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?

#21 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:45 AM

You really seem sucked in by the front the court system (propped up by the bullshit tactics of lawyer and the ones above the bar) feeds you.

Its all done behind the curtains FFS. The greater good these days is to feed the rich...

You are saying FACT is what all went down involved in the case and the outcome so since there was a guilty verdict you quote as FACT which is delusional.

Teina PORA ...


An innocent man of verdict stamped who spent the major part of his life in JAIL because the system is fail able ! :o
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 January 2016 - 11:16 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 04 January 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

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.


All as I am seeing is defamation of character.

As the reality is that I do have very serious injuries which I have not yet recovered to return to my preinjury occupation none of what you said can hold true. it is simply a matter of the acceptable evidence whether it be the ACC version derived from unqualified idiotic members of the public like yourself or the entire medical profession who rely upon not just CT, MRI and other high-tech imaging devices the physical examination under the skin during surgical processes.

You claim to be making a statement from court documents yet none of the court documents actually say what you are saying but rather build inference upon inference without actually addressing any of the facts and therefore not even addressing any of my appeals.

The medical profession have steadfastly stated that I'm severely disabled and you claim that I have somehow dupped them which suggests incompetence or corruption by the medical profession.

Are you now claiming that you have a superior grasp of the facts that the medical profession who rely upon high-tech imaging devices, actual surgery with physical inspection without one medical professional carrying out a clinical diagnosis in disagreement of the facts.

Your arrogance and dishonesty is unbelievable.
0

#23 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 04 January 2016 - 12:29 PM

The arrogance and dishonesty YOU and your criminal cohorts...(also Rex aka Philip Bonner) display shows the depth of depravity narcissists go to in an attempt to display unreal fantasy

Phil,s mate loves: pot, kettle, black

Don't bother with any further abuse, I can't be bothered responding
0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 January 2016 - 12:36 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 04 January 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

The arrogance and dishonesty YOU and your criminal cohorts...(also Rex aka Philip Bonner) display shows the depth of depravity narcissists go to in an attempt to display unreal fantasy

Phil,s mate loves: pot, kettle, black

Don't bother with any further abuse, I can't be bothered responding


As you have defamed my name you can be absolutely sure you are going to have an opportunity to respond in the appropriate judicial forum.
You simply don't have any information of any sort to back up what you have accused me of, particularly the part about not being injured.
2

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 January 2016 - 04:45 PM

anonymousey
There can be no meaningful discussion with you any sort if you disregard scientific evidence in favour of your imagination. We live in the real world, not in your imagination.

I also must point out that to your shame you have failed to read the information already posted describing the nature of my injuries and disabilities. One classical example is that you imagine I have been provided a brace to enable me to work when in fact the brace was provided to prevent me from working. Nowhere is any medical professional ever said that I could work 12 or 15 hours but only a maximum of two hours per day fragmented throughout the day. That means 10 hours per week. there has never been a disability assessment of any sort ever in the manner you have described however ACC did commission a report of which they failed to provide the relevant information resulting in 14.5% while the surgeon describes 60% disability. the ACC acquired 14.5% was for the purposes of supporting the decision to cancel my surgery and ERC. The review hearing dismissed the ACCs figure as being wrong and relied upon 60% when reinstating the surgery and ERC. I later got 100% pain and suffering under s79 and still waiting for s78 of which the ACC has been repeatedly told by numerous review hearings in my favour to get on with the assessment process giving them 20 days each time. in other words there has not been an s78 assessment or any of the other assessments required of the ACC to determine their own liability. Far from surgery providing me with a greater range of movement, it was designed to reduce the range of movement to the correct range of movement. In other words a human being should not be able to distract their wrist joint by 20 mm or be so flexible that their fingers are unable to touch their elbow. if you take a chicken wing and break the joint you will understand the nature of my injury in as much as that there is no connecting pieces between the bones to act as leverage for the muscles to do any work of any description, light or otherwise.

