ACCforum: How do IA Impairment Deductions work? - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

How do IA Impairment Deductions work?

#1 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 25 September 2015 - 07:33 PM

Post removed - settled
0

#2 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 26 September 2015 - 09:04 AM

View PostAurora, on 25 September 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

Wondering if someone could explain when reading IA assessments and it gets to deductions ......

If a claim has both Physical and Mental Injuries covered by acc, and they obtain a Mental Assessment, why would the assessor make a deduction for a covered physical injury contribution??

If then you have a deduction for physical covered injury on a mental injury IA, you have to obtain another assessment just for the covered physical injury and will this total then show a deduction for the Mental impairment rating?? Or will the assessor then attempt to deduct the WPI amount of mental from the physical???

I understand apportionment for non covered injuries ..... and if an assessor can only use Mental IA guidelines then they cannot assess the Physical Injury, but to make a deduction from a Mental IA for a covered physical does not make sense to me????

Also if the IA amount WERE to increase, is this backdated to when you were first assessed or just to the last quarter?? I see all sorts of calculations on NZLII where people have had some lump sum and some quarterly and the new figure seems to superceed the old figure back to the beginning of the IA???

I have read the manual acc puts out, and see assessors are directed to make apportionments for injuries that are not covered .....

I do not follow that say the covered physical apportionment was 5% and the Mental was 30% (apportioned to 25 by the covered physical) .... then the physical 5% assessor has to apportion 30% for the covered mental from their figure????? so minus 25%.

Perhaps someone can tell me what I am missing ......

B)/>... I am in the process of having a reassessment on the above issues...
Independent Ortho assessment first, and if need be ment. by physical re-assessment.
1

#3 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 26 September 2015 - 05:07 PM

View PostAurora, on 26 September 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

The IA unit fail to send ACCURATE information to their assessor so undertake assessments on taxpayer monies instigating a "VERY FLAWED process." Bizarre!

This seems to be common also with assessment or File Reviews .

Requesting a copy of all information being sent prior , from Case Manager , has informed you , that
wrong information was being sent and hopefully you supplied the corrected version to the assessor.

Recording the assessment will help the assessor use the corrected info..
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 26 September 2015 - 05:21 PM

View PostAurora, on 26 September 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

The IA unit fail to send ACCURATE information to their assessor so undertake assessments on taxpayer monies instigating a "VERY FLAWED process." Bizarre!

Have you had your assessments yet?

The mental and physical will need to be separate if the first assessor has no correct papers (ie certs) to allow them to interpret the AMA guidelines for both physical and mental.

After both have been done they need to be any deductions for medical such as MS for my mental etc. And then the WPI is established by the calculation of both.

Hope that makes since.

You must not allow ACC to use incorrect documentation and must show the assessor how it is wrong.

Mini
0

#5 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 26 September 2015 - 05:44 PM

View PostMINI, on 26 September 2015 - 05:21 PM, said:

Have you had your assessments yet?

The mental and physical will need to be separate if the first assessor has no correct papers (ie certs) to allow them to interpret the AMA guidelines for both physical and mental.

After both have been done they need to be any deductions for medical such as MS for my mental etc. And then the WPI is established by the calculation of both.

Hope that makes since.

You must not allow ACC to use incorrect documentation and must show the assessor how it is wrong.

Mini

Without being rude as I have not been here yet , how much does the 'Mental' over 'Physical' adjust the overall IA.?
Which one would I be better to only be assessed on ?, or both .? or do you have no control of the assessment?.
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 27 September 2015 - 01:08 PM

View PostAurora, on 27 September 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Hi Greg,
I am pondering the same - I have accepted physical and mental cover.

Due to the diagnostic formulation used on the physical - ie taking off 5% for the covered mental injury???? - then when the acc assessor does the Mental they are going to deduct an amount for the physical which would put me into negative .....????

As they are both covered injuries I do not understand why any apportionment is made, between a covered physical and and a covered mental injury????

I understand an apportionment for a non covered injury!!!

On this basis I am going for the WPI assessment of the injury that would give the higher rating and ignoring the other covered injury.

Why make any apportionment for a covered injury (mental) if they were just assessing - say physical???

Why not a clean assessment of just the injury being assessed with apportionment for non covered diagnoses relating to the physical injury??

I understand that everything has to work to acc advantage - strange and not logical formulation of the AMA guides being used by assessors!


Hi aurora Seeing you are pondering the same as Gregg, I will answer you both here. But I have not been assessed for both at the sane time ever BUT section377 clearly sets out what is to happen. Please give it a good read and then make sure that the ACCs calculations are done the way mentioned in that section.

My Mental was done many years after it actually occurred, and physical had been done by that time so it was determined we weren't going there again. With That being in a positive position having been done under IA and not lump sum, the WPI of my Physical had to be added to the mental WPI. Whether it would have been in my favour to have it done all together I have no idea. It certainly will favour me next time as have broken hand at the moment and told by OS that residual problems can occur even if the break heals. Will know more next week. And this Cyberbullying is not that great for anxiety and depression. However I guess I have to wait a while for that.


I'm sorry I cannot continue concentrate on calculations while trying to type with bulbous cast on right hand.

I'm', sure you are both able to read the section for yourself.

Good luck
Maybe someone with more stammerner or voice activated computer can help.

Mini
0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:06 PM

View PostAurora, on 27 September 2015 - 07:50 PM, said:

Thanks for this and yes I was familiar with it. I come under 1992 for one covered injury and 2001 Act for the second covered injury for lump sum. So I can get IA for the earlier injury and something for the latter ...... only under the formulas being used by duly qualified assessors I am worse off if I get both injuries assessed ..... go figure!!


How the hell they going to be able to measure my 1992 injuries, Then my 2014 broken left humerous, with residual ROM problems,
Then my broken right hand 2015,

When all the injuries are in my arms and upper torso and controlled by my shoulders, which are the only ones assessed.

The only fair way that I can see, is to take the already assessed shoulders at their present %, then do the WPI on both sides, including the two new breaks and taking away the already assessed should to get the individual difference for each side and say that is what the breaks are worth % wise. The neck will have to be re assessed and put in as % as well.

Then we have the Mental caused by physical, and a long winded assessment by psychiatrist and then assessment for IA.

Would be good if the two recent breaks were lump sum being paid instead of IA, that would mean could cash, and I could do with some of that for Xmas.

Mini
0

#8 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 29 September 2015 - 12:31 PM

View PostAurora, on 28 September 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:

Good question!!

From my experience to date WPI attempt to re-litigate your claim rather than requesting an assessment of your covered injuries!!

I want to know why I can't have an assessment of my covered injuries from 1990 and then the 2010 injury added on??

Only the way ACC set up and then inform their assessors how they are to use the GUIDES compromises this process.

Why are not only medical assessments used?? Why BAP comments or internal TCM comments??

ACC are rubbish to deal with at present!


To start with Yours and mine both are under two different Acts and therefore two differing prcedures each differing lot of injuries.

Mine one lot of IA and second 2 breaks maybe lump sum. I hope so.

Good luck and lets know how you get on.

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