[tommy]

as in obtaining factual evidence is now the next couples involvement if they choose to venture forward with the outcome of the courts decision," GUILTY"

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 20 November 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

as in obtaining factual evidence is now the next couples involvement if they choose to venture forward with the outcome of the courts decision," GUILTY"

Not quite correct. For the ACC to be claiming Fraud In order to achieve an entitlement overpayment the ACC now required to submit to the court the actual amount. At this stage the court will have heard a whole lot of numbers and figures bandied about by legislation requires ACC to carry out the abatement of earnings calculation and as you know this is a purely mathematical calculation based on proof beyond reasonable fact evidence rather than the very generalised arm waving that will have gone on in the court to create all manner of impressions. For example did this gentleman rebuild engines or in his capacity as the owner of the company did he just go down to the workshop one day to see what a staff were doing and made a few observations and/or comments resulting in them personally generating earnings for himself as opposed to the company he owned in a manner of a director satisfying himself that the company was still remaining solvent etc. if there were earnings were those earnings in the capacity as an employee of the company or as a director. There is a considerable difference in the way these calculations are done.

Whether or not he went beyond the instructions made on the medical certificates designed to prevent additional harm is entirely irrelevant as the ACC would have added duty to bring any information to his attention so as he does not harm himself by disobeying Dr's instructions. it is commonplace for enthusiastic business owners to not be able to resist the urge to maintain some form of involvement with their companies by working beyond the medical instructions. This in no way enables the ACC to assume the fellow was no longer incapacitated and therefore not entitled to his ERC.

Now that it is time for sentencing because the court believes he's been a naughty boy the court needs to know exactly how naughty so as to determine whether he should have a small fine, under tension or imprisonment. As the sum involved exceeds $500,000 he faces the full weight of the law and could very well find himself receiving a sentence of 5 to 7 years incarceration.

The issue is therefore not what he received from ACC but rather the abatement earnings calculation of which the ACC claim they were unable to discount from as earnings compensation. With the ACC entitled to discount 100% of the ERC or did this fellow only take a monitoring activity of his own company, carried out some work task activities but did not pay himself. The sentencing hearing should be a rather complex procedure that should take quite a number of days.

[Kewl]

what a fucked up mind world it is.


what did you do to intentiuonally bring a smile to someone elses face. Try it without expectation of return.
now turn off the computer.
step away

go for a walk
engage happy people

dont fuck around with the need to be right

be rich instead

[tommy]

getting back to allans repsonse of being injured and in receipt of erc , workers compo , is it not the claimant to let the corporation know of ones activities , as in pre injury occupation activities and involvement , and then not why was the claimant awarded erc originally as not being able to return to their preinjury status and hence if not after the amount of time after injury be given the opportuniyy to participate in a rehab vocational programme , and then the abatements are or not lawfull can be taken into the equation at a later stage

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 21 November 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:

getting back to allans repsonse of being injured and in receipt of erc , workers compo , is it not the claimant to let the corporation know of ones activities , as in pre injury occupation activities and involvement , and then not why was the claimant awarded erc originally as not being able to return to their preinjury status and hence if not after the amount of time after injury be given the opportuniyy to participate in a rehab vocational programme , and then the abatements are or not lawfull can be taken into the equation at a later stage

Failure to disclose information to the ACC comes under the entirely different section of legislation. Rather than a fraud prosecution the ACC would need to address that issue under the ACC act itself of which there is a potential for only three months imprisonment and/or a fine. In this case the claimant asserts that he did informed the ACC of his ownership of a company and has minor involvement. The issue here is the ACC alleged that he was working but we full-time and therefore not disabled from his preinjury occupation.

The question of law to determine fact involves "the quantum" or the amount. It seems to me that the ACC have not yet disclosed this amount but in order to put the matter before a judge on a sentencing hearing they will now be required to in a definitive way. In other words they achieved a conviction based on generalities but will need to be specific for purposes of sentencing which of course is essential for purposes of reparation as a false claim for the entire amount without any evidence would be a fraudulent claim by the ACC making the ACC the fraudsters and for this reason the ACC must be accurate. In the burn case the ACC waited until after the fellow had served time in prison at which time judge BT made a decision that the ACC had got it wrong and that the man did not owe the ACC anything. This would mean that every did not owe anything then he had not committed fraud as you cannot commit fraud to gain nothing.

Tommy the ACC simply can't make a decision after the fact concerning abatements. Legislation require them to make it upon receipt of the information they rely upon. This leads me to believe that the ACC have not made this necessary calculation yet and will have the whole thing uncovered once they do try to carry out this calculation. For example if the fellow convicted is correct that he was not working and that there is no information from working then there can be no information about earnings for purposes of calculating abatement of earnings. I simply wonder what the ACC and the legal counsel with thinking when they took this matter to court. Worse than that I wonder what this fellows legal counsel was doing and whether or not they were sleeping on the job.

