ACCforum: Thomas v ACC [2015] NZHC 3252 (16 December 2015) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Thomas v ACC [2015] NZHC 3252 (16 December 2015) why was it pursued as a matter of public interest?

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 01 January 2016 - 08:29 PM

.
2

#2 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:03 PM

Even though Mr Thomas lost in the high court the judge awarded costs to Acc on scale 2b band. Remember this as well. Mr Thomas was already told by a district court judge to pay costs to Acc to the tune of $7500.00 it makes me wonder why he keeps persisting with these claims against acc. Mr Thomas might want to think twice next time about abusing the court system. Other claimants are waiting to have their day in court as well. The law should be evenly fair between ACC & claimants. Hence why i had my last case back in 2013. Feel free to post my decision up if anyone wants to. Decision number 57/2013.
Later.
1

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 January 2016 - 05:24 PM

View Postdarrellpearce, on 02 January 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Even though Mr Thomas lost in the high court the judge awarded costs to Acc on scale 2b band. Remember this as well. Mr Thomas was already told by a district court judge to pay costs to Acc to the tune of $7500.00 it makes me wonder why he keeps persisting with these claims against acc. Mr Thomas might want to think twice next time about abusing the court system. Other claimants are waiting to have their day in court as well. The law should be evenly fair between ACC & claimants. Hence why i had my last case back in 2013. Feel free to post my decision up if anyone wants to. Decision number 57/2013.
Later.


Please explain why you think I have abused the court system.
As part of your explanation please describe why you think I was not entitled to ACC support to the surgery I received in accordance with the 1992 review hearing decision.
Please differentiate the difference between my being wrong in law and whether or not I was correct in law but incompetent in presenting my case. (As a brain injured person I would have thought you would be sympathetic to my plight and seeking entitlements without support from anybody)
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 January 2016 - 05:26 PM

Anonymousey

Court costs should never be a barrier for anyone seeking justice which is a reason why we have legal aid.
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 January 2016 - 05:33 PM

I actually thought the 2012 surgery was performed in private hospitals and funded by some foreign benefactor etc

It seems to me that you imagine so many different things and then blame me for when you are wrong. Wherever did you get the idea that the surgery was funded by some foreign benefactor? I simply did not say in recent times. However if you look back through the postings I have produced you will see that the ACC accepted a pro forma invoice from the North shore hospital. As the North shore hospital does not like the surgeon who performed the operation they did not want to operating on their premises so my surgery took place in a private hospital pay for by the North shore hospital. The surgery cost considerably more than the originally quoted price given that there was an extensive amount of work that had to be done to undo the damage done to me by the surgeon in 1992. By the surgical notes I'm able to deduce that this would have taken to 3 hours which incidentally was not enough time to address all of the issues. Indeed the surgical notes do show that my life signs took a spike at which time the surgeon decide to discontinue with those extras. The surgery he went on to do and that very successfully took place with them the normal timeframe.

Additional pain treatment was required and I was sent home alone with a bag full of intravenous pain medications which is something that should never happen under any circumstances at as is just too dangerous. Of course this is where the ACC lack of involvement kicks in.
0

#6 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 02 January 2016 - 07:26 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 January 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

Anonymousey

Court costs should never be a barrier for anyone seeking justice which is a reason why we have legal aid.


Totally agree unless the claimant is using the review process as a sounding board to then appeal and so on.


If the actual definition of "fair hearing" is given there is less chance of need to appeal
however the system is under far to much financial strain to provide the judicial hearings that can be fair.
There's always a surplus in the coffers the tax payer provides so I think only the delusional see it as being the claimants fault the system is stained where one seeks true justice.
1

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 January 2016 - 08:14 PM

View PostREX, on 02 January 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

Totally agree unless the claimant is using the review process as a sounding board to then appeal and so on.


If the actual definition of "fair hearing" is given there is less chance of need to appeal
however the system is under far to much financial strain to provide the judicial hearings that can be fair.
There's always a surplus in the coffers the tax payer provides so I think only the delusional see it as being the claimants fault the system is stained where one seeks true justice.


