ACCforum: (***)wcb Suicide Statistics (***) - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

(***)wcb Suicide Statistics (***)

#1 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 January 2005 - 11:48 AM

copied from:

WCB Statistics

I have been looking at the Statistics page
on the Worksafe Website for the following years 1999,2000,2001

I know there has been some discussion of this before, and I have searched out all the Suicides in the statistics and I was surprized at what I have found. This isn't a good record.......

Copied from the WCB statistics 1999-2002
0620 Food Product Mfg. 1997 Labourer Worker took own life due to pain arising from a work-related injury.

0711 Electrical Wiring 1997 Electrician Worker took own life due to pain arising from a work-related injury.

8110 Federal Government 1987 Firefighter Age: 28 Worker took own life due to pain arising from a work-related
back injury.

7140 Wood and Paper Products 1999 Technician Age: 36 Worker took his own life due to pain and other complications
arising from a work-related injury.

7210 General Construction 1999 Technician Age: 52 Worker took his own life due to pain and other complications arising from a work-related injury.

7210 General Construction 1999 Labourer 34 Worker took his own life due to pain and other complications arising from a work-related injury.

8411 Government of the Province of B.C. 2000 Paramedic 53 Worker took his own life due to pain and other complications arising from a work-related injury.

8411 Government of the Province of B.C. 2001 Paramedic 54 Worker took his own life due to pain and other complications arising from a work-related injury.

7010 Agriculture 2001 Foreman 35 Fell and broke neck after overdose of medication being used to treat a work-related back injury.

7210 General Construction 2002 Ironworker 40 Overdose of medication being used to treat injuries that resulted from a 40 foot fall.

7670 Utilities 2002 Tradesman 58 Accidental drowning in hot tub as a result of medications being used to treat a work-related injury.

take the time to view the rest of the thread here:

#2 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 January 2005 - 12:02 PM

Critque on the Workers' Constipation Borg, and their Claims Manipulation Techniques

#3 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 January 2005 - 09:40 PM

At least the Canadian Gov't keeps stats that are accessible.

#4 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 23 January 2005 - 02:08 PM

:wacko: Sucide Statistic...techanically Im alive so I can't be recorded as a sucide stastic.I can have it recorded that I have contemplated sucide,on more than one occasion.
seeked assistance from Lifeline :wub: supported by friends through the turmoil...
Combination of stress depression frustration over long periods reduced me to wanting to escape the black hole madness and find enternal piece in another world.

:wub: A learning experience in life on how to struggle and survive against over whelming odds.
Where there is LIFE there is hope.

L earning
I ntelligently
F rom

Thanks to everyone how has supported me in my times of need. ;)

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 23 January 2005 - 03:32 PM

been there done that, but it was not going to get me anything.

and that was before the real arseholes came along.

I am having more fun in what i are now doing Treating others as they treat me.

my latest case manager is treating me as dumm and stupid. Yes Mt Odd's , Mr Ray Wilson and Mr Mcdonald (who can't get along with his wife. I hear that she kicked him out.)

well Mr oldds do you think that it is time to get another review, medation. you know the subject. there was no decision made on section 59 (1982) Act and there fore there could not be a review. the decision to review a decision under section 119. Well isn't it true that a reviewer or the courts could not make a decision to serve a summons under section 119. remember that the court decision is on section 59 and not section 119. you are out of time to serve a summary conviction, but the corporation would have lost as Gail Donaldson wrote in her memo on declining rehabilitation that she received the earnings information.

So Mr Olds the reveiw officer is of the hook as being bais in this case as it was the CM that supplied the misleading information.

Your bonus; you have to work for the next 25 years to cover the loss the ACC is going to have due to the mismanagerment of claims.

#6 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 24 January 2005 - 01:10 PM

copied from another forum - interesting read.

Hi All;
Dr. Gary Lea Psychologist from Kelowna wrote this
article. Also, the man (patient) Dr. Lea writes about is a member of our group. I am sending this this is probably the best it will ever get in terms of "saying it like it is". A lot of injured workers have read this article 'n cried as they couldn't believe that someone finally understands what it's like to be an
injured worker.


