ACCforum: psychologists - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

psychologists

#61 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5633
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 25 May 2017 - 04:24 PM

The dood who did my dodgy assessment [the one who claimed he had no association or connection with ACC], is not only an immigrant doctor [likely had no future where he came from], lives in a mansion.

It's not hard to work out how much ACC pay these dodgy doctors when living in luxury like this.

The worst thing is though, the MEDICAL COUNCIL turn a blind eye to it.
0

#62 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 25 May 2017 - 04:35 PM

the whole issues of of good or bad assesments have to be challenged , or as many claimants have found to their dismay the insurer wins .
0

#63 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 May 2017 - 04:58 PM

View Posttommy, on 25 May 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

the whole issues of of good or bad assesments have to be challenged , or as many claimants have found to their dismay the insurer wins .


Do you have any thoughts as to what authority you would need to go to to challenge the medical assessor. The medical Council claim to have no authority as the medical profession was not providing treatment. who then is the authority over the medical report writer? As the ACC have the authority to determine the level of qualification and experience that is relevant it seems that the ACC have the authority. Any thoughts on the matter?
0

#64 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 25 May 2017 - 05:00 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 25 May 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

The dood who did my dodgy assessment [the one who claimed he had no association or connection with ACC], is not only an immigrant doctor [likely had no future where he came from], lives in a mansion.

It's not hard to work out how much ACC pay these dodgy doctors when living in luxury like this.

The worst thing is though, the MEDICAL COUNCIL turn a blind eye to it.


As you wont name these 'dodgy Doctors' , how come some posters on here have beaten them.?
Is that because they do the research most don't do first , then moan when they lose.? .
0

#65 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 25 May 2017 - 06:35 PM

as thoughts allan , as in whom has written a report , as whom challenges , the report , equalls , tenacity , , plus dollars , and then if one has tenacity ,wait AGAIN, i
0

#66 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 25 May 2017 - 06:49 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 25 May 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

Do you have any thoughts as to what authority you would need to go to to challenge the medical assessor. The medical Council claim to have no authority as the medical profession was not providing treatment. who then is the authority over the medical report writer? As the ACC have the authority to determine the level of qualification and experience that is relevant it seems that the ACC have the authority. Any thoughts on the matter?


As Butler has posted , you were accused of using a document , not ACC fraud.

what the fuck is this .'You cannot start a new topic"


I can and I will/
0

#67 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5633
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:07 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 25 May 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

Do you have any thoughts as to what authority you would need to go to to challenge the medical assessor. The medical Council claim to have no authority as the medical profession was not providing treatment. who then is the authority over the medical report writer? As the ACC have the authority to determine the level of qualification and experience that is relevant it seems that the ACC have the authority. Any thoughts on the matter?


That's a cop out by the MEDICAL COUNCIL.

They can say and make claim to whatever they like but ultimately they must take responsibility for the crooked doctors who are in the pockets of ACC in writing out dodgy assessment reports.

They give these people their annual practicing certificate.
0

#68 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5633
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:09 AM

View Posttommy, on 25 May 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

as thoughts allan , as in whom has written a report , as whom challenges , the report , equalls , tenacity , , plus dollars , and then if one has tenacity ,wait AGAIN, i


The bottom line TOMMY is .. HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER.

These dodgy assessors are nothing more than ACC puppets, out for the big buck.
0

#69 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 26 May 2017 - 11:15 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 25 May 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

Do you have any thoughts as to what authority you would need to go to to challenge the medical assessor. The medical Council claim to have no authority as the medical profession was not providing treatment. who then is the authority over the medical report writer? As the ACC have the authority to determine the level of qualification and experience that is relevant it seems that the ACC have the authority. Any thoughts on the matter?


At an assessment is the time to get any misquotes ACC have made about your injuries fixed up.

After showing the assessor my xray of my hand he could immediately show me the break and wrote of it being shown as a sprained tendon in the letter he received from the case manager and the document I showed him from the ACC of list of my injuries.

He said it was neither 'permenant or stable' and I needed to be referred back to the orthopaedic clinic. so together the assessor and myself have made a good case to have my file reviewed and corrected.

Mini
0

#70 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 26 May 2017 - 03:18 PM

View PostMINI, on 26 May 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

At an assessment is the time to get any misquotes ACC have made about your injuries fixed up.

After showing the assessor my xray of my hand he could immediately show me the break and wrote of it being shown as a sprained tendon in the letter he received from the case manager and the document I showed him from the ACC of list of my injuries.

