ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

... .

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 02 August 2016 - 08:33 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 08:43 PM

WOW your harassment of Alan and you spending all day and night stalking him with threads and posts, is making me wonder if you are a threat to his safety. :unsure:
1

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:28 PM

Following a Chemical Injury Claim help for Alan Thomas with retrospective issues etc



What retrospective issues?
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:49 PM

Hopefully if ALan wishes he may clarify some of these previous comments &or provide any relevant updates to specific issues eg has an Australian Specialist now been located?

Why?
What is the objective?
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:53 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 02 August 2016 - 09:42 PM, said:

I am referring to my observation that apparently ... you may NOT have submitted any ACC45 forms for chemical injury in 1984 ....but instead it seems waited for possibly 25 years to pass?

IMHO once you may be able to clarify timelines, relevant circumstances present at significant milestones, professionals involved, evidence obtained ...then this may assist minimising confusion and inconsistencies &or other members can offer you pertinent feedback too perhaps?? Also Alan, I am also acutely conscious that your chemical injury commentary appears to be getting intertwined with numerous other injury issues or claims or complaints ....


None of that is relevant as the claim is now accepted.
The issue is now moves on to calculating entitlements such as ACC paying for treatment.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 10:54 PM

Thr up to date is the 2 claims have cover. Clear

Why do you think this s a retrospective claim?

ACC is nothing to do with risk. Its a no fault system.


Remember your guess' are not observations
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:07 PM

Forget ACC concepts and policies or issues, go tothe ACC act

.did ACC provide you with the appropriate decision letters to verify detailing of entitlements etc
No 3 review hearing in my favour have instructed ACC to get that underway within 20 days and they still haven't started

I have already said to you that the 1st claim was lodge 1984


Why are you saying retrospective claim? ACC have failed to action the claim

At this late stage ACC do not have the leave of the Act to prossess in a retrospective mode. over is a done deal

The next step is to pay pay pay


Thios case is not about the other subject matter so you are going to have to be self disciplined an stay on point.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:26 PM

So the only issue is about ACC calculating my entitlement as per the 3 review hearings in my favour requiring ACC to act within 20 days
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 03 August 2016 - 12:07 AM

you CONFIRM you have NO ENTITLEMENTS approved
No I got home help

you CONFIRM you have only some first tier administrative review decision approved Chemical Injury Claim that has been signed and dated by a Fairway Reviewer

No the 3 were decisions of the judiciary and remain binding on all parties

you CONFIRM your cover is NOT any DEEMED DECISION also
No. Read the ACC Act as the decision have been made by the Act. ACC agree

and of course any updated lists which have been issued by ACC since 1984
No That claim was for a foot injury cause by the chemical inebriation causing blackouts


BTW Alan ...I was using the term retrospective in relation to you apparently lodging some ACC45 form twentyfive years AFTER the alleged chemical exposure accident etc
No. That is called a repeat claim as the 1982 Act had no enforcement when ACC dustbin-ed a claim. The current Act put a stop to that abuse with Review Hearing enforcement.. Just be humble and submit your self to the Act

MHO such claims are very difficult to have approved Alan .... mainly because they fall into the same holes and patterns that can be found with numerous personal injury litigation illustrations eg evidential timesheets missing
No. As stated the claim is locked in. So now it would be ACCs job to come up with real information to make any challenge, not me. As I owned the business I control all the information


So okay you are 100% wrong despite all the information already on the forum. What is going on? Are you acting in bad faith?

It looks like we are seeing a pattern of attck rather that you asking question and then being of help in relation to the actual issues.

What do you have to say for yourself? Can you honestly claim you don't have an evil mind with an evil intent?
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 01:18 AM

Judge Powell has NOT struck out any appeals of the deemed decision. ACC have not Appealed any of the deemed decisions .

The appeal were in regards to the ACC failing to act on those appeals. Didn't you realise that?

With regards the other issues you are again trying to make picture from several different jigsaw boxes.. One box one pickure only and if you don't have all the pieces instead of imagine or raiding other boxes just ask.

You need to be learning from you mistakes and can therefore never ever have a chance of any progress.

So okay you are 100% wrong despite all the information already on the forum. What is going on? Are you acting in bad faith?
It looks like we are seeing a pattern of attack rather that you asking question and then being of help in relation to the actual issues.
What do you have to say for yourself? Can you honestly claim you don't have an evil mind with an evil intent?

