ACCforum: Slippery slopes - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Slippery slopes ACC obedience and disobedience to legislator criteria

Poll: Slippery slopes (1 member(s) have cast votes)

Is it okay to punish someone when they have done nothing wrong?

  1. Someone can be prosecuted for ACC fraud if all the information on file is correct and they have complied with ACC directions (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. The ACC can prosecute for fraud without determining a fraud has occurred in accordance with the ACC legislation (1 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  3. it is not okay to punish a claimant under the ACC scheme when they fulfil the legislated criteria by having an accident that resulted in injury causing disability and submits claims for entitlements. (1 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Is it okay to reward someone when they have done nothing right?

  1. The ACC is permitted to entrust its staff to make decisions involving the exiting of claims from the scheme without providing any training in regards to ACC legislated criteria with a statistical expectation the ACC profit from the mistakes. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. When staff receive instructions to produce documents with decisions that are contrary to legislated criteria for financial gain to the Corporation, the staff member has not committed a crime (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. When staff receive instructions to produce documents with decisions that are contrary to legislated criteria for financial gain to the Corporation, the staff member has committed a crime (1 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  4. It is okay for the ACC Corporation fragment the information gathering and decision-making process amongst many members of their staff with no way for the signatory to the decision to know whether or not the decision is correct. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. It is not okay for the ACC Corporation fragment the information gathering and decision-making process amongst many members of their staff with no way for the signatory to the decision to know whether or not the decision is correct. (1 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  6. Does an ACC staff worker commit fraud by producing documents for a financial gain to either themselves or the Corporation when they are aware that they have not carried out due diligence that the decision is compliant with legislation? (1 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10046
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 August 2016 - 12:03 PM

This is a hypothetical discussion and does not relate to any individual.

This posting relates to ACC making decisions that are outside of the legislated criteria and more often than not do not have a remedy within the ACC legislation under part five as a decision seldom contains any information to support its decision by way of determining degree of injury and incapacity for the purposes of claiming entitlements. For example worker or not a person is entitled to claim incapacity for a bad back when seem to be lifting rocks by ACC informants without the ACC having any regard for the doctors obstruction to the claimant to spend some time lifting rocks.


Is it okay for the ACC to punish claimants who have done nothing wrong?

The primary interface any claimant has with the ACC is with those are employed and paid to match information with the legislation.

In amongst their duties as criteria by which they are to pass the claim files onto another division for processing. I don't know what the current questions are that they was a group of 13 questions of which are five or more were in the affirmative that claimants piles would be handed on to another division for processing. The five questions were along the lines as does the claimant appeared to know more about ACC legislation than the norm? Does the claimant have too many friends or relatives that are also ACC claimants? Does the claimant's travel a long way to go to a doctor for the medical certificates? and so on. Each question appears to be innocent enough and would no doubt have a proper and reasonable answer. However what the ACC are doing is establishing a statistical profile in order to cull from the herd those who are potentially fraudulent from which the ACC can expect that there would be a removal of a fair percentage of those sets aside for examination to be culled.
The division that the frontline ACC staff pass these claimants on to has confirmed, by way of the Northern manager of the unit, under oath, that they neither have training nor any interest in the ACC legislation as they believe they have a different mission to the staff that manage claimants. Their job is to remove fraudulent claimants from the ACC scheme. he went on to boast that their unit is the highest profit centre of the ACC. This unit removes people from the ACC scheme primarily by interviewing them and showing what information they have about them and suggesting that they should surrender their entitlements or face prosecution. The statistics are something along the lines that about one third immediately surrender their entitlements while another third challenge the allegations but also surrender their entitlements while a portion of the remaining third go on to prosecution with the balance being returned back to the front line ACC troops.