A Voice for R.O.R.Y.


Lea, Psy. D., R. Psych.

Many health professionals hold the belief that individuals involved in
personal injury suits/Workers' Compensation claims exaggerate their pain and disability due to the potential for secondary gain, e.g., social attention, work avoidance, or financial compensation. This phenomena has been termed "compensation neurosis", although a review of the literature shows little justification for the term's continued use
(Solomon 1988). This article outlines the worker's response to the
impact of such widely held beliefs.

Some of the doubts about claimants stem, in part, from an
influential paper in the early 1960's by Dr. H. Miller, a British
neurologist, who argued that accident claimants deliberately exaggerate
or deceive in order to substantiate their claims. As evidence, he cited that fact that once their claims are settled 90% of these people
returned to their former or similar jobs. Follow up studies, however,
have failed to replicate these findings (Kelly, 1975; Oddy et al, 1978;
Tarsh & Royston, 1985). It is no longer justifiable then, for people in the field to claim that it is well known that patients with such
symptoms immediately return to work after their claim has been settled.
Nonetheless, and notwithstanding these studies, the majority of
claimants attending my office for neuropsychological and/or
psychotherapeutic services report all too often disconcerting or
critical comments, delays in the medical and psychological assessments,
repetitious evaluations, delays in reaching settlements, symptom
minimization or denial, and perceived lack of empathy for their
conditions. The following comments relate to rehabilitation patients
attending for clinical psychological services on referral from a wide
variety of vocational rehabilitation agencies and personnel. The
comments to follow do not, and should not be interpreted to, reflect any one particular agency or person or persons.

My practice involves the assessment and treatment of sexual victims (as well as offenders) and a wide array of rehabilitation clients including those who have suffered brain and other physical injuries, and/or psychological distress producing, amongst a number of effects, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, and adjustment disorders.

Early in 1995 one of my clients who had sustained a horrific mill
accident with brain and multiple other injuries was perusing my office
library when he came across a book entitled "I Can't Get Over It: A
Handbook for Trauma Survivors" by Aphrodite Matsakis, Ph.D., a
specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder. The book is designed
primarily for victims of crime, rape, sexual abuse, family violence,
natural catastrophes, and vehicular accidents; not suffering from these
particular traumas, my client readily identified with the symptoms
outlined in Chapter 4's "The Three Levels of Victimization". This
insight not only led to fruitful discussions thereafter but to a better
appreciation of the impact the rehabilitation system, has, at times, on
the clients it serves. With Dr. Matsakis' approval I am using her
secondary victimization as a template for discussing the effects of
re-traumatization by the rehabilitation system on its clients.


Matsakis defines victimization as occurring on three levels: the
traumatic event itself (e.g. the work-related injury), secondary
wounding experiences, and acceptance of the victim label. In Level I
the victim has their basic assumptions about themselves, human nature,
and the nature of the world shattered. In keeping with post traumatic
stress or adjustment disorders the trauma may produce significant
psychological distress including confusion, depression, anxiety,
distrust and the like. The worker's assumption about personal
invulnerability is shattered, as well as the notion that the world is
orderly and meaningful, or that the worker is basically good and
strong. The loss of invulnerability may, in turn, produce a loss of
sense of safety, together with the fear of further injury or other
harm. Those familiar with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder will recognize
that these feelings of vulnerability may well develop into a sense of
doom or a foreshortened sense of future. Social withdrawal, impaired
frustration tolerance and unwelcome dependency feelings are also common
outcomes with injured workers.

Being traumatized in the workplace often leads to loss of self
image, memory impairment, and concomitant feelings of helplessness and
powerlessness. Many, by virtue of their injury, are forced into
dependency roles with a host of rehabilitation personnel, physicians,
psychologists, adjudicators, adjusters, and job placement officers. For the vast majority of rehabilitation clients this represents a marked shift from their previous sense of being able to "take care of business" in independent fashion. Many claimants find it very difficult to accept their "neediness" as normal to their circumstances.