With the most recent surgery there has been no documentation of any description and as such nothing to provide the ACC or the courts. my doctor and I have asked the ACC to fund an assessment both before and after the surgical procedure so as to determine the comparative difference. What ACC that instead is to cancel all assessments directed by the reviewer so as to wait for the outcome of the surgery so to take a measurement of my disability after I was not disabled. All of the previous high-tech imaging and medical reporting have already confirmed beyond any possibility of doubt that I was grossly disabled with no capacity to return to my preinjury occupation and having no functional use of my right dominant hand. As a matter of science this is not in any doubt and ACC have never challenged that finding. In fact the ACC have avoided sending me to their own assessor as the outcome that would be produced by their own assessor could not possibly be different. Why do you think the ACC would not want the facts to get in the way of their decisions?

All you are doing is what Douglas wheel attempted to do is to produce information to assist the ACC generate even more nonsense on my file.

In order for you to make any form of comment on the facts you first must familiarise yourself with them. Under no circumstances should you ever rely upon your memory as it is clearly defective at best and of course more likely to be simply corrupt.
0

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 January 2016 - 11:16 AM


anonymousey post 40

As the medical profession in its entirety, including the ACC's own funded assessments, is an agreement that I have no capacity to return to my preinjury occupation except on light duties that does not include the use of my right hand and does not overload my elbow injuries nor over taxes my chronic fatigue syndrome, and I have not yet received adequate surgery to return me to my preinjury occupation, do you agree that I continue to be incapacitated in accordance with the ACC legislated criteria?

If you do not understand any of the medical terminology or relevant legislation please do not be afraid to ask instead of allowing your imagination to run rampant in a prideful way or simply change the subject as you seem to be so disposed.


As my work task activities required more than four KG loading (medical term) in the daily activities of my preinjury occupation that prior to having that recent surgery that I had even less capacity to return to my preinjury occupation? Four KG is not an abstract concept but necessitates a clinical examination in conjunction with a suitably qualified occupational specialist comprehending the nature of the work for clinical test. For example the doing up of a nut to a certain torque as a scientific measurement which now needs to be tested in the clinical environment. For example I might not be able to do up unto a nut over a certain size with a certain lever. Each of the activities need to be determined in this way to settle any misunderstandings. This is what the ACC legislation requires the ACC to do. The fact that you do not understand does not open the way for you to invent an alternative that suits your abstract way of looking at the world. The same type measurement is used for determining repetitive strain injury endurance as a keystroke requires a certain number of grams striking force of which over a day there is no nation that equals about three or 4 tone moved by the fingers in an able-bodied professional typist type in all day.

While I certainly could lift the object of four KG bag of oranges with my right dominant hand and could indeed left six KG of oranges with my right dominant hand I would be in breach of the surgeon's instructions in the second instance. However having said that lifting in a certain way that does not place a strain on the joint itself but whereby the load is borne by the tendons then that would be okay. You need to appreciate that the situation is quite complex and the complexity of the hand and wrist joint is amongst the most complexs mechanism known to man so unless you have some form of qualification and experience it would be pointless you trying to challenge the professionals who have made this type of thing their life's work. I do appreciate your desire to dumb things down to your own standards however that does not produce answers but rather blows up space shuttles.

I reiterate that the brace was designed and supplied with the purposes of preventing me from working. An exoskeleton cannot replace the type a skeleton human beings have and as there was no connection between ulna and hand you cannot even consider the possibility of support for limited movement. What you imagine is entirely irrelevant so you're only muddying the waters for purist argument and relevant conclusions to be drawn.

As I have previously stated I am still waiting for further surgery and still suffer significant limitations to return to my preinjury occupation resulting in the doctor continuing with his original limitation which of course was never based only upon the wrist injury. Other factors such as chronic fatigue caused by the original injury are also relevant whereby the lack of dexterity places additional demand upon the mind for one example, lack of sleep caused by ongoing pain, though less than before, is another. Again dumbing down Dr's instructions without information only muddies the waters whereby accurate conclusions are being tampered with. You will notice this technique used by the ACC.

