ACCforum: Transcripts for Alan Thomas courtcases etc - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Transcripts for Alan Thomas courtcases etc

#41 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 15 November 2016 - 05:41 PM

as in posting 42 allan i do not have an answer to your question , of what do you do , apart from if one has the stamina time, and maybe some funds left , one may get result , , or apart from that there is a superannauation fund awaiting, if one has not been driven to wits end , and has passed away , as in death , look to future , as if there is of meaning left as in how one evaluates life ,as in as also one can utilise residual activities to support their incomes
0

#42 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 15 November 2016 - 05:50 PM

ntv , has reported a victorious win against the corporation as in relishing in that win , and if that has encouraged her to be in a position to shut the forum down ,has this given her this reason and momentum to do so
0

#43 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 15 November 2016 - 06:03 PM

ntv has a blockage how the person perceives other persons rights to the forum , as in her view , which then raises the question once again , why
0

#44 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 06:09 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 15 November 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

No wonder you arent getting anywhere against acc...

You have no concept of law

The Judge doesnt make the decision...

the jury does, based on the veracity of evidence

You did not fool the jury.....


What jury? There was no jury!
0

#45 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 06:13 PM

View Posttommy, on 15 November 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

as in posting 42 allan i do not have an answer to your question , of what do you do , apart from if one has the stamina time, and maybe some funds left , one may get result , , or apart from that there is a superannauation fund awaiting, if one has not been driven to wits end , and has passed away , as in death , look to future , as if there is of meaning left as in how one evaluates life ,as in as also one can utilise residual activities to support their incomes


Because the ACC consider that I have been gazumped due to lack of funds and being too injured to even care for myself they have asked people whether or not I was dangerous. Other people have placed themselves in my situation and have considered that they would have been very angry and therefore they perceived that have they would be dangerous I too would be dangerous and as such reported to the ACC that they think I am now dangerous. Basic social welfare has always been continuous as they have rated me as permanently disabled and an invalid unable to work in any occupation and will be continue to receive a benefit into my old age. This issue will never go away as the entitlement due to me by the ACC will continue as part of my will. Of course the ACC will still be thinking that I will personally reach them in the dead of night in their homes from beyond the grave..
0

#46 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 06:14 PM

View Posttommy, on 15 November 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

ntv , has reported a victorious win against the corporation as in relishing in that win , and if that has encouraged her to be in a position to shut the forum down ,has this given her this reason and momentum to do so


It is not uncommon for people to think that the ACC will continue to look favourably upon them if they attack ACC enemies. In fact this psychological defect seems to have existed throughout human history
0

#47 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 07:41 PM

Response to your statements in green

[20] On 13 October 1989 the appellant saw his general practitioner, Dr Jonathon Wilcox, in respect of a hernia.

A Cl Advice of Injury claim dated 19 October 1989 was lodged with ACC for a hernia injury suffered at Trigon on 27 June 1989
[nb query re hernia occurring four months earlier]
Within a week of the injury claim was made to the ACC which was refused on the basis that the ACC does not consider hernias to be injuries. It was not until I returned to Auckland and my regular doctor that he demanded that ACC behave themselves and payout on the claim.. He had a 17 year history with me and was perfectly well aware of my work ethic and integrity and as such stood by me 100%.

In June 1997 there was not an alleged accident and injury. It was a documented medical fact of which the ACC accepted and paid out compensation together with funding for the surgery.

I even noted various comments from Alan's own General Practitioner were being reported to the courts - Dr Wilcox was identifed in this lengthy appeal and he supported the prosecution
This is the type of mistake that you are continuously making whereby you are considering what other people report is evidence rather than the source of the evidence itself.. In this case Dr Wilcox certainly did not support the prosecution. Far from it. Dr Wilcox continued to provide medical certificates notwithstanding they were attempting to prosecute him for fraud as well. He was asked what can only be described as a trick question for the purposes of reaching your above conclusion. He was asked "If you knew that Alan was working would you have provided medical certificates?" His answer was no. The reason he said no is that he would have found out whether or not I was working and if I was told me to stop. He provided medical certificates and continue to provide medical certificates even after the conviction on the basis that I was incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation and he even supported the invalid benefit on the basis that I could not work in any occupation more than 10 hours per week so long as I didn't use my right hand and that the work was fragmented throughout the day because of other related conditions.
You see when you do not do your research properly and only report on what other people have reported who have done so for their own financial benefit you cannot possibly get to the heart of the matter. Your above assertion in green does not when you $100 as it is not evidence.