The trauma-produced regression to dependency leads many, though not all, claimants to want to be cared for and to have assurances. Consider how difficult it is, then, to hear rehabilitation personnel question their integrity, or otherwise portray or present an uncaring response to their needs. The reaction of the caregiver is, then, particularly
troubling when the claimant does not want to be in the "one down" or
"child" position in the first place. Some claimants by-pass the human
caregiver altogether and turn to alcohol or other potentially addictive
substances; one's ability to self-medicate is predictable, less
frightening and less humiliating than turning to other people for help, particularly so if the caregiver is perceived to be unsympathetic.

Social isolation is common with PTSD or adjustment disorders. With
the work-related claimant the isolation may reflect the initial period
of physical recuperation, changes in physical appearance or
presentation, a change of self-image, embarrassment over not working,
and general loss of self-esteem. This dynamic runs counter to the
aforementioned dependency dynamic.

One's rage and anger can be turned against oneself or against
others who either contributed to the injury or to those agencies which
have failed to mete out "justice" when one has been carelessly harmed.
Claimants like to think that when they have sustained a significant
trauma "justice" will be done and that those who brought about their
trauma, if identifiable, will be disciplined. In many cases, those
employers or fellow employees who are morally culpable seem to slip
through the net and, for all the claimant knows, continue to work
without punishment or fear of same. This, needless to say, can be a
source of significant frustration and anger to the worker, compounded by the worker's difficulty in securing documents relevant to their injury, and the prohibition against taking legal action (in many jurisdictions).

More salient, in my view, is the "secondary wounding" defined by
Dr. Matsakis (p. 80). She defines secondary wounding as emotional
injury inflicted by anyone from strangers to family and friends or
helping professionals who, through callousness or ignorance, do more
harm than good. Instead of providing a sense of support the
aforementioned individuals or caregivers contribute to a sense of shame
for having been traumatized in the first place, or for even asking for
help. Matsakis cites several poignant examples which mirror comments my clients have made, i.e., "You weren't hurt enough to be entitled to
benefits" or "It happened weeks (or months or years) ago. You should be over it by now". The effect of this minimizing may create additional reporting of trauma, and provide an invitation to the worker to report a higher frequency/severity of symptoms than otherwise might exist to receive "validation".


Secondary wounding is considered to occur when the institutions or
caregivers, to whom the worker turns for assistance, respond with
disbelief, denial, discounting, blame, stigmatization, and denial or
delay of assistance. In the case of the work-related trauma survivor,
the caregiver or others may deny or disbelieve the extent of the
person's trauma or its meaning to the worker and its impact on their
life or that of his family. For example, a client of mine has, amongst
a host of other injury-related difficulties, been unable to kiss his
wife. The caregivers he spoke with regarded this as of no great
significance, as it was unrelated to his employability-yet it has
significant meaning for him on a marital-sexual level.

Stigmatization is said to occur when others, either inside or out
of the system, are critical of the worker for normal reactions to the
trauma. This can take different forms including misinterpretation of
the worker's distress as a sign of pre-existing psychological problems
or moral or mental deficiency. In other cases one or more caregivers
may imply or make an outright statement that the worker's symptoms
reflect a desire for financial gain, attention, unwarranted sympathy, or work avoidance.

In other cases workers are arbitrarily deprived of much needed
services or they have to make repeated submissions and multiple
applications for the services, or the services have been provided but
the costs for the services, having been paid by the worker, are either
delayed in their reimbursement or refused altogether. For some workers
the secondary wounding experiences are described as more painful and
devastating than the original trauma.