I don't know where you come from talking about a "medical friend" as all clinicians have been independent in their examination of me and all entirely agree including the ACCs own assessor determining 14.5% who acknowledge that he had not been provided with all of the relevant information resulting in as figure to be wrong to the extent that it must be disregarded in favour of his colleague that had all of the information, regardless as to whether or not they had operated as they all went on the same information to agree on the extent of the injuries.

I have never received any section 78 assessment or payments. ACC agreed that legislation still requires them to address this deficiency with the review hearings continuously requiring the ACC to carry out the necessary assessments for all of these types of criteria that requires a disability assessment. The 60% was used in the challenge of the ACC 14.5% of which two reviewer's accepted. I cannot understand why you're ignoring this repeated information.
Over the last 25 years the level of disability is continuously diminished whereby 60% would therefore be steadily increasing up until the time of the recent surgery which it will have gone down a little but of course still well above the cut-off limit which will necessitate ACC continue with these assessments for some time yet. Obviously the ACC is going to have two organise their assessor to produce a succession of reports at each of the milestones so as to make the required adjustments to the level of their liability to me rather than make a payment at either the lowest or the highest point. ACC don't have any choice regarding this as it is a requirement of legislation.

With regards to the matters of science resulting in an objective percentage of course I have no qualification to interpret, agree or disagree. The individual who started out saying 14.5% has now abandon that figure as it is known to be wrong with another figure of 60% with yet another saying that the figure has continued to rise with the inclusion of associated injuries caused by both further injuries caused by lack of treatment with ever-increasing pain generating pain syndromes and suchlike further ramping up the figures.

The cyborg components do not provide a connection in the manner of various original connections and as such there are still substantial disconnection. Had the ACC cooperation with the medical profession in the beginning then a proper repair would have been achieved. This more than adequately demonstrates the outrageous incompetence and arrogance of the ACC when challenging the medical profession based on rational not based in medical science, such as assumptions of work followed by more assumptions that if working no longer incapacitated to work.

My medical files are not being denied to either myself or the ACC yet the ACC seemed to be working vigourously to avoid taking possession from the hospital while the same time claiming that whatever I give them is not trustworthy. Instead of going to the hospital and surgeon the ACC go to my doctor who never had any involvement with the arrangement of surgery or any post surgery activities other than ask the ACC to carry out the necessary assessment for the supply of postsurgical home help et cetera. All my doctor knows is that I have had substantial portion of the required surgery. He has no information regarding the details.

I have continuously requested that the ACC tidy up my files. The ACCs own auditor has instructed the staff managing my files to get them in order as they continue to be in a horrible state of disarray. After ACC succeeded in cancelling my claim and withholding any information from the reviewer and achieved a criminal conviction on the basis that I wasn't entitled to my claim the ACC founded self unable to make disclosure of the relevant documents of my claim. Up until the present situation has not changed. Of course ACC continue to receive all documentation such as consent forms as and when asked. The ACC have been advised that if they find themselves losing any consent forms they are more than welcome to explain this problem to me and asked for a copy. ACC have always therefore had access to my medical records. However the ACC appear to have forgone this privilege preferring instead to talk to members of the public in regards to the state of my well being, despite the fact that they have had minimal contact, a drunkard's and suchlike providing their own impressions rather than hard data in order that the ACC make the decisions. I have asked for the ACC to correct the various mistakes within my files in accordance with the privacy act with the ACC simply ignoring me.

I reiterate that the ACC legislation requires the ACC to administer the act to determine its own liability to me in accordance with that legislation and it is not a matter of my compelling the ACC but rather the legislation compelling the ACC. This requires the ACC to gather and manage the information on my file to make decisions which cannot be done until the ACC first tidy up my file, determine what information they don't have and then acquiring it from the sources described to them and then have still not having adequate information requesting that I attend their own assessors for clinical examination and the production of reports. This is not unusual but rather simply compliant with the act in a manner of obedience to that act.