Most the site would agree with me and saying that it is the ACC that is putting the Judicial system under financial crisis when it makes such unsupportable decisions as denying payment for home help to the surgery in ordered to me by review hearing
1

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 January 2016 - 08:15 PM


anonymousey
You have written so much nonsense it is not worth replying to. This is because you should be relying upon what I say rather than what you imagine



2

#9 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 03 January 2016 - 12:01 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 January 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

Most the site would agree with me and saying that it is the ACC that is putting the Judicial system under financial crisis when it makes such unsupportable decisions as denying payment for home help to the surgery in ordered to me by review hearing


Yes I mostly support that post too Alan and hear what you are saying, however I think it's more so correct to look deeper into the cause that makes these issue be an effect when one casts blame.
There is an under laying reason why this was even possible that the acc defies its ruling and directives.

Where does one stop passing the blame above though....
I go as far back as to blame this acc corruption problem stems from our legal society. They are GREEDY and well known for defining their legal representation to only the precise issue at hand when assisting in our matters of dispute with the any law, not just acc law.

In a long winded explanation;

If they (acc specialist lawyers) were to adopt to their policy "following the trail of cause" that created the turn point, we don't continue on the merry go around Acc white collar gravy train.
They are allowing the issue cause to fail being noted and held to account by the statistical analysis, and therefore resulting to be what has happened with our last auditor general report. The auditor general gave the acc system how it runs, "a clear bill of health" and praises them.
If we had an improved "policy standard maintained by the law society" the representation we're provided with in now days would fail to meet the standard that includes "for the greater good and best interests of their client first and foremost". :mellow:

Anonymousey Alan doesn't use 25% of the budget so you are overstating the facts of the situation.

further more
You seem to have quoted a judge that denied Mr Thomas available funds around the time he had a wrist that was a very long time in battle for surgery because it was needing surgery, AND now in more recent times,, Mr Thomas was finally provided with rightful medical intervention due to long polite perseverance through the correct channels.

Maybe the judge proves now WRONG not to provide home help as an entitlement and need under the true circumstances.

Where do I raise this to be my viewpoint,,,

"This courtcase also notes this next point Alan which also confirms the point that Darrell and Rex were also raising about pointless expensive cases wasting valuable court resources etc"
Its NOT !
My opinion is more so, we are robbed of sufficient funds been allocated from the accessible budget to stand up for our rights robbed due to the underfunded corrupt system in place.

The judge may have been the one you should blame for the wasted time spent and precious resources used were able to gain rightful understanding.

Please refrain from quoting me having an opinion in your own words to be stating my viewpoint why raising something, as you are using your imagination far to boldly.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 January 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

<Snip>you should be relying upon what I say rather than what you imagine


Agreed but... is it imagination or intent to defray. :o
0

#10 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:57 AM

Alan what i am saying is you should follow the proper procedures for getting your Independence allowance. It is straight forward but then you have to wait the ACC quack to contact you with an appointment. As for your brain injury again ask acc to assess it for whole person impairment. As to the abuse of process in the courts. Judge Barber made that comment when he ordered you to pay costs of $7500.00 to ACC as a contribution to its legal costs & disbursements. Justice Peter Woodhouse also awarded costs to ACC on a scale 2B band. Read it & weep it Alan. But do the right thing ask acc for assessments for your wrist, brain injury & also ask them to assess you for home help as well. That way you will then have decisions that a capable of been reviewed & appealed.
That is just what i am saying Alan. After all i am entitled to my own opinion or does my not count for anything.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 11:17 AM

Rex & Darrell

All the complexities that have been thrown at this very simple issue is simply a red hearing and irrelevant to the fundamental points of fact and law.