[22] On 25 January 1990 the appellant had surgery to repair his hernia.
I had surgery but it turns out that the surgery was a budget type of surgery, the fourth of its kind, is simply was not adequate for the severity of the injury.. This surgery failure as a direct result of ACC interference with the medical profession. I continue to be disabled by the hernia.I did not have surgery to repair the hernia as the surgery that took place was not capable of meeting the necessary standard. In some circles this approach would be considered criminal assault as is confirmed by a Prof of pathology.

A 1 March 1990 medical certificate indicated that the appellant may be able to return to work in six weeks. [nb this post surgery clearance is AFTER alleged wrist injury claim]
I had not been cleared to work by my treatment provider who also informed the ACC of this fact responded that they would not be paying beyond the amount that they had paid as that is the limit of what they pay for hernias. In any event the quotation that you have relied upon as a predictive assumption and not evidence of any sort as demanded by the legislation.


[23] On 13 March 1990 the appellant attended his GP, for the first time in respect of the hand/wrist arm injury.
[nb injured wrist appears AFTER hernia clearance and nearly 3 months after reckless yachting]
I received medical treatment on the day of the accident and met with the ACC on their first day of business after the date of injury. As my doctor was on holiday I saw his locum when my treatment providers clinic opened, or crabs a day or two after their first day of business in the new year. An application was submitted to the ACC for purposes of home help given the severity of my injury.The ACC asserted that I could not have to claims running concurrently and would have to await the conclusion of the hernia before dealing with the secondary injury.The yachting certainly was not reckless as once the intestine protrudes through the stomach wall it can easily be mass eyes back into position with the only risk of something untoward happening while out to sea in a storm but even if it had been reckless it is an irrelevancy as it certainly was not going to get any worse.


27 June 1989 Alleged Trigon hernia incident [nb zero objective evidence provided by Alan that this occurred during work & witnesses dispute ]
.There was an accident report logged in the company accident journal. The objective evidence is the cause and effect to human tissue when meeting an overwhelming force causing the rupture which were sudden and dramatic witnessed by significant numbers and of which the engineering director of the company gave evidence in the civil proceedings noting that I had to hold myself and was bent over when trying to walk. It became obvious that I was unable to complete the contract on time because of the injury. The technical director had insured me for keep first insurance of $300,000 and collected on the basis of the hernia injury when I was unable to proceed with the contract.
Sorry no evidence there and as such no hundred dollars.

I'm not even going to bother reading and commenting any further, notwithstanding I quickly scanned the rest, as it seems that you have absolutely no perception of what evidence actually is let alone medical evidence.

The medical certificates generally described a limited capacity of about two hours per day fragmented throughout the day so long as I did not use my right hand. All the information medical professionals have provided confirm that I do have some capacity of my right hand which is not sufficient to return to my previous occupation. This is the key. Obviously if I have two hours capacity fragmented throughout the day it means that I have a limited capacity to do with as I see fit while on ACC. The only obligation I would have had is if I actually earned some money which would have enabled the ACC to obtain a discount of the earnings compensation in accordance with the abatement of earnings calculation system with the act. As there was no earnings of any type there was nothing to report. The ACC accountant confirmed no earnings whatsoever even though the ACC obtained an extremely large number of search warrants they only discovered that I had loaned money to my companies that were managed by other people.. Even if I have got a return on the investment in the form of some profits/income That type of information is absolutely none of the ACCs business as it has nothing to do with the ACC legislation. Even though I was a director the directors duties were farmed out to various staff members leaving me with no duties other than satisfying myself that the company was not insolvent. This duty was satisfied by the staff reporting to me that there was a shortfall and that the company needed another loan. It was later discovered that two of the staff, ACC informants, had been embezzling funds from the company while sitting up their own computing company and stealing clients into the bargain, not to mention the intellectual property and suchlike. One of the staff was an ex-ACC case manager and of course had become involved in the confounding and confabulation contributing towards the conviction for their own financial benefit. False allegations and perjury of this type I considered to be one of the most heinous crimes in New Zealand and in due time Justice will run its course.