The insurmountable fact that you are forgetting is that the medical profession, including the ACC medical reports, without exception agree that there are multiple injuries preventing me from work. You and ACC fail to address the basics. So what is the factual and legal biases for both your and ACC's attack against me?


0

#11 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 10:01 AM

I thought I read that the brain injury occurred under anaesthetic?

And had been linked to "wrong surgery" whereby the surgeon stuffed the wrist. ..

Such a convoluted story...
1

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 12:21 PM

My Response in blue

View Postnot their victim, on 07 August 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

I thought I read that the brain injury occurred under anaesthetic?
Wrong. The way in which the brain injury came about has been well documented on this site without you having any access to any information whatsoever to think otherwise. So here we have a case of you are imagining something and then writing it down which undoubtedly will result in someone else reading what you have written and recalling what they have read as well. Is the nature of a Chinese whisper whereby one mistake is repeated by another mistake that is slightly wrong and honoured goes until you get something that is completely ridiculous.


And had been linked to "wrong surgery" whereby the surgeon stuffed the wrist. ..
ACC disobeyed the review hearing directions requiring them to fund reconstructive surgery and told the surgery not to do the reconstructive surgery but rather do a salvage procedure with the saving of a comparatively small amount of money without asking for obtaining my consent. The moment the surgeon touches someone in that situation the surgeon commits assault with the ACC entering into a conspiracy to commit assault. As it happened although the surgeon opened up the surgery site and the surrounding areas, three incisions totalling about 250 cm, the surgeon had a look and decided not to act to do what the ACC had instructed to do recognising that the ACC proposed surgery was entirely irrelevant and inapplicable to the injury. he did not have the necessary surgical equipment to carry out the surgery discussed with me when she had consent. At that point the only legal thing he could have done was to stop what he was doing and close up. Instead he embarked upon an experiment oversowing ligaments in a manner that can only be described as nonconsensual experimental surgery. The clinical description from others who are qualified to give an opinion state that it appears that he has tried to rely upon the strength of the surgical nylon to hold my rest onto my arm. As I am an engineer I am aware that the nylon is going to lose its tensile strength over a reasonably short period of time and therefore would have had absolutely no chance of being the surgical success. I'm also aware that it is extremely difficult for anyone to challenge what he has done without actually cutting the open and having a look, which is now being done. Nylon does not show up on x-rays. Fortunately a radiographer completely by accident demonstrated the surgeon's layout as to what he actually did when the radio opaque die flooded around the surgical nylon highlighting where it actually been placed. The evidence is that the surgeon even operated on portions of my body that were not injured, in other words the wrong part of my body. His approach can only be described from a bio engineering point of view as completely ridiculous. I have now had a substantial element of my severely damage rest secured by an artificial wrist joint. My hands still is not properly attached to my arm but I have significantly less pain and increased dexterity less the numbness of my fingers which prevents light work such as using a pen or mouse properly. I have now gone from no useful capacity whatsoever to have a 4 KG capacity. Sadly 4 KG, which is now the maximum I will ever have, does not restore me to my preinjury occupation which requires far more load capacity, even to the point of being able to rescue an ACC claimant on a work trial in environment we should not have been resulting in my obtaining a strain injury.

The connection to the nonconsensual experimental surgery ordered by the ACC that failed and brain injury is that the following year I was booked into hospital on emergency basis to locate the induced blood flow problem subsequent to the surgery as my hand was turning blue. An artery had been compressed at the site of the surgical activity and introduction of nylon being oversewing the various ligaments in the region. during the course of this clinical examination involving a catheter being placed right up the aorta resulted in the catheter accidentally going into the carotid artery of which the trainee medical person accidentally the inside of the artery wall causing a bleed which became a clot of which broke free and entered into the circle of Willis at the brainstem resulting in fragmented blood clots scattering throughout my brain with a large clot blocking an artery to a portion of the intersecting portion of my brain involving the control of my right hand and speech centre which is on the left hemisphere. The hospital has recently discovered that there is wide scale micro-damage elsewhere in my brain which they conclude is as a result of the same accident event as well.