He said it was neither 'permenant or stable' and I needed to be referred back to the orthopaedic clinic. so together the assessor and myself have made a good case to have my file reviewed and corrected.

Mini


You , unlike the main moaners around here ,you do do your homework first, therefore get better results from the court.

is this just plain jealosy that drives them to abuse everyone without even doing their own simple research.
0

#71 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:34 PM

mini as in whom designed a return to work as in light duties , as in oppposed to future of rehabilatition, seems as been your issues with the corporation
0

#72 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:37 PM

good to see there as in past issues being addressed, to reasasure ones past , as to present
0

#73 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:03 PM

View PostMINI, on 26 May 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

At an assessment is the time to get any misquotes ACC have made about your injuries fixed up.

After showing the assessor my xray of my hand he could immediately show me the break and wrote of it being shown as a sprained tendon in the letter he received from the case manager and the document I showed him from the ACC of list of my injuries.

He said it was neither 'permenant or stable' and I needed to be referred back to the orthopaedic clinic. so together the assessor and myself have made a good case to have my file reviewed and corrected.

Mini


The privacy act exists solely for the purposes of ensuring that we have total control over oh information. This means that prior to any assessor looking at our files that we have the right to correct the information on them. This way ACC are prevented from making any misquotes whatsoever.

For example if like myself I have both broken bones in my wrist and hand along with broken tendons ligaments and suchlike the ACC would be wrong to report to the Criminal and civil courts and media that I had a sore hand as they had been provided medical information that concluded any safe use of my hand due to the objective information determined by way of clinical analysis using high-tech imaging equipment.

In the event that there is any disputes with the ACC then the ACC are required to correct the information based on the superior medical authorities. This means that the ACC must totally disregard all speculations and assumptions by members of the public that assert otherwise.. This also removes any possibility of the ACC speculating their own facts as legislation does not permit them to produce information in their own interests.
0

#74 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:05 PM

View Posttommy, on 26 May 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

mini as in whom designed a return to work as in light duties , as in oppposed to future of rehabilatition, seems as been your issues with the corporation


There is only one authority to determine the safe return to work by way of light duties and that is the treatment providers.. Nobody else is entitled to an opinion. Should the ACC obtain a report that is contrary to the medical treatment providers in the ACC should report that treatment provided to the medical Council for failing to provide proper medical treatment. It is not for the ACC to issue a decision contradicting the treatment provider regarding what is and what is not safe.
0

#75 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:06 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 May 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

There is only one authority to determine the safe return to work by way of light duties and that is the treatment providers.. Nobody else is entitled to an opinion. Should the ACC obtain a report that is contrary to the medical treatment providers in the ACC should report that treatment provided to the medical Council for failing to provide proper medical treatment. It is not for the ACC to issue a decision contradicting the treatment provider regarding what is and what is not safe.


Do you know of any Judgements that back up your advice?.
0

#76 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:23 PM

View Postgreg, on 26 May 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

Do you know of any Judgements that back up your advice?.


The personal injury suffered may not have resulted in immediate incapacity for work in that employment. If the claimant becomes incapacitated from that injury at a later date, his or her incapacity will be determined in relation to whether or not he or she was an earner at the date the personal injury was suffered, not at the date he or she became incapacitated. See Court v ACC 15/9/03, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 225/03 where the claimant, a meat worker, “soldiered on” to the end of the season before having a much needed operation. His incapacity commenced when he ceased work.

In Churchill v ACC 20/2/03, Judge Beattie, DC Wellington 22/03 the Court reiterated that “incapacity” and “capacity to work” are mutually exclusive concepts. The Court found that a person cannot be determined as having capacity to work in that person’s pre-injury employment. If such were the case that person could no longer be regarded as being incapacitated because incapacity remains specific to the pre-injury occupation. The concept of “capacity to work” is based on the premise that the person is incapacitated, but yet still capable of undertaking employment other than that in which they were employed at the time of their injury. See also Chesterman v ACC 7/8/01, Judge Beattie, DC Wellington 213/01, Carnahan v ACC 26/6/02, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 176/02, and Reeves v ACC 11/12/02, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 343/02.

The personal injury suffered may not have resulted in immediate incapacity for work in that employment. In fact incapacity may occur well after the injury as where an injured claimant “soldiers on” working after the injury. See Court v ACC 15/9/03, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 225/03 where the claimant, a meat worker, “soldiered on” to the end of the season before having a much needed operation. It was accepted that his incapacity started from when he ceased work.