So all references of my engaging in any kind of activities within the confines of the fragmented two hours per day is entirely irrelevant and cannot possibly be considered as any form of evidence even if I carried out light duties that could be considered related to my preinjury occupation as the threshold under sections 59 and 60 of the 1982 act had been satisfied as confirmed by the 1992 review hearing decisions. For ACC to cancel a claim and accuse me of fraud they had to have medical evidence that I was no longer injured and had the capacity to return to my preinjury occupation irrespective of what other information they thought they possessed.

So all the work that you have done is completely irrelevant as you have not provided any information from a medical professional that states that I do not need surgery to return to my preinjury occupation. The fact that I am now had the first stage of surgery, an artificial wrist joint, which is like a small have joint in my wrist, at the cost of $40,000 which the ACC was directed to pay it seems that this evidence is certainly objective evidence at the highest level that I had a serious injury that needed serious medical treatment.. The only other relevant fact that could be considered is whether or not I could have carried out my preinjury occupation with one hand of which the ACC and district court judges both civil and criminal could not conclude as the ACC had not reported a single work task activity of my preinjury occupation, pre-June 1989 when I went onto my duties. Instead the ACC relied upon information gathered by private investigators 10 years after their decision and almost 2 decades prior to the injury what members of the public thought I was doing despite the not have any direct involvement with what I was doing accept some fragmented and irrelevant observations after I was first injured in relation to one of my occupations only without addressing my principal occupation at all. Looking at a part-time occupation after I was injured does not provide the ACC with the relevant information to determine what I was doing with my preinjury occupation. In other words the ACC committed perjury when claiming to possess relevant information in every single respect. With regards to the judge who set himself up as a lie detector machine when no lie detector machine or even any human being has ever demonstrated themselves as being competent as a lie detector, as well as setting himself up as a superior medical professional, despite having no medical qualifications, then all the medical professions that provided treatment after clinical examination relying upon most sophisticated diagnostic machinery available so it is plainly obvious that the judge was totally disobedient to the legislative criteria and became a law unto himself. Such arrogance iin conjunction with decent be dense to the law cannot be tolerated.

I remind you that the legislation requires ACC to obtain competing medical evidence for the purposes of their decision. Judge Barbour confirms this during the appeal to the decision when pointing out that work information is not the type of information that is referred to in section 73 and that the ACC would have to look to section 37 in order to claim to possess section 73 information. Section 37 requires claimants to provide ACC with a medical certificate. In the event that the ACC do not accept what is written on the medical certificate then it follows that the ACC must obtain superior medical evidence which is as what they usually do when sending someone along to their medical assessor. As the ACC thought they could cancel a claim based on the possession of the assumption that I was working they did not bother obtaining any information of any description in accordance with legislative criteria. It is this type of information you need to be looking to if you want to defend the ACCs position. Other than that you are lowering yourself to the dishonest practices of the ACC by playing the man instead of the ball. In other words you are attacking me personally rather than addressing the actual medical facts.

You need to consider whether or not there is a structural damage that prevents the safe carrying out of the work task activities of my preinjury occupation. That is the only information that is permissible under the ACC legislation. Everything else that you have tried to research is completely irrelevant even though you think that you can generate medical facts by way of impression. Impression simply does not cut it and does not you are new the hundred dollars. Try again.











.












0

#48 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 08:02 PM

I prefer the legal description from those most qualified...

Self reporting is NOT a legal description
0

#49 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 08:08 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 15 November 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:

I prefer the legal description from those most qualified...

Self reporting is NOT a legal description


Once we agree.