Exhaustive tests have been carried out by the hospital in reliance upon CT MRI and a battery of other tests confirming notable brain injury caused by that accident event in 1993 which confirms the correctness of the brain injury claim. ACC have failed to make any decision within the time allowed to make decisions resulting in an automated decision in my favour, a deemed decision. This has resulted in subsequent review hearing applications being lodged concerning the delay of process to address the subsequent duties of the ACC concerning the calibration of my disability including capacity to work in my preinjury occupation.



Such a convoluted story...


I'm sorry that you thought it was a convoluted story but I trust that the above sets matters straight for you
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 12:34 PM

anonymousey
I'm sorry to hear that you think the medical reports are some kind a rabbit hole. Just because you do not understand medical matters that doesn't mean your imagination is a replacement for medical science. Just because you do not have the capacity to comprehend science that does not mean science is convoluted to point of incomprehension. Your lack of comprehension is merely a fact that directly related to your capacity to remember and reason which all your writings confirm is a capacity that you do not have as you keep on mixing things up and reconfiguring them to your own reality and then seek my endorsement to your unreality. Just because I try to just as I would with any other schizophrenic who has become detached from reality to bring them back into the real world that does not mean that you should hate me as schizophrenic so often do. I think we will appreciate that high functioning schizophrenics are very difficult to detect but nonetheless I do think you have been afflicted with this ailment subsequent to qualified third opinion who has read your postings.

In order for you to become well grounded and normal as a human you need to get back to basics. As a learning exercise for you to develop your neurological pathways into a more functional configuration, which will properly take several years, you must rigourously examine your belief system against real things.


In my case the reality is that no one challenges the fact that there have been numerous accident events that resulted in injury and incapacity. Even the ACC freely agree to these facts in all the courts. ACC however have now modified their position to consider that although injured and incapacitated I can returned to my preinjury occupation but then discovered they did not know what the preinjury occupation was. The ACC attempted to remedy this defect in 2008 with the assistance of private investigators who obtained reports from a new set of informants, recognising that the existing informants actually had no information about what they thought I was doing in the first instance, and try to configure what my occupation was from the assumptions made by those new informants. Unbeknown to the ACC private investigators they collected information from those who had only seen me for short periods of time while I was already incapacitated and on light duties from the first injury and as such did not place themselves in a position to provide the ACC with any meaningful information. So we have a situation of ACC not knowing what my preinjury work task activities were and had no information regarding what type of work task activities they imagined I might mean doing when cancelling my claim. Therefore the ACC had no information to carry out any form of comparison as required by the legislation when making decisions as there was no information at the beginning of the end. the medical reports describe injury to both elbows shoulders right wrist and hand compounded by PTSD from one injury event which was compounded by nonconsensual experimental surgery causing increased disability of which the ACC originally said would be part of the original accident claim and later under the current legislation wanted a fresh application made so they could apply a new number to the surgeon's disobedience and assault. Likewise to the brain injury ACC has taken the position that the original decision to include the injury with the original claim was wrong resulting in ACC wanting a new claim made so a new number could be applied. This was done on without predators basis. As to the chemical injury the hospital was required by the ACC legislation to lodge the ACC 45 format the date of injury for the accident event. With regards to the gradual process injury this was recognised when I broke my foot and the claim lodged. The ACC ignore this claim and there was no penalty under the previous legislation regarding Dean decisions as there is now. At the suggestion of my doctor fresh ACC claims were placed for both accident event and gradual process chemical injuries. That is two claims relating to chemical injury with the broken foot claim with the accident event caused by chemical inebriation still outstanding. All of this information was presented to the court not by my opinion but by way of medical reports with the medical reports not rely upon any of my input as I did not provide any given that the facts spoke for themselves such as CT scans and suchlike.

This part addresses your capacity for rational thought, logic and comprehension. Given that the ACC ddid not possess any information regarding preinjury work task activities or subsequent evidence of any work task activities at any material time while not placed themselves in a position to challenge any medical report describing gross disruption caused by injury preventing any work task activities are still very generously at my insistence stating that while I was incapacitated in various different other ways as well I still could do two hours per day fragmented throughout the day.

Given that information do you think that there is any factual or legal basis for Judge Barber to cancel the ACCs original 1997 decision of total declinature based on ACC possessing information I was working and replace that decision with a decision that I was no longer incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation given the fact that all the information that the judge was presented with confirmed that to be a biological impossibility?

You may like to read his decision where he claims to have greater expertise based on the 17 years of the bench than the medical profession as in the many years of qualification experience by comparison. You may like to comment as to the competency of the judge in this regard.
0

#14 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 04:34 PM

re post 26

blah blah blah...