I do not have a copy of my surgical notes that have glanced over them. I do expect ACC to eventually acquire all information including those surgical notes and the surgical notes of the previous surgeon together with the notes of the hospital that pointed out to the 1992 surgeon that he did not have consent and that was embarking upon the wrong operation to the wrong part of my body. Then the ACC can follow the outcome of that wrong procedure through the various subsequent medical professionals including those that commissioned themselves to determine the magnitude of the additional liability caused by additional incapacity after that 60%. The 1992 surgeon's own comments, under oath, on the transcript of the 1999 trial is also interesting in as much as when the surgeon was questioned as to whether or not there was anything wrong with my wrist before and after surgery confirmed that I continue to have a "grossly disorganised wrist". There is no information of any description from anybody, including the ACCs members of the public that contradicts this fundamental scientific fact.

How much the hospital paid for the surgery in recent times is in fact entirely irrelevant as the ACC had agreed by way of pro forma invoice to pay for the surgery. The hospital it would seem agreed that they could not wait on the ACC any longer so proceeded to perform the surgery on an emergency basis at their own cost of the deteriorating nature of my health and circumstance agreeing that they were not in a position to be allowed under law to abandon me even though the ACC clearly had done so. as both ACC levy payer and a taxpayer I had the legitimate expectation that the taxpayer should not pay the ACCs bills but that is another matter.

Never forget that the ACC is required to administer the ACC legislation for the purposes of promoting rehabilitation. This means that the ACC does not wait on third-party direction but manages the situation on its own accord so as not to cause long-term claimants causing a burden on the scheme for want of medical treatment. For example if a claimant was injured and was not receiving the necessary treatment it is appropriate for the ACC to investigate in order to promote rehabilitation rather than simply love there has together in glee that they are not required to become involved in the event that the claimant has a incompetent treatment provider. When we look at the way ACC do the other thing by seeking ways to reduce treatment through challenging the medical profession treating the claimant then we can see the ACC does have awareness of the duties which is of course both ways.

You seem to be turning your mind to normal insurance business practices rather than the stated objectives and spirit of the ACC legislation designed to act in the interests of the claimant rather than its own interests.

You seem to be confused about the nature of the appeal is being made whereby your focus seems to have shifted to issues that were not part of that appeal then expressed by the court which are of course totally irrelevant and must simply be disregarded.

I don't know where you have gained the impression that there has been little improvement since the recent first age of the succession of necessary surgeries. There has been a tremendous change in my life to the extent that I have been able to return to my preinjury occupation on light duties. I don't know where you get your impressions from but you seem to be selective in your thinking in order to maintain your high levels of aggression against me. I find that rather sad that you do not have the capacity for objective thought but rather are so easily swayed by emotion and the desire to involve yourself in "groupthink". This behaviour pattern of yours is supported by your sometimes colourful language which you attempt to disguise in abbreviated form. That does not reduce any way the dedication what type of person you are and how you think with the last sentence demonstrating the driving force of your very emotional state of mind to what should be a purely logical and sequential discussion working towards direct and agreed states of fact and law.


The following should help you cut across all of the emotional read hearings that have drawn your attention away from the central points from which there is no escape. These inescapable answers to the following will provide the necessary foundation for your thinking. Yes I am directing you in an inescapable fashion to reach the only possible conclusions. Do you care to take this journey?

You seem to be an agreement with the ACC cancelled my entire claim based on the ACC allegation that I was working despite the ACC not having one single piece of evidence describing not even one work task activity at any material time.

Do you agree with the legislation that requires ACC to carry out a scientifically objective assessment process by an independently qualified medical professional to determine whether or not it is safe for me to return to my preinjury occupation? As the ACC have never carried out any such assessment do you therefore agree that the ACC has made the decision to cancel my claim without the benefit of legislation?