Further in Chapter 4 of her book Dr. Matsakis identifies six
specific types of secondary wounding responses: denial and disbelief,
discounting, blaming the victim, ignorance, generalization, and
cruelty. These wounding responses are well identified in the sexual
abuse survivor literature but, to my knowledge, inadequately identified
in the rehabilitation literature, if at all. Empathic caregivers will
help their clients identify these six types of secondary wounding
responses, and help the worker recapture their sense of self which
includes health on the one hand and identification of the sources of
oppression in the system on the other.

The worker may also be assisted in acquiring or exercising
assertiveness vis a vis refusing to accept (if that is the worker's
position) the "common wisdom" of the agency, medical or psychological
staff about their condition and vis a vis insisting on being heard as to what is happening in the worker's medical, emotional, familial, and
vocational or academic experience-in other words, to allow the worker to see him/herself in a collaborative role as an expert about their
condition, along with other experts, who have training and experience in a particular field but who do not and cannot claim to have the day to day experience of the injured worker.

In cases of sexual assault it is typically the offender, or an
insensitive family member, police officer, or mental health provider
(fortunately these types of occurrences are less frequent with
increasing education regarding victim psychology) who engages in
secondary wounding. Within the vocational rehabilitation realm, denial
and disbelief more commonly come from rehabilitation, medical, and/or
psychological personnel. Some such personnel express denial or
disbelief, not that the worker had a trauma (which is difficult to deny
given the abundance of records), but the worker's phenomenology, or
their statements as to what is occurring in terms of their current
physical/psychological status or ability to return to work.

Workers who are already in a dependent state, find such disbelief
or discounting troubling, and worry, at times, that perhaps they are
"weak" or are exaggerating their circumstances. Sometimes they abandon
their own experiences (the end result of invalidation) and attempt to
adopt the viewpoint of the caregiver. This cognitive shift, while
productive for the minority of malingerers, is counterproductive in the
general case. In one recent case a fire-fighter, whose parents were
alcoholic, was traumatized when an elderly alcoholic male was burned to
death in a house fire. After the fire the other firefighters commented
that "no loss..he was just another alcoholic". This trauma not only
reactivated issues related to his growing up in an alcoholic home but
also the insensitivity at the loss of human life, even if alcoholic
human life. He was told by rehabilitation staff, however, that he was
not definitely not traumatized and should return to work, even though be satisfied criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Blaming the victim is the third of the secondary wounding
responses. Such woundings that I am familiar with include statements
that the worker should not have taken the job in the first place or
should have quit when he saw that his place of work was dangerous.
Ignorance is yet another type of secondary wounding response. In one
case an electrocution survivor was advised by a rehabilitation
consultant to consider taking a job working on high power lines.
Needless to say, the worker was incredulous that such a recommendation
might be made. Generalization is yet another wounding response which
seems endemic to the rehabilitation system. I have had many workers
state that they feel dehumanized by the label of "rehabilitation
claimant". It seemed that no matter what they did or said their
conduct was considered only in that light - the label comes to define
the worker, not the worker's own history and hopes for the future.

The above-described wounding responses are highly troubling to the
workers I have spoken with. One of the difficulties, of course, is that the worker cannot determine whether the wounding response arises from a desire on the part of the caregiver to cause psychic pain, or ignorance, generalization, or some other distancing mechanism on the part of the caregiver. Matsakis conjectures that this type of psychological revictimization can reflect difficulties with intimacy, or a general numbing found throughout society making it difficult for people to empathize with each other's pain, even within their own families.


The third of the three levels of victimization involves victim
thinking. Again, victim thinking is well identified in the sexual abuse literature but is unexplored in the rehabilitation literature. Victim thinking may include chronic and persistent thoughts of helplessness, betrayal, guilt, self blame, and self-stigmatization. More specific examples might include the following: "I shouldn't expect too much good to happen from here on in", "I can do nothing to make my life better", "No one will hire me as an injured worker", "I am always going to feel this way", "I am going to have to be extra competent in order to compensate for my shortcomings", "I am afraid to try something new in case I make a mistake", "When people look at me they will know that I am different", "It would have been better off had I died during the accident", "People are either for me or against me", and "I am never going to get over what happened to me". This, needless to say, is not an exhaustive list but serves to illustrate the kind of thinking that injured workers may experience.