I know what I READ

I KNOW WHAT YOU CHANGED....

not interested in ongoing versions of what you DONT REMEMBER HAVING WRITTEN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.....


and unfortunately for you...

mechanism of injury is very important....and so is supporting literature from the appropriate personnel...

again, i prefer facts and scientific EVIDENCE....
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 07:12 PM

anonymousey



ACC legislation has absolutely no regard for the preinjury occupation but rather concerns itself with the Individual work task activities required to generate earnings. When an injury causes incapacity that diminishes the capacity to earn from those activities result certain ACC to pay out earnings compensation




In my situation I never concern myself with an occupational title but rather that all manner of different things which of course didn't fit or relate to any particular occupational title so how do you Imagine such information to be recorded?




As I had not recovered from my injuries and was under the 1982 legislation then be concept of an occupational type does not arise. That concept did not come into existence until the 1992 legislation whereby ACC were required to set regulations which they did not bring into effect until November 1997 so November 1997 is the date that ACC first became Connected to the concept of occupation by way of regulations as a consequence of legislation. Prior to that any thoughts of occupation title was completely erroneous.




That being the case it is a complete impossibility for me to ever have the burden of proof concerning occupational title. You are Simply delusional regarding what is relevant to legislation. My only concern is what the legislation says in as much as my capacity to earn is what is insured nothing to do with occupation. My capacity to earn dependent upon by carrying out certain tasks. Occupational title has no meaning for me. I can well imagine a simple person doing a simple job would fit with the simple minds of the ACC. I am pleased for you that you are so simple. Would it had been overly complicated for you and ACC if you had two different jobs unrelated to each other of equal income time and duration. How would both yours and the ACCs assumptions worked out then? What about if while you're waiting for ACC to make a decision regarding the acceptance of the claim for cover and then perhaps even surgery after the cover was accepted that while you would put yourself on light duties in your own company and were carrying out tasks without earning during that time period you had another injury? Would that have made life too difficult for you and ACC to know what to do for purposes of legislative compliance? How about during this time period the trauma of injury left you with even fewer resources to get by that one of the people might have had residual capacity that residual capacity had already been diminished by way of the chemical injuries occurring some years earlier that remained untreated and diminishing your overall capacity leaving you with very little capacity at all based on all of the accumulation of the different injuries? Would that make matters to complicated to manage? have you or the ACC already have their own followers become bamboozled yet because the medical profession have had absolutely no difficulty whatsoever keeping up with all of the different components of information and interrelationships of symptoms/disabilities and suchlike. That is why ACC staff earn substantially less than medical professionals as they are just not up to that level of intelligence. This is also why legislation requires the ACC to submit themselves to the medical information and not challenge it unless they obtain superior information from a superior medical expert but under no circumstances rely upon their own guesswork and other such self willed malarkey.


I find that there is absolutely no excuse for the ACC to find matters to complicated and that it is their duty to accommodate complex issues, not me the injured to do it for them. However with the ACC that was just the way it was, they told me that I had to choose one injury and one injury only and relate that to 1 occupation and one occupation only. I protested that this was out of step with legislation so they walked away into the back room. I then went into the background and knocked on the door of the ACC branch manager had a bit of a chat which resulted in his assurances that my claim had to be accepted and that I would have money by Christmas which was a few days away. The money never arrived for quite some time and without any backpay for the preceding year of which they still haven't addressed.


All medical treatment providers are required to obey the ACC legislation in as much as filling out the ACC accident injury report, no exceptions.




You inferred that you perceived that my injuries did not have medical support. Where, what,how and who etc do you rely upon for this notion. Are you relying upon Barber J who claims that all the medical profession have been tricked by me and that he alone is right in diagnosing the nature of my injuries when claimant I could return to my preinjury activities when he did not even know what those activities were after already rejecting the competency of the entire medical profession? If you're not will relying upon Barber J perception of the world I can't imagine what you could be relying upon because I don't know of anything else that even remotely challenges the medical profession.




