ACCforum: Thomas v ACC decision NZACC 321 (28 October 2015) - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Thomas v ACC decision NZACC 321 (28 October 2015) alleged TBI, IA, & deemed decisions & consent discussed

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:14 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:24 PM

Alan Thomas' NO1 STALKER strikes AGAIN.
0

#3 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:37 PM

 anonymousey, on 15 May 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

:rolleyes:/> this wannabee targeting trolley does not comprehend the fact that there have been hundreds of forum discussions with Alan himself & or other members on various evidence specifics of many of these issues &or courtcases... so as always please ignore it :wacko:/>


All you do on this forum is run around harassing Alan Thomas

Why don't you get a life

Or is Alan Thomas your life..:unsure:/>



0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10598
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 May 2016 - 05:12 PM

I don't know what is being attempted here. The issue is quite simple, ACC accepted the claim to be connected to a foundation injury then upon realising that they had not considered the brain injury as a factor to be considered under the 1997 decision attempted to ignore that previous decision. In agreement with the ACC another application for cover was submitted of which the ACC fail to issue a decision resulting in a deemed decision threshold being passed. The ACC claimed to have cancelled my consent on the ACC 45 Form which they asserted disabled them from an investigation yet there is no evidence on my file that was the case as there is simply no activity on the case at all. In other words the ACC again committed perjury to the court. An application for a delay of process for the ACC to confirm a dean decision was submitted Of which the ACC fail to set down a review hearing date. This again resulted in an automated legislated decision in my favour as if a reviewer had made the decision. The ACC then again failed to confirm that I did have cover which resulted in another review hearing application for the delay of process to confirm the Dean decision in relation to the failed review hearing application date being posted. Eventually a reviewer got to hear the delay of process application to confirm the Dean decision with the reviewer deciding in Instead to address the substantive issues as if he had the right to involve himself in the merits of the actual decision in defiance of the legislated criteria that means the decision had already been made as if the reviewer had made the decision. In other words the reviewer took the view that he could hear an appeal that was not even lost by the ACC which in any event at the very least would have Had to have been lost with the district court. The appeal to the district court was in regards to Compliance with the automated deeming process and not the substantive issue. Nonetheless the judge took upon himself to disregard the appeal and instead addressed the matter is that the ACC had appealed on the merits of the facts.

Subsequently further medical tests have confirmed not only the original described brain damage but additional brain damage and that there was definitely a causal effect to the accident event described and that there could not have been the existence of a brain injury prior to that date.

The ACC have not yet made a decision on cover and have been reminded to provide me with that decision or if they have accidentally not provided me with a copy of that decision an actual copy of the decision. In the event that the ACC discover that they had never made a decision then of course we are back to square one with 18 decision in my favour and the ACCs obligation to inform me of that fact .

So what we have here is a cyber of jiggery-pokery Inflicted upon me by bureaucratic thugs together with those Including the author of this thread who seek to cosy up to such thugs.
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10598
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 May 2016 - 07:59 PM


anonymousey



I certainly do not engage in any kind of self reporting when it comes to medical matters. The medical profession rely upon all manner of clinical examinations that have taken advantage of the highest level of clinical diagnostic equipment available in New Zealand. For example with the brain injury I entered the hospital and shortly after the procedure became unconscious with the clinician carrying out the testing procedures for A stroke while I was having a stroke.. The record shows that I was rushed to a surgical unit that plan to enter the carotid artery to extract the clot that have formed In conjunction with the cot busting medication that was prescribed. When a clot forms in the carotid artery there is only one possibility which is that the clot is going to enter the brain and starve the brain of oxygen. This is a matter of clinical records.




Subsequently the medical evidence by way of CT and MRI scans has identified one major infarcts and now with more modern equipment widespread micro Infarcts which is something that does not happen by any other means than a blood clot breaking up through the circle of Willis and spreading wholesale through the brain.




In addition I have recently had an up-to-date clinical examination that has identified proof beyond reasonable doubt the degree of disability in a quantifiable way




Why is it then that the ACC and persons such as yourself choose to ignore scientific fact When such scientific evidence is available but rather prefer to rely upon your imagination instead. This is not just simple arrogance but rather something that is driven such as a financial motive or in your case your compulsive aversive disorder and Your Propensity towards hatred without justifiable cause. Your formal stalking me naturally forces me a great deal of concern. We are reaching the point where mental health services will Need to intercede for my safety.






1

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