As this fraud unit has no knowledge of the ACC legislation and its criteria how is it that these ones are able to judge whether or not these claimants are receiving an entitlement that they are not entitled to? When looking at the fraud decisions up to the level of the claimants challenging the ACC ssome are convicted and others are not. Quite a number that had been convicted and gone to prison have actually been released from prison or have been found to be not guilty aaafter the prison sentence has been concluded. At one stage outside five of what the ACC had described to be the most notorious three had been found not guilty after they had either serve their sentence or they were part way through the sentence. Another is still going through the appeal process while the other was knowingly accepting ACC entitlements while at the same time receiving the claimants for the same injuries through social welfare and had pled guilty.

The difficulty a claimant faces when being confronted with the ACC fraud unit is that the claimant knows about as much or even less than the ACC fraud unit staff with the greater number assuming that the fraud unit must be correct and they had somehow made a mistake about something that they were not sure about which they may be even had an uneasy feeling about so abandon their entitlements while others are confident that they are law-abiding people and would never do anything wrong but would not be able to endure the level of shame and attack by the fraud unit much less the cost involved in defending themselves. They may even consult their lawyer who also knows very little about the ACC legislation and less about the crimes act so the claimant moves on from the family lawyer to a specialist barrister that deals with crime but the criminal barrister knows nothing about the ACC legislation. Many of these criminal lawyers discuss with the ACC fraud unit and reach some kind of settlement which involves abandoning entitlements while others and they are probably the few clearly understand the ACC legislation and are of the firm opinion that the ACC fraud unit are wrong with the result that a criminal barrister defends the claimant without the necessary expertise on ACC matters and loses the case with the result being that the guilty verdict is appealed after consultation with an ACC specialist lawyer and the matter is turned around whereby the claimant is found to be innocent and let out a prison.

It appears that the fraud unit is successful by way of human nature as statistics with the result that many are punished despite their doing nothing wrong.


Is it okay to reward someone when they have done nothing right?

First of all whoever invented a questionnaire whereby the frontline staff transfers claimants to the fraud unit will done so knowing what is happening within the fraud unit and what the fraud unit is expected to do with these claimants. As the fraud unit hasn't received any training or qualification to comprehend whether a person is entitled to the claim and entitlements or not and therefore cannot form an opinion as to whether or not fraud is occurring the person producing the questionnaire hasn't done anything right along with the person who has withheld any training has not done any right and the staff of the fraud unit are not even in a position to have any kind of assurance that they are doing anything right. This is regardless as to whether or not they are provided with fraud and claimants or not.

Obviously it is not right for an ACC staff member to look at the appearance of something in accordance with their own moral position or belief systems and then bring someone in to the office and intimidate them into surrendering their entitlement as that is not doing anything right, far from it is committing a crime. For the ACC fraud unit to be going before a judge and telling the judge that this person is not entitled to the claim or compensation in the absence of providing the court with first the ACC legislation on the matter along with facts that are capable of been proven beyond doubt as that to is a crime in the form of perjury together with perverting the course of justice as it is a requirement that all prosecutions must have a well founded belief that a crime has been committed with the belief not on the form of the ACC fraud unit feeling that the person has committed fraud based on their own perception or the perception of ACC informants.

As none of what the ACC fraud unit is doing what is in accordance with the requirement of the ACC Corporation to administer the ACC Act within the operational activities of the fraud unit which necessitate that they be obedient to the legislated criteria. The foundation obedience to the ACC legislation is to obtain information for decision-making purposes from a qualified and authorised information providers. There is nothing about the ACC making their own decisions in any way or form as there is no legal basis for the ACC to even rely upon their own reasoning let alone generating their own facts from their own perceptions even in a situation where they were to be actually qualified in the subject matter such as being a doctor. So circumstance whereby the fraud unit has made decisions that are not supported by way of any independent assessments they simply haven't done their job.

If someone is employed under the ACC scheme and are not being obedient to the ACC legislator criteria obviously they themselves are committing fraud even when they are performing functions that they are instructed to perform by the superior, as ignorance is no excuse under the law.
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