While being an earner I suffered an injury that prevented me from earning.
ACC claims that I was working because I continued to own a number of companies and refused to pay ERC or pay for the surgery.
Two review hearings settled the matter in as much as the ACC had no information that I was working and that work was not the criteria to determine degree of incapacity in any event. The review hearing decisions founded ACC must pay ERC and the surgery that was prescribed and continue paying ERC even if I have the surgery but the surgery does not work.
As the case was under the 1982 legislation the ACC were required to make a decision of temporary or permanent incapacity. The review hearing found that I was not temporarily incapacitated and had not recovered from that temporary incapacity in finding in my favour.
After 25 years ACC still had continued with a variety of schemes to delay funding surgery and when I arrange surgery to be carried out independently refused to make a decision to assess need for transport to and from the hospital and home help after the surgery.
At the time I could not afford the transport for home help so had nothing which placed me at risk.
Even though the ACC have not made a decision that does not mean they cannot escape the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decisions.
The judge did not address the appeal put before him but invented a new issue and ruled on the issue that he wanted to discuss which had nothing to do with my appeal. Judge Barber also misbehaved in the same way. what these judges effectively do is Rob the person of the right to appeal the issue by inventing a new issue leaving the actual issue unresolved.
As I still need additional surgery I will still need transport to and from the hospital and home help afterwards and as such need to have this issue resolved, as does many other claimants in the same situation as me rendering the decision of public importance.

Every single other side issue is irrelevant and only being used by enemies of the people that tried to deprive people of ACC entitlements. Please remember that in the last year of my work I contributed $43,000 in ACC levies and expect a return on that insurance premium.
1

#13 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 03 January 2016 - 11:58 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 January 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Rex & Darrell

All the complexities that have been thrown at this very simple issue is simply a red hearing and irrelevant to the fundamental points of fact and law.

While being an earner I suffered an injury that prevented me from earning.
ACC claims that I was working because I continued to own a number of companies and refused to pay ERC or pay for the surgery.
Two review hearings settled the matter in as much as the ACC had no information that I was working and that work was not the criteria to determine degree of incapacity in any event. The review hearing decisions founded ACC must pay ERC and the surgery that was prescribed and continue paying ERC even if I have the surgery but the surgery does not work.
As the case was under the 1982 legislation the ACC were required to make a decision of temporary or permanent incapacity. The review hearing found that I was not temporarily incapacitated and had not recovered from that temporary incapacity in finding in my favour.
After 25 years ACC still had continued with a variety of schemes to delay funding surgery and when I arrange surgery to be carried out independently refused to make a decision to assess need for transport to and from the hospital and home help after the surgery.
At the time I could not afford the transport for home help so had nothing which placed me at risk.
Even though the ACC have not made a decision that does not mean they cannot escape the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decisions.
The judge did not address the appeal put before him but invented a new issue and ruled on the issue that he wanted to discuss which had nothing to do with my appeal. Judge Barber also misbehaved in the same way. what these judges effectively do is Rob the person of the right to appeal the issue by inventing a new issue leaving the actual issue unresolved.
As I still need additional surgery I will still need transport to and from the hospital and home help afterwards and as such need to have this issue resolved, as does many other claimants in the same situation as me rendering the decision of public importance.

Every single other side issue is irrelevant and only being used by enemies of the people that tried to deprive people of ACC entitlements. Please remember that in the last year of my work I contributed $43,000 in ACC levies and expect a return on that insurance premium.


Thanks Alan that is plain and simple to understand

"The judge did not address the appeal put before him but invented a new issue and ruled on the issue that he wanted to discuss which had nothing to do with my appeal. Judge Barber also misbehaved in the same way."

This happened to me in the appeal court.

I spent a lot of time providing the correct meanings and definition to words within my MRI reports that ambiguous wording was used leaving the door open for misinterpretation.

I had case law ruling the correct definition of words in medical reports must used and not abused

The judge disgraced himself by not referring to my points in submissions and sided with the acc

This left this particular case no recourse as I had no real point of law to appeal on.
ONLY because he did NOT mention my case submissions at all.

There is nothing to stop judges being inappropriate in how they carry out their trusted position.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 01:08 PM

View PostREX, on 03 January 2016 - 11:58 AM, said:

Thanks Alan that is plain and simple to understand

"The judge did not address the appeal put before him but invented a new issue and ruled on the issue that he wanted to discuss which had nothing to do with my appeal. Judge Barber also misbehaved in the same way."