Nobody carrying out any form of clinical examination of the brain injury has ever suggested that I had not had an injury or that it was not significant. Somehow you are getting mixed up with someone who has not even seen me perhaps such as other unqualified informants of the ACC or even Judge Barber himself. The latest medical report produced by the hospital neurologist and also another specialist who took into account every single CT scan, MRI scan and other report confirmed that there had to have been an accident event causing the brain injury and also even confirmed that the references to the infarct were actually wrong in as much as the nature of the damage was worse than first thought. This medical report is very recent, provided two ACC who have not yet replied to the request for more treatment costs being paid for recalculating their assessment as at 18 August 1997 as to whether or not it was actually even physically possible for me to perform the work that they don't know when I did it all what that work was.





You go on to ask me if I know the difference between an accident event and gradual process. An accident event is really referring to a moment in time in reference to an "event". Usually this event has resulted in immediate catastrophic damage. However gradual process is simply a series of micro-accidents whereby micro-injuries had occurred which have accumulated until the culmination of multiple micro-events/accidents have resulted in a substantial incapacity so as to meet the threshold of ACC entitlements. why is it that you are trying to test me? Or Is that a question you actually wanted to know the answer to? I suspect that you don't have a clue what major process means based on your irrational nonsense that followed talking about broken beat and toxins over a period of time of which I could not possibly follow as it did not relate to anything in particular but rather appear to be just a bunch of jumbled up words. Something like a broken foot can't possibly be something relevant to a belief system particularly when the picture of the x-ray tells 1000 words. There can be no doubt when you look at an x-ray and see something broken! Such things don't relate to your way of thinking which caused me to believe that you are having some difficulties with your perceptions of reality such as broken feet. The break that I had took several years to resolve itself to the extent that I was not limping and many more for the level of pain to settle. Even just a couple of years ago a podiatrist pointed out that I am still compensating for what she is seen to be a deformity resulting from not receiving treatment. She was qualified from a third world country and we qualified in New Zealand now having own practice and was shocked to learn that I never received treatment.




Why are you making the accusation that I have used an opiate type medication to excess. That is an outrageous and most terrible lie. I do require you to retract that lie or face the consequences.I have never taken more medication than was prescribed ever. Further I have never self medicated. As for consumption of alcohol I'm not the type of person that gets drunk so I don't know where you get the idea that I have ever been drunk little and accuse me of being drunk. Just ask Douglas weal or better still read the court transcript of them under oath confirming that while he drank a couple of bottles I may have only drunk one or one half small glasses of wine. You seem to be a most nasty person to tell such horrendous lies sseemingly without any conscience at all.





The limit of two hours light duties on activities that do not have on my right hand only referred to the injuries of 1989, 1992 and 1993. Once the expose of DNA changes occurred during the 2000's I had no capacity whatsoever and appear to have severely aggravated my condition with the attempt of appealing the 1997 decision to the district court. My doctor repeatedly instructed Judge Barber that I was unable to continue with the hearings at the break he wanted. The hearings were reduced in time but gracefully climbed back up again resulting in Ambulance transportation to the hospital on several occasions concerning TIA occurrences brought about by total overload with regards to the diminished capacity of the chemotherapy medication being taken in relation to the chemical injury and DNA change.




Although the CT scans Demonstrate large percentages of my lungs been wiped out and grossly enlarged lymph nodes the lungs have an amazing capacity to cope despite the difficulty it is in breathing and the lower oxygen content of my blood. The real killer is the enlarged lymph nodes in the heart or cavity where the heart beats into as there is a lack of space for the heart to beat which in turn causes heart strain of which of course I have even other an additional medication to help me along. I don't know where you get off trying to second-guess the medical profession.




As for you commenting on what judges have said in their decisions I think you need to be thinking a little deeper when reading such materials and especially comparing what my submissions were as opposed to what the decision was and see if there was any relationship at all. Invariably ACC simply changes the subject resulting in the judge's faithfully following the ACC about what the ACC claim my appeal to be and then issuing a ruling on the ACC version which frequently is in relation to an entirely different matter. For example I appeal the 1997 decision in regards to whether or not I was working and the irrelevancy of the ACC legal position. The judge agreed with me. At that point the judge should have simply issued the decision in my paper. Instead the ACC was given more rope by the judge to reconfigure the situation which they did not so the judge reconfigured the situation for them by putting aside the original decision and making a new decision and without ever informing me of that new decision then made his ruling regarding his own decision as if the ACC had made a decision which of course is an absolute farce. This situation is by no means uncommon not just with myself but also with others. After all the ACC jurisdiction attracts a certain type of judge that is not being given more complex work. The likes of Judge Barber and others had never actually made a ruling on my submissions. They have not answered any points of law nor questions of fact which means to my mind that I have not actually had an appeal. The sidestep of duty is a disgrace and undermines the ACC scheme..the reason why you are seeing nothing from me is that you have never read my submissions but only read the judge's decision that have made no reference whatsoever to my submissions. What you are seeing is whether judges saying about either their own thoughts or the ACCs thoughts. I think everyone agrees that judges are required by law to render a decision regarding the question of law put to the judge or the question of fact or both. If the judge does not do this has been no hearing and therefore no decision necessitating the matter be appealed.