As the medical profession continue to restrict nature of my activities whereby there is insufficient activity for me to fully participate in my preinjury occupation does the legislation require the ACC to act upon that information in favour of the information they relied upon to cancel my claim being the assumption that I was working by those who have now stated under oath that they never actually had any information?
1

#27 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 01:58 PM

Just refresh my memory please , what was your pre-injury occupation written on your wrist certificate.?
0

#28 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 January 2016 - 02:16 PM

View Postgreg, on 05 January 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Just refresh my memory please , what was your pre-injury occupation written on your wrist certificate.?


Project Manager

Having said that the legislation does not call for reference to a job title for the claim but rather the individual work task activities they were relied upon to generate earnings. A job title only becomes relevant under the 1992 and subsequent legislation is in reference to rehabilitating into a new occupation.
1

#29 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 02:45 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 January 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

Project Manager

Having said that the legislation does not call for reference to a job title for the claim but rather the individual work task activities they were relied upon to generate earnings. A job title only becomes relevant under the 1992 and subsequent legislation is in reference to rehabilitating into a new occupation.


This injury claim is under the 92 act correct.?
0

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 January 2016 - 05:23 PM

View Postgreg, on 05 January 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

This injury claim is under the 92 act correct.?


No
1982 Act
1

#31 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 06:04 PM

82 act uses occupations , not 'job title'

work sheets use occupation groups not 'job title'

Why do you use this term?.
0

#32 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 January 2016 - 06:13 PM

View Postgreg, on 05 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

82 act uses occupations , not 'job title'

work sheets use occupation groups not 'job title'

Why do you use this term?.


ACC legislation ensures our capacity to earn.
The legislation does not ensure an occupation or occupational group.
I must stressthat it is our capacity to earn from our traditional work task activity and not something abstract such as a title or category that becomes extraordinary difficult to measure in real terms. The capacity to earn in the first instance relates to returning to the preinjury earnings activities which is determined as being competent by the employer of which the legislation provides a right to challenge under the legislation.
1

#33 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 06:21 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 January 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

ACC legislation ensures our capacity to earn.
The legislation does not ensure an occupation or occupational group.
I must stressthat it is our capacity to earn from our traditional work task activity and not something abstract such as a title or category that becomes extraordinary difficult to measure in real terms. The capacity to earn in the first instance relates to returning to the preinjury earnings activities which is determined as being competent by the employer of which the legislation provides a right to challenge under the legislation.

Nothing here to suggest a 4 kg limit ;
Production Manager (Manufacturing)
Typical Physical and Mental Demands1:
Sedentary work with frequent sitting in offices to complete work or in meetings.
Stands and walks frequently around production/manufacturing areas.
Lifting, carrying or pulling is not a significant component of the job.
Bending, squatting or crouching is not a significant feature of the job.
Occasional to frequent repetitive hand and finger movements are required when using hand-held objects/equipment such as pens, calculators, a keyboard and mouse.
Driving is not typically a significant feature of the job.
Mental skills necessary include a high level of cognitive functioning with communication, interpersonal, organisational, problem solving, critical thinking and decision-making capabilities.

http://www.acc.co.nz...eets/WTDS000756
0

#34 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 January 2016 - 06:25 PM

View Postgreg, on 05 January 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

Nothing here to suggest a 4 kg limit ;
Production Manager (Manufacturing)
Typical Physical and Mental Demands1:
Sedentary work with frequent sitting in offices to complete work or in meetings.
Stands and walks frequently around production/manufacturing areas.
Lifting, carrying or pulling is not a significant component of the job.
Bending, squatting or crouching is not a significant feature of the job.
Occasional to frequent repetitive hand and finger movements are required when using hand-held objects/equipment such as pens, calculators, a keyboard and mouse.
Driving is not typically a significant feature of the job.
Mental skills necessary include a high level of cognitive functioning with communication, interpersonal, organisational, problem solving, critical thinking and decision-making capabilities.

