ACCforum: More information in Reviewers file than mine - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

More information in Reviewers file than mine

#1 User is offline   karrie001 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-November 15

Posted 11 April 2016 - 09:01 PM

I have read my Review decision and it is clear there was information in the Reviewers file that wasn't in the one given to me by ACC. I spoke to the Reviewers secretary and she confirmed the file contained a timeframe applicable to my injury that my case manager will not give me. Has anyone else encounted this issue? I sent a OIA request to my CM's supervisor and followed it up with a phone call when she didn't respond - she denied receiving the request and told me "you've had all you're going to get from us". She then sent me the BMA's decisions that I already had. I have made a formal complaint to the ACC Privacy Officer who referred me to the branch manager who has not read my file or even checked to see that the Reviewers file contained any additional information and does not intend to. So frustrating that they look after their own and any complaint is obviously not investigated.
0

#2 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:41 AM

View Postkarrie001, on 11 April 2016 - 09:01 PM, said:

I have read my Review decision and it is clear there was information in the Reviewers file that wasn't in the one given to me by ACC. I spoke to the Reviewers secretary and she confirmed the file contained a timeframe applicable to my injury that my case manager will not give me. Has anyone else encounted this issue? I sent a OIA request to my CM's supervisor and followed it up with a phone call when she didn't respond - she denied receiving the request and told me "you've had all you're going to get from us". She then sent me the BMA's decisions that I already had. I have made a formal complaint to the ACC Privacy Officer who referred me to the branch manager who has not read my file or even checked to see that the Reviewers file contained any additional information and does not intend to. So frustrating that they look after their own and any complaint is obviously not investigated.


Hi welcome to accforum.org



You haven't placed anything out of the ordinary bull crap that goes on and at least the reviewer had the information.

What you describe as the missing information,, sounds as if it may not be file information but rather Case management procedural policy that the case manager would only need really.

Don't go by the Acc policy time frames as your Gp will be who can best advise these sort of time frame to be expected, simply because every case is different and your injuries and case will have its own mitigating factors.
1

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 12 April 2016 - 07:14 AM

View Postkarrie001, on 11 April 2016 - 09:01 PM, said:

I have read my Review decision and it is clear there was information in the Reviewers file that wasn't in the one given to me by ACC. I spoke to the Reviewers secretary and she confirmed the file contained a timeframe applicable to my injury that my case manager will not give me. Has anyone else encounted this issue? I sent a OIA request to my CM's supervisor and followed it up with a phone call when she didn't respond - she denied receiving the request and told me "you've had all you're going to get from us". She then sent me the BMA's decisions that I already had. I have made a formal complaint to the ACC Privacy Officer who referred me to the branch manager who has not read my file or even checked to see that the Reviewers file contained any additional information and does not intend to. So frustrating that they look after their own and any complaint is obviously not investigated.


An OIA request is not the right process for what you want to achieve. An OIA is a question directed to an agency about that agency but your request is for personal information which is a different matter.

You need to make a request under Principle / Rule 6 of the Privacy Act requesting the specific information you require. If they fail to do so then you have an action with the Privacy Commission.
1

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:07 PM

This practice of the ACC providing a reviewer with more information than being provided to the appellant (the claimant) is of course illegal as it is a perversion of the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice has a prison sentence of up to 7 years depending on the value of the matter being addressed and issues of public interest.

In 1997 my file demonstrates numerous instances of the ACC sending the reviewer that they were going to I appealed the decision.

I did appeal and on my arrival the ACC were not there and had not made any submissions will provide me with any information whatsoever. The ACC had claimed that I was working but had failed to disclose a single work task activity at any material time. As my appeal was based on my not working I was intrigued that they had made a claim that I was and knew that I would be able to disarm and dismantle any allegation that I was as I had an accurate and thorough record of everything I had been doing together with exhibits. The reviewer agreed with me that the ACC had to disclose their allegations to me to give me the opportunity to appeal to those allegations otherwise there could not be a review hearing. I asked the reviewer to make his decision based on what was before on the day of the review hearing. The reviewer said he could not hear the matter until the ACC may disclosure. Without my consent the reviewer adjourned without being invited to do so by either myself or the ACC. Private communications occurred between the reviewer and the ACC with the result that the reviewer did not reconvene but made his decision not to overturn the ACC decision based on those private discussions of which I was not permitted to be present.

The rest is history by way of the ACC obtaining a search warrant and still fighting no information of any work, asking the district court to suspend my appeal rights of the review hearing so that they could run a criminal prosecution which made a decision based on the ACC's claim only that it possessed information and use that information to cancel my claim and therefore accuse me of fraud on the basis that I was not entitled to my claim which of course resulted in a prison sentence of three years. Upon getting out of jail the ACC still continued to not disclose the information they claimed resulting in the review appeal judge relying upon the criminal conviction judges decision.