While victim thinking may represent an adaptive response
initializing to secondary wounding experiences, in the long run, victim
thinking may make it difficult to experience full vocational
rehabilitation. If the worker exhibits victim thinking he/she needs to
be reminded that the original trauma and/or the secondary wounding
experiences may have initially created a need for defensive, victim
thinking. At the same time, the worker needs to be reminded that victim mentality, while possibly serving short term interests, does not serve long term rehabilitative interests, and doesn't fit the current
situation at present. To position themselves on a positive
rehabilitative track, injured workers need to assertively confront those who engage in secondary wounding, and make their own cognitive shifts, i.e. abandon perfectionistic thinking (both with respect to themselves and to their caregivers), accept that they are having personal difficulties, avoid "all or nothing" thinking, and terminate maladaptive survival tactics (i.e. passive-dependency, withdrawal, inappropriate anger, etc.). Cognitive-behavioural strategies may be beneficial in this regard. What is important is that the worker be validated, and helped to reclaim his/her view of self as one with not only a past, but a future in some meaningful role.

In sum, secondary wounding, rather than spurring the claimant, on
to a rehabilitative "fast tract", engenders cynicism, doubt, betrayal,
and distrust of the "system". Moreover, just as some caregivers
generalize their experience with a small minority of malingerers to the
whole claimant population, worker-claimants themselves may generalize
their doubts about the system to all who participate in it. This
dynamic predictably delays the rehabilitative process and, from my
experience, leads to additional and unnecessary evaluations and
re-evaluations and nauseam until the worker literally gives up in
despair and fantasizes exiting the system by going on financial
assistance or in extreme situations, via suicide. (Parenthetically, I
would estimate that 50% of my rehabilitation clients have actively
contemplated suicide at one time or another, not as a reflection of the
initial trauma but as an outcome of secondary wounding).

In other cases the worker may turn his/her despair and anger outward against the agency in an anti-social fashion, e.g., by damaging
rehabilitation agency offices, threatening caregivers, and the like.
All of these events are a matter of record in the province of British
Columbia and, I have little doubt, exist in other provinces and states
as well.

The path out of this psychological cul de sac, in my view, would
include, but not be limited to, a clear expression of caregiver empathy
and compassion (not cynical doubt) for the worker, minimizing the number of medical and psychological evaluations needed to determine the
worker's vocational status, minimizing the number of personnel the
worker has to deal with (i.e., having the same personnel maintain the
claimant's file from start to finish; nothing is more discouraging than
meeting with 5 or 6 different rehabilitation coordinators or disability
claims adjudicators in the course of one's rehabilitation process),
familiarity with the worker's file (not to be familiar with the file
prior to contact with the worker leads to the conclusion that the
caregiver is disinterested in the worker), and the simple courtesy of
responding to correspondence and telephone calls. I have encountered
many workers who express frustration over not hearing from caregivers
and rehabilitation personnel in spite of repeated phone calls and
correspondence. I suspect that this goes to the issue of caseload
numbers and burn out, or possibly a reflection of the relative value
placed on collaborative recovery versus worker blame.

Overcoming the secondary wounding inflicted by ill-informed or
burnt out caregivers requires the worker to identify the secondary
wounding experience and to distance him/herself from the negative
responses on both the emotional and the mental level. This means
learning not to react to the secondary wounding as "catastrophic" or
devastating, but directing the blame where it needs to go, i.e., on the
secondary wounder.

This type of distancing, in many cases, will require empathic
support from family and/or professional caregivers who are in a position to counter the insensitivity expressed by those caregivers who may be hurried poorly trained, or simply burnt out. A professional caregiver, in particular, may be helpful in identifying the negative self-talk which may be generated by thoughtless comments on the part of
retraumatizing caregivers.

