ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

... .

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 16 August 2016 - 10:37 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7181
  • 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: 7181
  • 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: 1509
  • 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: 7181
  • 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   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7181
  • 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

#8 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

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7181
  • 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

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7181
  • 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

#11 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

#12 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

#13 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

#14 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

#15 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

#16 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

#17 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 21 August 2016 - 05:43 PM

rex's trolling of ntv...is very apparent to those in the know

and those who can see exactly what is written by whom


of course i will defend myself against a misogynistic bully.....
0

#18 User is offline   REX 

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

Posted 31 August 2016 - 10:44 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

rex's trolling of ntv...is very apparent to those in the know

and those who can see exactly what is written by whom


of course i will defend myself against a misogynistic bully.....



['Not their victim'] writes lots of nasty things about people, as shown in her recent court case and just goes to show she is a NUTTER.

['Not their victim'] 's most recent court decision to stay BLUDGING off the ACC scheme states; (Relevant facts)

[4] By way of preliminary issue, Mr Beck and Mr McBride agreed that all annotations on documents made by ['Not their victim'] should be removed from the evidence as filed. Counsel agreed that documents in the bundle for hearing would be replaced with an agreed bundle – Volume 2, which was received following the hearing on 22 December 2014. I have considered these documents in the appeal.:o/>:wacko:/>

[14] The Corporation referred Ms ['Not their victim'] to Dr Fenwicke for a VIMA in January 2008. She found Ms ['Not their victim'] fit for light sedentary work. Dr Fenwicke recorded Ms ['Not their victim'] commenced work on a part time basis building up to a 35 hour week. Dr Fenwicke noted Ms ['Not their victim'] had made some clinical improvement since the assessment in 2006. No other treatment, apart from being monitored by her GP, was recommended by Dr Fenwicke.

(That was 10 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[15] Following Dr Fenwicke’s report, the Corporation determined Ms ['Not their victim'] was vocationally independent on 2 September 2008. That decision was quashed at review on 13 February 2009. :rolleyes:/> = BLUDGING

[16] On 5 August 2009 Dr Kanji, Musculoskeletal Pain Specialist noted that Ms ['Not their victim'] hit her forehead against a steel bar in January 2009. As a result, Ms ['Not their victim'] experienced difficulties with memory, headaches, neck and thoracic pain. Dr Kanji considered the headaches were likely to be linked to pain from the facet joints due to the fusion and disc changes. He prescribed pain medication for chronic pain.

[48] ['Not their victim'] underwent a Vocational Independence Occupational Assessment (VIOA) undertaken by Mr Roux who identified 19 job types that would match ['Not their victim']'s skills, experience and training, and for which there were no vocational barriers.

[67] The VIMA was then undertaken by Dr Christian on 2 February 2011. Dr Christian concluded 15 jobs were suitable for ['Not their victim'] for 30 hours or more per week.

These are truly only part of her team of physicians to get her brain working well enough to get her back to being a productive member of society however she has got so use to bludging she gets headaches,,. when she hears the word "WORK",

Dr Walsh, Psychiatrist

Dr Hudson,

Dr Hunn, Neurosurgeon

Dr Baker, Neurologist

All I can conclude/summarise with is,, get a job NTV and stop the HARD mind-set of being a BLUDGER !
2

#19 User is offline   Kewl 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 02-August 15

Posted 23 December 2016 - 05:37 PM

Anonymousey
There is something holding you back from exercising the true and powerful effect of you as a person and your professional training.

What would it be , or what role would you take , apart from some random words on some well unknown blog site, would it take to empower your children, grandchildren to treat each other better WHILST at the same time being aware
of what it is at a root cause what forms your personality and thinking structure? A hint, its not so much about the key words of " abuse"
It is how to be aware of that so you can leave the legacy of empowerment to your self to a degree that your own children and their children reap the benefit of the emotional and behavioural understanding between the ears your legacy is far greater than your own inner suffering. Consider that.

I will see you et all soon, for coffee flat white, i want to hear and feel how you are empowering you for that has the flow on effect. just do it

For when you do, you will no longer require this medium, you will be self empowered . neat eh
0

#20 User is online   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6838
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 01 January 2017 - 08:17 AM

Well Kewl

It would be a shame if anonymousey did not come and visit this forum.org and give us the abundance of knowledge that she has.

From the first write on this chappie I could tell the writer why the claimant is not going to make much money. I could also suggest a couple of place he may find a solution to his amount of income earned over those years and there is a section in the act that says that if the employer is no longer a live company, it is no reason why ACC need not pay them out.

Every one who has been on winz should know this yet no one has used this forum for what it is meant. it truly is knotted. A frayed knot at that.

In the 15 years I have been fighting for my entitlements including w/c, you all have known that I was working on the problems that surrounded the taxing of the backdated weekly compensation.

No body is prepared to tell this fellow how to find the answers to his delimia. Which is a real shame as I am only here to round off my statement to the powers that be.

Mini
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