation to cover her personal financial losses, which she suffered after becoming a full-time carer.

John Miller, a personal injury lawyer who specialises in ACC claims, isn't surprised the corporation is fighting her claim tooth and nail.

"It will be a tough case to win," he said. "But if it succeeds, it will open up liability for lots of families."

READ MORE
* Christchurch claimant says ACC system a 'money game'
* Fight for right to treatment for disabled teen makes headway in court of appeal

The woman's son was relatively high functioning as a child, and attended mainstream classes at primary school.

However he was segregated at the age of eight after he began to exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviour.

When he was 16 he revealed that he had been sexually abused as a child by a family member, who was subsequently convicted.

He was later diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the abuse.

The teen lived at a care facility for 10 years until he was 24 before moving back to live with his mother in 2004. It was decided he'd be better living with her as she could provide a safe and consistent environment.
Ad Feedback

ACC provided some support, but the mother insisted it did not go far enough; Miller explains that's a common sentiment among those who have to deal with ACC.

"Often the amount they pay for attendant care doesn't take into account the full-time work the family are called upon to put into caring for such a person," he said.

The mother claims she suffered financially and lost her business and home because all her time was spent caring for her son.

The corporation debated with her for several years over how much of his care needs were caused by his PTSD.

ACC refused to help her secure compensation payments, and also refused to pay for transport so the young man could attend scheduled group activities.

A neuropsychological assessment in 2007 found he needed more care than would be normal for someone with Down syndrome, due in part to the PTSD. ACC did not challenge a reviewer's decision that it had been wrong.

The mother now wants the corporation to pay up for the financial hardship she suffered while caring for her son.

Her lawyer said that ACC's failure to provide her with entitlements had a serious knock-on effect on the family's overall financial wellbeing.

Miller is dubious about whether the mother will get the payment she's seeking.

"Frankly, I don't think it has a great chance of success," he said. "But if they do win, then wonderful."

ACC has already tried to have the legal action thrown out, but that was rejected by Justice Patricia Courtney in the High Court at Auckland.

The civil case will now proceed.

- Stuff

It is a fascinating view to observe what was reported about insurance companies and their methods in the 2000's, from other sources such as " the Mouse That Roared" which explained gaslighting,unum and state farm insurance articles, to reports on the workers comp system in western australia, the James hardies asbestos issues in australia, similar stories from canada and more.
the article above writes about the intricate details of a persons traumatic experience for the public to examine and likely pass opinion on when at the same time the intricate machinery of each decision, data collection , whom influcences the structure of the operation of acc itself remains largely unsaid about

Of late, watching many sources of the american elections, Trump pointed to the media and corporate elite interrests so i have to wonder out aloud why nz's parliament did not enact design or create legislation to cover the full spectrum of the injury claims described above to have the affected people spared the public media spectacle examining them whilst facing legal costs and other life costs to face acc's public purse paid for lawyers " fight" this case.?? good question?

One has to question why such a case has to go to court with the claimants intimate details revealed whilst when one views this forum's history of all issues arising out of the current and previous acts - why or what and whose interests are being looked after that may be in the way of nz parliament to act on behalf of the people they are meant to represent by properly examining and enacting legislation to uphold the woodhouse principles, which were formed from the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry December 1967. Perhaps to gain a broader view, one aspect that has been missed is: what provoked the Royal Commission of Inquiry, what is that history?

For thought, from google " woodhouse principles acc" and variants thereof, sites such as https://fyi.org.nz/r...ouse-principles where the scanned copy of ACC's reply and attachments which include appendix 1, Extract of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry December 1967 https://fyi.org.nz/r...0Reply.pdf.html

The media article has not mentioned the forseeable and predictable issues surrounding the definition of personal injury and illness , in particular, the fifth guiding principle and the effect of administrative efficiency are somewhat missing from the article and by doing so would mislead the article reader.

As an added thought, it must be asked :
- Whom are the people , companies and full identities representing the " side" " fighting" and or opposing the " claimants"? the " " are added by deliberate thought.
- How much are their full employee / corporate / subcontractor / service fee / other not yet individually specified by exact definition direct and or indirect invoice and other arranged fees / purchases / invoicing and accountability of all monies spent on this full issue
- With the five eyes surveillance and nz waihopi et al, since all data can be captured , then it is plausible there exists a record of the administrative portion the bureaucracy which when expressed in all the media articles, review hearings, appeal court decisions et al and the entirety of the costs of the administration of such , for the avoidance of doubt, the intended and expressed understanding of this is in full harmony of examination of what was meant in the fifth guiding principle Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry December 1967 and the effect of administrative efficiency.

:lol:/>
1

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