I again suggest to you that as you are having difficulty keeping up with all of the different technical matters and the integrity of my claim that you address the basics. The basics as always and always will be our what the medical professionals have diagnosed. For example when a hand has been detached from the arm that is a comparatively easy diagnosis and not too difficult to state as a biological fact that it would be impossible to carry out the preinjury work task activities and that it would be even very difficult to do things such as manoeuver a pen or a mouse in a meaningful way. That is the starting point so from that point everything transfers to the ACC with the ACC 45 form and ongoing ACC 18 forms describing incapacity to earn. That being the case could you perhaps suggest the next that the ACC is required to make as a matter of their duty to administer the ACC act.
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 07:17 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 07 August 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

I have ignored all of your boring blagging at another member again Alan ... mainly because there appears to be only ONE comment .... that may suggest you might have anything new or different to add to your chronic incontinent meaningless storytelling sadly Posted Image



I would ask if it is either WINZ or the PHO who is paying for this new surgical operation now??


Neither WINZ nor PHO are paying for past or future surgical interventions. By the way who are PHO?
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 07:20 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 07 August 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

re post 26

blah blah blah...

I know what I READ

I KNOW WHAT YOU CHANGED....

not interested in ongoing versions of what you DONT REMEMBER HAVING WRITTEN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.....


and unfortunately for you...

mechanism of injury is very important....and so is supporting literature from the appropriate personnel...

again, i prefer facts and scientific EVIDENCE....


None of my postings have any substance altered. Your suggestion is nothing but a dirty lie. I perceive that you are lying to cover up your dishonesty in some kind of nutty attempt to hide that dishonesty. You will notice that it would be futile for me to change anything in any event as so many people copy what I write. That being the case please apologise or face the consequence of your defaming of my name.
You then go on to talk about mechanism of injury and supporting literature without axes saying anything of substance. Did you make a cuppa tea then go to the toilet and forget to finish what you are writing?
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 08:10 PM

Public Health Organisation What that in New Zealand?

Why would you think I would tell you how surgery was paid?

Why would you think there was a secret surgeon?

Why would you think they is some "behavior" and what might that so called behavior be?

Why do you even care? What's it to you?
0

#19 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 08:31 PM

Yes you have been to the Mason Clinic for evaluation due to the bomb plot with W F as a support visitor

In fact YOU yourself named the psychiatrist, forgot what you wrote again did you?
Shit Alan, do us all a favor and go back into your own histrionic ramblings...

So yes you are a danger to others...

Having read all the court documents that were sent to me (by my imaginary friends?)
Doctors, peers, employers, colleagues, reviewers, 86 forum members,police, lawyers and Judges( oh and your deported wife) are ALL LIARS..according to you

I would actually feel sorry for as someone as demented as you appear to be.
But you are so grossly insulting and narcissistic...you elicit no sympathy or empathy from me

Go play your head games with someone who gives a f##k...cos I don't. ..
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 August 2016 - 09:05 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 07 August 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

Yes you have been to the Mason Clinic for evaluation due to the bomb plot with W F as a support visitor

In fact YOU yourself named the psychiatrist, forgot what you wrote again did you?
Shit Alan, do us all a favor and go back into your own histrionic ramblings...

So yes you are a danger to others...

Having read all the court documents that were sent to me (by my imaginary friends?)
Doctors, peers, employers, colleagues, reviewers, 86 forum members,police, lawyers and Judges( oh and your deported wife) are ALL LIARS..according to you

I would actually feel sorry for as someone as demented as you appear to be.
But you are so grossly insulting and narcissistic...you elicit no sympathy or empathy from me

Go play your head games with someone who gives a f##k...cos I don't. ..


Do you always believe the stories you hear?
Not one thing you said is based in 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