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?
REX 
not their victim, on 04 January 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:
Help
