ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

... .

#1 User is offline   xxxxx 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2112
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 16 August 2016 - 10:37 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 17 August 2016 - 01:35 AM

This case is unbelievably easy.
ie
s60 of the 1982 Act requires ACC to calculate on projected earns of the balance of life corrier path had there not been an injury.
Therefore historical earnings are totally irrelevant.
duh!!!!
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:09 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 17 August 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

hhhmmmmm ...do you know of any person obtaining a Section 60 pension in the last ten years or more Alan?

Hopefully to keep your answers on topic for our readers ... I am referring to any comparable pensions being granted to ACC claimants with injuries either before OR after 1992 changes ie the numbers of ACC claimants currently in receipt of Section 60 pension!!

Another question would be how ACC would calculate such a monetary value ie not the Cost of Living Increases upon Earnings Related Compensation ... but the greater salary brackets in future times etc

It does not matter if anyone has yet benefited from the the law, the law is the law.
As it happens there is good case law on s60 and its predecessor.

you are off topic re comparable pensions as ACC is not a social ware pension system. All claints that remain incapacitated up to the present from claims pre 1992 law change are require to be processed under s60. ACC have not basis in law to do otherwise.

The cost of living is require to be over and above increasing earning asset through the projected skill and qualification life pathway. The ACC Act requires it so ACC must be obedient to their master
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:16 PM

Under the 1972 Act he would not need to keep those figures as was there greater of the figure under section 69 Under the 1972

Under the 1982 Act it didn't matter about working atthe time of accident as compensation is taken at the time of becoming incapacitated. Section 53 (9)

(9) Where any period of an earner's incapacity for work does not commence on the date of the
accident, and the Corporation is of the opinion that relevant earnings ascertained in accordance with
the foregoing provisions of this section do not fairly and reasonably represent the earner's normal
average weekly earnings at the time of the commencement of the period of incapacity for work, the
Corporation may, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, determine an amount
which, in its opinion, would fairly and reasonably represent his normal average weekly earnings at
the time of the commencement of the period of incapacity for work, having regard to such
information as it may obtain regarding his earnings before the time of the commencement of the
period of incapacity for work and his earnings at the time of the commencement of that period, and
the period of his residence in New Zealand before the time of the period of incapacity for work and
his work history, and such other relevant factors as the Corporation thinks fit; and any amount so
determined shall be treated as if it was his relevant earnings for the purpose of assessing earnings
related compensation during the particular period of incapacity for work:

It should be that ACC should be looking to see if the person was not working in 1979, 1981 or any other time they choose. It should be ACC responcibility due to the time period in which ACC has paid for his Medical Miss treatment since 1979/ ACC should have gathered the information after being presented the information from the hospital.
0

#5 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:22 PM

it means he has cover regardless of the weekly compensation


ACC will need to reimburse his medications.....


and that would free up his benefit money...
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 August 2016 - 02:44 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 17 August 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

it means he has cover regardless of the weekly compensation


ACC will need to reimburse his medications.....


and that would free up his benefit money...


Please read the above post
0

#7 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:31 AM

KISS
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2016 - 11:49 PM

Once ACC accept the claim it is up to that ACC to find information that the claimant wasn't working at the time.

What's wrong with these advocates? This is just ACC 101 kiddies stuff.
0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 20 August 2016 - 01:45 PM

Regardless

If the claim has cover

Acc should pay his medication

It's that simple
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:11 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 20 August 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Regardless

If the claim has cover

Acc should pay his medication

It's that simple


So then you agree that the ACC should have paid Johnny Manos medication.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6792
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:14 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 20 August 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Agreed NTV

I noted that hia court decision is mostly dealing with the date of injury issue versus date treatment sought so it appears he has had confirmed cover since 18 November 2010 ...and Judge A N MacLean has granted the first treatment date of 24/4/79 for his claim

So if there is an annual medication charge of over $8000 ...this alone would be nearly $50,000 which ACC should have imho already paid since 2010 directly to help this pensioner ie once the court ruling was issued etc I am not sure though if they will backdate medication reimbursements without receipt verifications from his GP and chemist on any costs between 1979 and 2010 over this other extra 30 years?


Once the ACC accepts cover it accepts liability for the treatment of the injury of which is in turn must make back payment of all costs to the time of the injury. I know it has been customary and even popular to believe that the ACC may excuse itself from such liabilities but we do know that the ACC culture of delay extends to the notion that if it delays making decisions and will be making a profit by those delays. It is a pity that we have capitulators as amongst us.
0

#12 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 August 2016 - 11:23 AM

OMG

was Thomas this persons advocate?

And what has any of this got to with me?

I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

AND BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROFESSIONAL IN MY DEALINGS OF TRUTH WITH ACC...

I AM NOT TRESPASSED FROM ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY
0

#13 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 August 2016 - 12:23 PM

Thanks for this very valuable information

Stunned by the depths of criminal depravity

Much like sacrificing Blurb as the tanker driver....

Oh hell....wish I was never part of this place...
0

#14 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:27 PM

Alan and blurb were friends...

I was so shocked in hearing that news December 2015
That for once I was speechless

Poor blurb has so suffered all because Alan conned him
0

#15 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:36 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

Alan and blurb were friends...

I was so shocked in hearing that news December 2015
That for once I was speechless

Poor blurb has so suffered all because Alan conned him


Apparently so..

Blurb was going around to his house and asking allsorts of questions to do with the case Alan was facing.

Tomcat was setting him up for the bomb plot and going about it with a WEASEL..trying his best to get information to 'back door' him through the BLUDGER.





0

#16 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:46 PM

Your involvement implicates YOU
0

#17 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:55 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Your involvement implicates YOU


That is when Alan started the thread police at my door.. Blurb ,made accusations of Alan going to commit suicide.

We all saw what Blurb was trying to do by sending the police around to Alans house and cause more Harm to a man that was going through a lot with PTSD and what Tomcat and the rest of you co conspirators were doing.Posted Image



0

#18 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:56 PM

White noise

Let Alan answer ya tosser
0

#19 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 21 August 2016 - 02:03 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

White noise

Let Alan answer ya tosser


Oh I didn't realise this thread was just about Alan again and limited to certain members, (and all other members should not tell how it was when you referred to),

but we were all on the forum around the time as well and recognised what was playing out in the Tomcat camp.
Tomcat had vowed revenge for being sacked as an admin here and it was put in to play with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. TBP Posted Image



0

#20 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 21 August 2016 - 02:35 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 August 2016 - 02:17 PM, said:

Reminder to readers and many forum members to always remember to IGNORE the toxic trolling from Rex ... as his current moniker is only a few years old ... so imho he is admitting either that earlier monikers have been dropped or yeah he is only ever talking out of a hole in his head echoing his masters voices etc

FYI some of us older members witnessed some of the nonsense interpretations of Forum system changes which occurred following basic forum technology decisions &or nondecisions way back then to avoid accountability and blah blah ie threats from Alan against several forum members :angry:/>


You seem to be speaking a different language in your head or the dates fell out of the hole that you blow wind from all day.

I was here when all this went down, :D/>





0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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