The privacy Commissioner initially failed to act on time for the review here rendering the privacy Commissioner approach impotent.
After the review hearing the privacy Commissioner then cited the exemption the ACC called upon based on the section of the privacy act addressing the matter of the public good in circumstances whereby the information is related to a criminal prosecution and that disclosure of the information would hinder the progress of the investigation. The ACC will always rely upon this section of the privacy act when they are investigating for fraud. However after the fraud conviction the privacy Commissioner refused to act on the basis that they had already addressed the issues when in fact they had done absolutely nothing.

As can be seen it is critically important that disclosure is made by the ACC to the appellant (claimant) so as matters do not escalate as they did with mine. There endith the lesson.
1

#5 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:36 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 April 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

This practice of the ACC providing a reviewer with more information than being provided to the appellant (the claimant) is of course illegal as it is a perversion of the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice has a prison sentence of up to 7 years depending on the value of the matter being addressed and issues of public interest.

In 1997 my file demonstrates numerous instances of the ACC sending the reviewer that they were going to I appealed the decision.

I did appeal and on my arrival the ACC were not there and had not made any submissions will provide me with any information whatsoever. The ACC had claimed that I was working but had failed to disclose a single work task activity at any material time. As my appeal was based on my not working I was intrigued that they had made a claim that I was and knew that I would be able to disarm and dismantle any allegation that I was as I had an accurate and thorough record of everything I had been doing together with exhibits. The reviewer agreed with me that the ACC had to disclose their allegations to me to give me the opportunity to appeal to those allegations otherwise there could not be a review hearing. I asked the reviewer to make his decision based on what was before on the day of the review hearing. The reviewer said he could not hear the matter until the ACC may disclosure. Without my consent the reviewer adjourned without being invited to do so by either myself or the ACC. Private communications occurred between the reviewer and the ACC with the result that the reviewer did not reconvene but made his decision not to overturn the ACC decision based on those private discussions of which I was not permitted to be present.

The rest is history by way of the ACC obtaining a search warrant and still fighting no information of any work, asking the district court to suspend my appeal rights of the review hearing so that they could run a criminal prosecution which made a decision based on the ACC's claim only that it possessed information and use that information to cancel my claim and therefore accuse me of fraud on the basis that I was not entitled to my claim which of course resulted in a prison sentence of three years. Upon getting out of jail the ACC still continued to not disclose the information they claimed resulting in the review appeal judge relying upon the criminal conviction judges decision.

The privacy Commissioner initially failed to act on time for the review here rendering the privacy Commissioner approach impotent.
After the review hearing the privacy Commissioner then cited the exemption the ACC called upon based on the section of the privacy act addressing the matter of the public good in circumstances whereby the information is related to a criminal prosecution and that disclosure of the information would hinder the progress of the investigation. The ACC will always rely upon this section of the privacy act when they are investigating for fraud. However after the fraud conviction the privacy Commissioner refused to act on the basis that they had already addressed the issues when in fact they had done absolutely nothing.

As can be seen it is critically important that disclosure is made by the ACC to the appellant (claimant) so as matters do not escalate as they did with mine. There endith the lesson.


Ok I stand corrected Alan

It IS important that the acc disclose ALL the information that has been provided to the reviewer as we don't want this happening to another claimant.




Karrie001

Maybe you make a complaint to the office of the privacy commissioner (Not the acc privacy department) be specific in what you disclose WAS supplied by the reviewer and what WAS supplied by the Acc .

I suggest you even get help with the privacy issue

Just remember too that the privacy commissioners office will be looking to justify Acc's actions.

Don't allow this to detract you from your ongoing dispute and the timeframes, and make sure you include all written evidence you have tried to obtain the documents.

One last point

These complaints can complicate things and a lawyer will charge for each issue they represent you NOT just everything.



1

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:44 PM

My current situation is that I will be initiating criminal proceedings against the ACC staff officer that failed to make full disclosure. the failure of disclosure has occurred at many different levels such as failing to disclose to medical assessors, complaints officer, fellow staff members and more importantly both the reviewers and district court judges.this attracts a potential period of incarceration of up to 7 years depending on the value of the claim involved as we are dealing with the perversion of the court of justice. perversion of the course of justice includes the induction of false documentation by withholding of information to persons such as medical assessors who produce documentation which the accused recognises as more properly than not being a document that will be challenged in a judicial environment.

The result of this process has been that this ACC staff member has exclusive control over my files to the exclusion of all others and locked down even more information while disregarding numerous claims for cover and entitlements writing back that they have or be dealt with these matters when they have not.

Alan Fells of Australia, previously of the ACCC, recommends criminal prosecution of government servants in these circumstances as the proper mechanism to affect change as in the event that one of two government officials are convicted the rest will fall into line and not dare attempt to Cheat those they are paid to serve.
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