This happened to me in the appeal court.

I spent a lot of time providing the correct meanings and definition to words within my MRI reports that ambiguous wording was used leaving the door open for misinterpretation.

I had case law ruling the correct definition of words in medical reports must used and not abused

The judge disgraced himself by not referring to my points in submissions and sided with the acc

This left this particular case no recourse as I had no real point of law to appeal on.
ONLY because he did NOT mention my case submissions at all.

There is nothing to stop judges being inappropriate in how they carry out their trusted position.


Remedy is to put the call upon judicial review
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 01:12 PM


anonymousey
To you comprehend the situation simply put aside everything you have imagined to be so and look at the facts

that I have an accepted claim which the reviewer has instructed the ACC to fund reconstructive surgery and reinstate my earnest entitlements until such time as I receive that surgery and that the surgery was successful

. The ACC have not complied

ACC claim that they can ignore the reviewer on the basis that I cannot appeal of they don't make a decision

The judge is in breach of his duty by introducing an entirely subject matter and ignoring the matter on appeal.

Presenters that I am still waiting for the ACC to comply with their duty to promote rehabilitation in accordance with the medical advice and the reviewers decisions.





0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 01:49 PM


anonymousey
Again as you allow your imagination to run rampant with the addition of everything that crosses your mind having nothing whatsoever to do with either the ACC act or the facts of this case it is pointless trying to have any form of meaningful dialogue with you. A case in point you now saying that the surgery was done in secret. What absolute nonsense. But what is really quite terrible is your claim that my surgery was not even necessary. How could you say such a thing which effectively denies me from having any kind of standard of living just that ordinary care of myself without any thought of whether or not I returned to my preinjury occupation. Your suggestions are completely monstrous and evil



1

#17 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 03 January 2016 - 03:31 PM

ANONYMOUSEY

Do you by chance have OCD ? (No response required as I need to go out this week)

You don't seem to be able to respond giving a reply usually with anything less than 500 words and found myself falling asleep again rather than keeping any interest in the north wind.

:wacko:



Edit added -->>> https://www.youtube....h?v=FOkVYUKSDDU
1

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 05:30 PM

ANONYMOUSEY you said in red
So far all I can surmise from the Judgement is that clearly ACC did not approve the 2012 surgery in advance?
ACC accepted the pro forma invoice provided by the hospital agreeing to pay for the surgery.

however the court case had nothing to do with the surgery but rather in a given situation because of my injuries I was unable to either drive or care for myself whereby ACC had agreed in advance to determine my degree of incapacity for purposes of social rehabilitation entitlements. It is not any more complicated than that so why are you writing down so many words?


the point of law and issue at hand is simply that the ACC have been instructed and agree to subject themselves to that instruction to be liable for my social rehabilitation entitlements yet the ACC continue to delay and avoid for several decades. ACC claim that two decades is not unreasonable whereby I say that they are effectively temporising my claim permanently by doing nothing which is the same thing is making a decision not to accept liability. I understand that the ACC is engaging the stratagem at an increasing rate rendering the case before the High Court a matter of public interest.
1

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 05:39 PM

ANONYMOUSEY
You have gone on to argue about the nature of the injury and degree of incapacity but incredibly you then state you don't understand what a four KG limit means and neither have you made any comment about prior to surgery when I had no KG capacity whatsoever. I have carefully stated that I have returned to my preinjury occupation on light duties so as to have regard for the four KG limit and report that although I am carrying out work activities I am not capable of earning at my old occupation.

Therefore it obviously follows that as my limit is now four KG permanently to the rest of my life as to whether or not I am confirmed to have always been permanently incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation from the time of my injury for the rest of my life under the 1982 act. This would seem to put an end to all of your ranting and raving making excuses for the ACC is bad behaviour toward me as we are dealing with an insurmountable scientific fact that there is no possible chance of any type of argument to the effect that I was no longer incapacitated. Four KG is four KG and the work task activities of my preinjury occupation had demands such as was capable of inducing an abdominal strain injury which is more than adequate proof of the degree of workload, not to mention the vast number of exhibits describing the nature of my preinjury occupation..