http://www.acc.co.nz...eets/WTDS000756


There is no legal basis for the material you have just quoted from the and moreover the work task activities I was involved in had very little resemblance to what you have quoted. For example of you have described anything to do with the use of hand tools and more particularly what type of hand tools et cetera et cetera.

it seems to me that you are bogus your attention on the ACC criteria addressing matters relevant to gaming a work capacity in a new occupation and the tools they use to measure that, which by the way has nothing whatsoever to do with the legislated criteria for making such determinations. To add to the problem the ACC were told to create such determinations immediately after the 1992 legislation but the ACC did nothing about that until November 1997 some months after they had made a decision to cancel my claim leaving them with no opportunity whatsoever to then turn around and make some kind of determination.
1

#35 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 06:37 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 January 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

There is no legal basis for the material you have just quoted from the and moreover the work task activities I was involved in had very little resemblance to what you have quoted. For example of you have described anything to do with the use of hand tools and more particularly what type of hand tools et cetera et cetera.

it seems to me that you are bogus your attention on the ACC criteria addressing matters relevant to gaming a work capacity in a new occupation and the tools they use to measure that, which by the way has nothing whatsoever to do with the legislated criteria for making such determinations. To add to the problem the ACC were told to create such determinations immediately after the 1992 legislation but the ACC did nothing about that until November 1997 some months after they had made a decision to cancel my claim leaving them with no opportunity whatsoever to then turn around and make some kind of determination.


So What ; This is the ACC rules every other claimant and advocate deals with
to recieve ERC or weekly money these rule apply .
0

#36 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 January 2016 - 07:07 PM

View Postgreg, on 05 January 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

So What ; This is the ACC rules every other claimant and advocate deals with
to recieve ERC or weekly money these rule apply .


Just like the ACC refusing to comply with legislation to produce regulations in 1992, until Nov 1997 (WCAP) , we still have the same problem with the ACC refusing to comply with the directions of the legislator but instead doing their own thing until now.
1

#37 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 07:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 January 2016 - 07:07 PM, said:

Just like the ACC refusing to comply with legislation to produce regulations in 1992, until Nov 1997 (WCAP) , we still have the same problem with the ACC refusing to comply with the directions of the legislator but instead doing their own thing until now.

Are you now claiming every ACC claimants being paid a weekly/ERC. or other payments eg IA , home help
are breaking NZ law.?
1

#38 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2016 - 10:18 PM

Why bother seriously , Mr thomas will never ever get ACC or payments from them.

First his hand claim at sea is proven to be unrealible , and he was allegedly doing Work/things ,ACC
were not told about , yet had monies/earnings entering bank account he controlled with others
for the purpose of profit.
3

#39 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 06 January 2016 - 08:45 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 06 January 2016 - 07:35 AM, said:

I may not have time today for any part C for you today Alan



I am just bouncing a few small ideas around I can greg ...

... & yep guess I just get too astonished at some of the incongruent &or IMHO utterly implausible stories sometimes ie am comparing/contrasting issues when able Posted Image


Nothing different re Thomas and the Bomb Plot either
All implausible / contrasting Really mostly Evasiveness via is cunningly contrived wordsmithging
something all the Judges appear to have picked up as a Thomas factor

David
1

#40 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 06 January 2016 - 09:01 AM

it states quite clearly under ALL ACTS....

that if you rip off the acc and are convicted of doing so...then entitlements are discretionary...

Thomas will NEVER be a mutli millionaire off the back of acc...EVER...

twice convicted for 2 different issues....no third chance there....


quite simply, the acc, the judiciary and all claimants are OVER his "versions of the truth and the law"....


pays to check what one has written in the past, (advice for all liars)...

so that one does not keep contradicting oneself to create new lies.....
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