[tommy]

and as mentioned allan in as not disclosing information as is primarily is how the claimant has an investigative case
as in an insurers perspective of being or not being fraudulent . as in being awarded erc , workers compo as in the claimant making a claim originallt

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 21 November 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

and as mentioned allan in as not disclosing information as is primarily is how the claimant has an investigative case
as in an insurers perspective of being or not being fraudulent . as in being awarded erc , workers compo as in the claimant making a claim originallt

Tommy
How is this claimant meant to confess that he was working and provide information that he was working describing the alleged work and earnings when he was not working?
The ACC have not identified actual work task activities to support full-time work or earnings.
the conviction decision was based on a hypothesis based on the assumptions of the ACC informants only from which the court extrapolated further assumptions.
Now the ACC must provide empirical evidence in the form of the actual earnings before the court may determine the degree of criminal offending. For example that the earned $10 the judge would tell he was a naughty boy but if he earned $1 million he would go to jail for a long time. What the ACC have described instead of earnings while the ACC have paid in during this time. The two sums of money are not interchangeable for the purposes of abatement of earnings which first must be cut later before the judges permitted to determine what percentage should be.

[tommy]

as you mentioned allan , "informants" were they primarily responsible for the investigative procedure to initiate the couples tasks of duties associated or not associated with the buisness , to precipitate the corporations involvement , once this is initiated , it revolves into an arduos journey to clear allegations against the claimant , as well as you would know of as in your personal involvement. then asking the question are these cases made or fabricated to suit some parties gain and for what reasons

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 22 November 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

as you mentioned allan , "informants" were they primarily responsible for the investigative procedure to initiate the couples tasks of duties associated or not associated with the buisness , to precipitate the corporations involvement , once this is initiated , it revolves into an arduos journey to clear allegations against the claimant , as well as you would know of as in your personal involvement. then asking the question are these cases made or fabricated to suit some parties gain and for what reasons

The problem is Tommy the ACC make decisions based on the word of their informants so what you are saying about informants initiating an investigation simply is not trueas the ACC do not go past the Informants word. In the ACC suspect that someone might be working and therefore might no longer beincapacitated from their injuries then the legislation requires the ACC to fund a medical investigation which in this and other cases has not occurred. Therefore the ACC is obtaining criminal prosecutions for fraud and achieving results from benefiting from allegations of fraud to reduce their liability without the expense of medical investigation. Once the ACC achieves a criminal conviction even based on perjury it becomes very difficult to unravel the wicked web that they weave. The ACC fraud unit boasts making more profit for the corporation than any other unit while confessing under cross examination in court to having no real knowledge of the ACC legislation at all nor any training by the ACC. The motivation for the fraud unit is very obvious, profit by way of the ACC committing a criminal act of both perjury and the production false documentation for purposes of fraud. in this particular case they were claiming an overpayment of $750,000 of which if they succeed in claiming they would probably bankrupt the couple, take their home and their business while also robbing them of their health and future chances of any rehabilitation.

In my own case is said of the ACC paying for the reconstructive surgery (artificial wrist joint) the taxpayer has paid.

[tommy]

as in your reply above as in being a suspect of working , or residual capacities of tasks , the claimant is under scrutiny from day one as in initiating a claim , and whom is spying on the claimant and once the allegation has been forwarded to the corporation it becomes difficult to clear the alledged allegations, the point iam trying to make ,is why do some claimants have no obstructions with acc as in proceeding with work task activities as in other directions , and those that remain to have close alliance with their pre injury occupation have issues

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 23 November 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

as in your reply above as in being a suspect of working , or residual capacities of tasks , the claimant is under scrutiny from day one as in initiating a claim , and whom is spying on the claimant and once the allegation has been forwarded to the corporation it becomes difficult to clear the alledged allegations, the point iam trying to make ,is why do some claimants have no obstructions with acc as in proceeding with work task activities as in other directions , and those that remain to have close alliance with their pre injury occupation have issues

Tommy I think the plain truth of the matter is that very few of us make any attempt of any sort to utilise our residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable as the legislation requires of us. You know as well as I do that most claimants simply layabouts watching television even though they could be doing something. What is worse is that increasing numbers of people are in fear of trying to utilise the residual capacity for field of false allegation by the ACC fraud unit. Indeed many genuine claimants become recluse hiding away from the world for fear that friends family or neighbours may have a snitch against them and make false allegations to the ACC to cause them trouble.