At no stage have I ever even once forward my own impression is about my condition as evidence. Not even my treatment providers have ever relied upon any form of self reporting when carrying out a diagnosis of the nature of the injury and what is needed for the repair of that injury. Other descriptive information about the difficulties I might be having our of course treated as incidentals. For example the surgeon is only concerned that biological structures have been broken or ripped apart and what is needed to put things back together. The nature of the pain or the difficulties is actually a relevant and as such the pain itself is no barrier to my return to work. However the right to have pain control and the effects of that pain control in as much as such medication causes a loss of mental acuity, when mental acuity is essential for the occupation, It is the medication that becomes relevant to the degree of incapacity as a contributing factor. The ACCs own medical assessor, who I funded for an ACC report consistent with what he would normally do for the ACC, confirmed that he had not taken the levels of pain into account when confirming that I could not returned to my preinjury occupation. He considered that I did have a capacity perhaps in alternative occupation did not involve my right hand again without consideration of the effects of medication as he no doubt would have been thinking of some menial task in order to generate earnings. Nonetheless the important factor is was that all medical professionals have confirmed that I cannot return to my preinjury occupation full-time which means that the ACC have a full-time hundred percent liability to pay 80% earnings compensation.
0

#50 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 08:13 PM

Wrong again

Learn the law
0

#51 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 November 2016 - 09:06 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 15 November 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

This Barber court judgement details various medical assessments commissioned by ACC and they were then reported to the Court Alan

I appreciate that you might be setting the stage again for some word or mindgame about whether or not ACC paid, WINZ paid, MOH paid, Private Surgeons paid, foreigners paid ... but do your flights of imagination now have some wooden puppet turning up to these appointments? Clearly they were specifically identified as ACC commissions!

Here are 3 medical specialists that examined you and then detailed their expert opinions & medical evidence for ACC and the Judges Alan ...

  • 1 November 1990 Referred by ACC to Mr Joe Brownlee, orthopaedic surgeon, for assessment [B2 of Alan's bundle of evidence]
  • 21 November 1991, [43] Mr Ross Nicholson, orthopaedic surgeon, prepared a report assessing the appellant as having a 14.5 percent permanent disability but noting that the appellant was fit for light work, being the type of work that he had engaged in previously. [Document Fl of the respondent's bundle.]
  • ?? September 1996 [360] the Corporation referred the appellant to Mr Tasman-Jones,Hand and Upper Limb Surgeon, for an assessment in regards to his fitness for work.



RE :"... they expected me to refute with medical reports at my cost when the legislation requires the ACC to fund such assessments."

Alan ...do you not understand that when you challenge any ACC decision or report ... you will be expected to get medical reports at your cost!!

FFS Alan ... this is basic stuff the world over IMO ... fortunately there are many times when Fairway or the Courts will look favourably upon reimbursing these expenses Alan.

IMHO rather than spending your WINZ money and other peoples money on any alcohol supplies ... or fancy computer stuff & 3D printers & factory resourcing ... or even gambits trying on any number of ridiculous entitlement claims .... get your yourself some OBJECTIVE REPORTS if you can now

IMO you are stuffed as far as any contemporary medical reporting over the contested years prior to 18 August 1997 decision with respect to your wrist functions ... but if you get the wages & levy evidence for any other incidents ...then your medical files you may have a platform of facts start to emerge etc I am not too sure though about the GP front if Dr Wilcox was a prosecution witness & suffered any abuse or harassment from you alongside some of his colleagues


I am puzzled as to why you would reference only about 10 pages of medical reports and disregard more the the 800 pages of many many medical reports so why do you ignore them?

Your 1st examined and reported on a different part of my body and ever wanted to operate with ACC complaining that I didn't want surgery.
Your 2nd wrongly reported 14.5 % and later agreed to the superior 60% report and was nothing t do with work but rather s78 and s79.
Your 3rd confirmed I still needed surgery and could not work full time in my old job and that surgery might not be successful. (the surgery I have just had is very successful and has improve me from zero capacity up to 4KG so you 3rd report was wrong)

How can you be so so stupid or are you as dishonest and those ACC staff. I paid thousands for many medical reports so why do you ignore them?

Both Drs Wilcox and Rees were ACC witnesses but said the opposite to what the ACC IP had report to ACC as to what they thought would be said. Both confirm structural damage that ended any capacity to work in my old job. After looking inside my wrist Rees told the court that my wrist "was badly disorganized".
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