1

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:57 PM

ANONYMOUSEY
You have gone on to argue about the nature of the injury and degree of incapacity but incredibly you then state you don't understand what a four KG limit means and neither have you made any comment about prior to surgery when I had no KG capacity whatsoever. I have carefully stated that I have returned to my preinjury occupation on light duties so as to have regard for the four KG limit and report that although I am carrying out work activities I am not capable of earning at my old occupation.

Therefore it obviously follows that as my limit is now four KG permanently to the rest of my life as to whether or not I am confirmed to have always been permanently incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation from the time of my injury for the rest of my life under the 1982 act. This would seem to put an end to all of your ranting and raving making excuses for the ACC is bad behaviour toward me as we are dealing with an insurmountable scientific fact that there is no possible chance of any type of argument to the effect that I was no longer incapacitated. Four KG is four KG and the work task activities of my preinjury occupation had demands such as was capable of inducing an abdominal strain injury which is more than adequate proof of the degree of workload, not to mention the vast number of exhibits describing the nature of my preinjury occupation..


For example, I am not sure if you still require pain relief or not for your wrist Alan but past medical evidence has already demonstrated script free periods whilst you were working in your companies &or gadding about overseas

of course I was on pain medication from the time of my injury until recently when I had the artificial wrist joint. Why would you imagine otherwise? If you had no information why do you think that your imagination fills that gap?
why do you imagine I was working on the companies I owned when there is no information describing a single work task activity at any material time. Again are you relying upon your imagination is the evidence? Certainly no Witnesses ever described to any judge any type of work and therefore how could any judge ever ever describe any evidence of the effect that I was working.

No surgeon carries out unnecessary surgery. In fact the surgeon who did carry out the reconstructive surgery was in tears at one stage. I also add to the fact that he is recognised internationally as one of the top two or three surgeons in the world addressing this type of surgery even holding the patents for the hardware and producing vast numbers of research papers advance in the science relating to hand function. I therefore cannot understand why you would take it upon yourself to attack such a noble and superior human being. With regards to the extended surgery that ran for over five hours while he tried to correct his predecessors mistakes such unplanned essential surgery can cause a patient to run into difficulty under general anaesthetic.
1

#21 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:52 AM

To out it simply after reading ALL COURT DOCUMENTS in relation to Thomas

But NOT Thomas versions

He duped the doctors into what he said his disability was.. Versus his actual abilities which were witnessed in Court. The Medical Profession have documented this

He was in the process of being bankrupt therefore he was not earning money at all at the time of the wrist and hernia injuries

Every person who initially supported Alan then saw through him and have given evidence in court against him.
This includes evey person who was In Alan's life

While he was not entitled to anything, he bullied his young case manager into a payout
As a result, he was then banned from acc offices, by his own actions

The Law, and points of law are common sense decisions, no amount of wordithing is going to change a common sense decision no matter how Alan tries to dress it up

His infamy, comes with the misunderstanding that people were looking up the
"miscarriage of justice" in the Arthur Alan Thomas Case...
Thomas is using clickbait stats to bolster his own ego

He was convicted of fraud, and the intention of harm by creating the takapuna bomb plot, then dragged all and sundry into his own defence
(tagteam,initially stated by easyrider)

His "overseas investigators" were none other than the unknown blogger and cohorts.. And these people colluded with Thomas in criminal harassment under the guise of getting a retrial/perjury trial

Thomas is now so in Contempt of Court that each time he appears he is getting charged costs

This forum is being run by Thomas who has permitted the destruction of evidence re criminal harassment to be pulled down/deleted/hidden
No matter, forensic IT experts will retrieve all incriminating evidence

2015 Thomas attempted unsubtle methods of psychological harassment in an attempt to goad several members into making defamatory statements against him as yet another excuse to re air his "views in court"

Engage with, or heed Thomas,s "law advice" at your own peril...

All statements are made through extensive reading of law material from NZ Courts of Law, and are NOT opinion, but fact.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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