Obviously the vast majority of claimants are not 100% disabled from performing badly some of the tasks of the preinjury occupation and as such it is therefore obvious that the appellant can and should utilise the residual capacity in that occupation. Where it becomes difficult is that where a claimant loses their job or the business it is difficult to get any form of foothold into obtaining such part-time work. Those of us who are lucky enough to own their own businesses and can afford to employ someone to manage that business for them will do so. After all why should a business shutdown and everyone in that business get fired simply because the owner is an injury. So then why does the ACC accuse the claimant who owns a business to be working simply because they poke the hidden from time to time to ensure that all is well. At best the ACC would only be entitled to determine the level of involvement and the potential earnings that was derived from that involvement to calculate abatement of earnings and nothing more. Producing information and taking that information to court without knowing it to be true as a criminal offence in the form of perjury. When perjury is committed in order to cancel claims of entitlement then there is also the production of relevant false documentation committing insurance fraud by the insurance company themselves.

[tommy]

to then have the abilities to , have finances ,and inputs of persons to carry on the buisness without the injured claimants input phsically , mentally financially would have to be a priority ad in the claimant retaining the buisness, and having another source of an insurers input as in monetary input

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 23 November 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

Tommy I think the plain truth of the matter is that very few of us make any attempt of any sort to utilise our residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable as the legislation requires of us. You know as well as I do that most claimants simply layabouts watching television even though they could be doing something. What is worse is that increasing numbers of people are in fear of trying to utilise the residual capacity for field of false allegation by the ACC fraud unit. Indeed many genuine claimants become recluse hiding away from the world for fear that friends family or neighbours may have a snitch against them and make false allegations to the ACC to cause them trouble.

Obviously the vast majority of claimants are not 100% disabled from performing badly some of the tasks of the preinjury occupation and as such it is therefore obvious that the appellant can and should utilise the residual capacity in that occupation. Where it becomes difficult is that where a claimant loses their job or the business it is difficult to get any form of foothold into obtaining such part-time work. Those of us who are lucky enough to own their own businesses and can afford to employ someone to manage that business for them will do so. After all why should a business shutdown and everyone in that business get fired simply because the owner is an injury. So then why does the ACC accuse the claimant who owns a business to be working simply because they poke the hidden from time to time to ensure that all is well. At best the ACC would only be entitled to determine the level of involvement and the potential earnings that was derived from that involvement to calculate abatement of earnings and nothing more. Producing information and taking that information to court without knowing it to be true as a criminal offence in the form of perjury. When perjury is committed in order to cancel claims of entitlement then there is also the production of relevant false documentation committing insurance fraud by the insurance company themselves.

Mr Thomas
It is quite difficult to ascertain things as actual events / facts From your writings re and as to business ownership and not shutting down ,and as you refer to your own fraud case issues quite a lot amongst debates such as this one-Then Did your own business;s need you to be involved checking up etc in any way so they would not fail go belly up close down etc, after you were injured and in receipt of ACC erc entitlements/



David

[Brucey]

Tauranga business couple jailed after $400,000 fraud
By Amy Wiggins, Sandra Conchie - Bay of Plenty Times10:55 AM Monday Feb 22, 2016
Tauranga couple Grant Brennan and Lorraine Brennan in Tauranga District Court.A Tauranga business couple found guilty of defrauding ACC of hundreds of thousands of dollars have been jailed.

Grant and Lorraine Brennan were sentenced in Tauranga District Court today after being found guilty of 88 charges of using a document for pecuniary advantage after their seven-week judge-alone trial.

Mr Brennan was sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison while his wife was ordered to serve two years and five months behind bars.

The court heard the total of the couple's offending reached $408,703.35.

Throughout their trial which began on July 6 and ended on August 25, the Brennan Racing Limited directors maintained they honestly believed they were entitled to the ACC payments they received.

On April 24, 1999 Mr Brennan sustained a head injury after being assaulted by three youths while out running. He was hospitalised overnight and treated for a mild brain injury.

He subsequently claimed ACC payments and in May 2000 ACC also approved attendant care payments be made to Mrs Brennan for seven hours a day, five a days a week.Between December 1999 and September 2011 Mr Brennan received ACC payments totalling $665,696.89 gross, and his wife was paid $55,790 in attendant care payments between 2000 and 2003.

Judge Glen Marshall sentenced the couple today.

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11593574

[Alan Thomas]

When we see a case like this where we see history repeating itself over and over.

If we always do what we will for is done we will always get what we have always got.

It seems to me that the ACC is routinely disentitle and claimants with threat of fraud prosecution on the basis that the ACC has gained the impression from their informants that a person is no longer incapacitated and as such rely upon section 117 of the current act to then claim that they have information in their possession that the person is no longer incapacitated.

This leaves the elephant in the room. What is the nature of the "information" referred to in section 117?

Is the information a capacity to earn, no longer incapacitated to earn or no longer injured to the extent that they once were when the claim was first accepted?
Of course as time progresses the effects of an injury may diminish.. This would be usual. The legislation entitles the ACC to request the claimant to have medical's assessments from time to time. Usually this is in the form of a medical certificate. Of course the ACC may choose to validate the veracity of the medical certificate by seeking the advice of superior medical professionals from time to time as they see fit.