Incapacity can be established retrospectively to the time of the original injury but generally only in the face of proper medical certification with additional and strong supporting evidence. See Jonker v ACC 25/11/03, Judge Hole, DC Wellington 301/03, and Jamieson v ACC 29/3/04, Judge Cadenhead, DC Wellington 80/04.

If a claimant who was not an earner suffers an injury and later becomes an earner and then becomes incapacitated as a result of the injury, that person could not have his or her incapacity determined under s 103.

Section 101 requires the Corporation to determine a claimant’s capacity for “employment” under s 103 or s 105. “Work” is not defined but “employment” is defined in s 6 and means work engaged in or carried out for the purpose of pecuniary gain or profit, and in the case of an employee, includes a period of paid leave.


0

#77 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:55 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

The personal injury suffered may not have resulted in immediate incapacity for work in that employment. If the claimant becomes incapacitated from that injury at a later date, his or her incapacity will be determined in relation to whether or not he or she was an earner at the date the personal injury was suffered, not at the date he or she became incapacitated. See Court v ACC 15/9/03, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 225/03 where the claimant, a meat worker, “soldiered on” to the end of the season before having a much needed operation. His incapacity commenced when he ceased work.

In Churchill v ACC 20/2/03, Judge Beattie, DC Wellington 22/03 the Court reiterated that “incapacity” and “capacity to work” are mutually exclusive concepts. The Court found that a person cannot be determined as having capacity to work in that person’s pre-injury employment. If such were the case that person could no longer be regarded as being incapacitated because incapacity remains specific to the pre-injury occupation. The concept of “capacity to work” is based on the premise that the person is incapacitated, but yet still capable of undertaking employment other than that in which they were employed at the time of their injury. See also Chesterman v ACC 7/8/01, Judge Beattie, DC Wellington 213/01, Carnahan v ACC 26/6/02, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 176/02, and Reeves v ACC 11/12/02, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 343/02.

The personal injury suffered may not have resulted in immediate incapacity for work in that employment. In fact incapacity may occur well after the injury as where an injured claimant “soldiers on” working after the injury. See Court v ACC 15/9/03, Judge Beattie, DC Dunedin 225/03 where the claimant, a meat worker, “soldiered on” to the end of the season before having a much needed operation. It was accepted that his incapacity started from when he ceased work.

Incapacity can be established retrospectively to the time of the original injury but generally only in the face of proper medical certification with additional and strong supporting evidence. See Jonker v ACC 25/11/03, Judge Hole, DC Wellington 301/03, and Jamieson v ACC 29/3/04, Judge Cadenhead, DC Wellington 80/04.

If a claimant who was not an earner suffers an injury and later becomes an earner and then becomes incapacitated as a result of the injury, that person could not have his or her incapacity determined under s 103.

Section 101 requires the Corporation to determine a claimant’s capacity for “employment” under s 103 or s 105. “Work” is not defined but “employment” is defined in s 6 and means work engaged in or carried out for the purpose of pecuniary gain or profit, and in the case of an employee, includes a period of paid leave.


Thanz this will give them a starting point. read , read and then read.
0

#78 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1199
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 26 May 2017 - 08:00 PM

Hey Greg welcome back.......its nice to see some past long time members coming back in and so far, having positive and constructive discussions on matters without threads being hijacked. Fingers crossed it continues down this track.
0

#79 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 27 May 2017 - 11:18 PM

Just a point to add in that it is section 117 The High Court decision Ellwood V ACC confirms that an opinion of an assessor is to be ignored when it oposes the medical documentation held by ACC before the opposing assessment was obtained. If the assessor or ACC disagrees with the information then they must show error in the medical information in ACC possession including any medical reports that are available to the public.

MICHAEL ERNEST ELLWOOD V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV 2005-485-536 18 December 2006

Need to read the whole judgement to understand it and paragraph 62 on wards confirm this. This means that higher qualification does not mean that the higher qualified person is correct.
0

#80 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 30 May 2017 - 09:25 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 27 May 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

Just a point to add in that it is section 117 The High Court decision Ellwood V ACC confirms that an opinion of an assessor is to be ignored when it oposes the medical documentation held by ACC before the opposing assessment was obtained. If the assessor or ACC disagrees with the information then they must show error in the medical information in ACC possession including any medical reports that are available to the public.

MICHAEL ERNEST ELLWOOD V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV 2005-485-536 18 December 2006

Need to read the whole judgement to understand it and paragraph 62 on wards confirm this. This means that higher qualification does not mean that the higher qualified person is correct.


A useful judgement and it demonstrates the importance of making sure that treatment providers are providing opinion before any assessment. Prevention is a key ingredient in dealing with ACC.
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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