The question then arises as to whether the information referred to in section 117 is from members of the community or medically qualified professionals after a rigourous examination.

Is it sufficient for the ACC to disregard the medical professionals advice regarding a person's capacity to earn.


As in the case of the motor racing businessman described in this thread the ACC have first rely upon informants and then set about to prove the informants viewpoints. In general they have described certain types of capacity. This capacity mainly seems to be anecdotal and unproven such as the fellow took part in motor racing however observations of someone engaging in motorsport does not mean it is either safe for them to do so or whether or not it has any effect whatsoever on this businessman's capacity to earn. Likewise this fellow gained a formal qualification by the appropriate authorities after he was injured in order that he might take on an apprentice and presumably have charged over that apprentice. This was used to indicate he had some capacity to work and earn. This does not seem unreasonable however there is no indication as to how the ACC went about using this information for the purposes of quantum for measurement of capacity but rather seem to take a rather broadbrush in order to create an impression.

Overall it seems to me that the ACC is gathering information in order to create an impression rather than make a decision by way of measurement. Was this businessman capable of working a little bit, and medium amount or was he fully fit to return to his preinjury occupation. At no stage has the ACC ever reported any such measurement and there is no evidence that the ACC has even carried out any assessment procedure as is required by section 117 but rather simply made a decision based on all these impressions which it went on to subsequently support Once the decision was challenged.

As the above scenario is repeating itself over and over and is also used to intimidate a larger number of claimants to surrender their entitlements than are cancelled by way of medical assessment in the first instance or are rehabilitated into a new occupation then it follows that this claim exit strategy should be examined a little more closely than it currently is. I say this because even highly regarded and respected legal counsel along with judges are not doing this But rather aa seemingly being sidetracked by way of this very broad generalisation process which most certainly is not part of the legislative criteria for making decisions.

[Kewl]

Alan Thomas, on 26 October 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

When we see a case like this where we see history repeating itself over and over.

If we always do what we will for is done we will always get what we have always got.

It seems to me that the ACC is routinely disentitle and claimants with threat of fraud prosecution on the basis that the ACC has gained the impression from their informants that a person is no longer incapacitated and as such rely upon section 117 of the current act to then claim that they have information in their possession that the person is no longer incapacitated.

This leaves the elephant in the room. What is the nature of the "information" referred to in section 117?

Is the information a capacity to earn, no longer incapacitated to earn or no longer injured to the extent that they once were when the claim was first accepted?
Of course as time progresses the effects of an injury may diminish.. This would be usual. The legislation entitles the ACC to request the claimant to have medical's assessments from time to time. Usually this is in the form of a medical certificate. Of course the ACC may choose to validate the veracity of the medical certificate by seeking the advice of superior medical professionals from time to time as they see fit.

The question then arises as to whether the information referred to in section 117 is from members of the community or medically qualified professionals after a rigourous examination.

Is it sufficient for the ACC to disregard the medical professionals advice regarding a person's capacity to earn.


As in the case of the motor racing businessman described in this thread the ACC have first rely upon informants and then set about to prove the informants viewpoints. In general they have described certain types of capacity. This capacity mainly seems to be anecdotal and unproven such as the fellow took part in motor racing however observations of someone engaging in motorsport does not mean it is either safe for them to do so or whether or not it has any effect whatsoever on this businessman's capacity to earn. Likewise this fellow gained a formal qualification by the appropriate authorities after he was injured in order that he might take on an apprentice and presumably have charged over that apprentice. This was used to indicate he had some capacity to work and earn. This does not seem unreasonable however there is no indication as to how the ACC went about using this information for the purposes of quantum for measurement of capacity but rather seem to take a rather broadbrush in order to create an impression.

Overall it seems to me that the ACC is gathering information in order to create an impression rather than make a decision by way of measurement. Was this businessman capable of working a little bit, and medium amount or was he fully fit to return to his preinjury occupation. At no stage has the ACC ever reported any such measurement and there is no evidence that the ACC has even carried out any assessment procedure as is required by section 117 but rather simply made a decision based on all these impressions which it went on to subsequently support Once the decision was challenged.

As the above scenario is repeating itself over and over and is also used to intimidate a larger number of claimants to surrender their entitlements than are cancelled by way of medical assessment in the first instance or are rehabilitated into a new occupation then it follows that this claim exit strategy should be examined a little more closely than it currently is. I say this because even highly regarded and respected legal counsel along with judges are not doing this But rather aa seemingly being sidetracked by way of this very broad generalisation process which most certainly is not part of the legislative criteria for making decisions.

Oh dear.

Are you the famous Giddy Aunty called " alan" . what is it that made you both giddy and famous and an aunty?