It is always important to maintain a keen sense of one's own worth, regardless of one's physical or psychological disabilities, and
regardless of blaming or negative comments made by others. By affirming one's own worth as a person one is helped to feel, at least to a certain degree, more in control of one's future and more objective, and to regain a sense of self-efficacy and personal competency.

Workers, of course, can make their own contribution to facilitating the rehabilitative process. With the help of rehabilitation personnel and/or mental health professionals they can be invited to challenge their victim thinking and to acquire personally meaningful ways of articulating their frustration with the "system". This will include enhancement of self esteem, assertiveness training, depression and anger management, and resolution of the initial trauma via psychotherapy.

Claimants can also facilitate the process by being prepared for
their meetings, having relevant documents, having their questions
written down and rehearsed (particularly in the case of memory impaired
workers) and learning to exercise a modicum of patience and tolerance
for their caregivers who are, in many cases, over-worked, generally
unappreciated, and understaffed.

Gary W. Lea is a psychologist working in Kelowna, B.C.


Kelly R (1975) The post-traumatic syndrome: an iatrogenic disease.
Forensic Sciences, 6: 17-24

Matsakis A (1992) I can't get over it: a handbook for trauma survivors.
Oakland, California: New Harbinger Publications.

Oddy M, Humphrey M, Uttley D (1978) Subjective impairment and social
recovery after closed head injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery
and Psychiatry, 41: 611-616

Solomon P (1988) Prediction of outcome in chronic pain patients: the
role of litigation. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation 1 (4 supp): 15

Tarsh M, Royston CA (1985) follow up of accident neurosis. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 146: 18-25

#7 User is offline   next2normal 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 24 January 2005 - 03:48 PM

well i have a concern..since sucide is an accident..when it comes to the time of the coroner court...the police present the case..and health officails at the hospital can say what ever they want and force the police to purjury the infomation..will clarify my brother commited sucide 18 months ago the gisborne hosptial took him of his medication..and 6 weeks latter he took his life..he rang up the mental services for 3 days but his case worker was away training..he got in touch with her on the thursday morning got an appointment for the afternoon then after speaking to his case worker he took his life...what the hosptail said was my brother had been of his medication for 9 months and it was only six weeks
what checks are put in place to make sure they tell the truth in court and if proven that they are surpling lies to the court what checks in place to proscute for perjury
or dont hosptials make mistakes..or put there hand up and say they were wrong...
is lying in court acceptable for a govt dept
poor police having to read lies in court for the hosptail

#8 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 January 2005 - 07:07 PM

The article above is one of the best I have seen written about the secondary wounding that occurs at the hands of accident insurers.

#9 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 04 August 2006 - 02:41 PM

That is lengthy but interesting on this stress factor thing that ACC utilises, the correllations in my own persolan case have run the gauntlet and in the main fron the tactics evident it that report/paper.
Was there not a company heavily fined and the directors and others jailed for this thpe of applied stress in the liability reduction programs they run and has an amazing similarity to the system ACC is currently using since once having held shares in that particular organisation?????
no wonder the Yanks dont want cer.
and in My Opinion they are using tactics better suited for Guantamo Bay or elsewhere beyond the realms of humanity and Law..

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 04 August 2006 - 06:31 PM

May be it another documment that I should get put on my file

Be good for the courts and judges to read.

#11 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 20 December 2010 - 05:39 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ,

Was speaking with a guy couple of days ago and he told me that he knew a person who was pushed to the point of commiting sucide by the pressure ...

Apparently ACC where aware of this ...

and he reckons ACC " rode him (the person ) like a horse " :wacko: ...

How sad is that ?

Bloody gutless vultures!


#12 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 23 December 2010 - 11:50 AM

Sad that the young woman whom was hit by a car in Ponsonby became a recluse and committed sucide according to a recent NZ Herald Front Page article.

All as a direct result of an accident causing injuries.


Hit-and-run woman found dead

By Andrew Koubaridis
5:30 AM Wednesday Dec 15, 2010

Lynette Kilmartin. Photo / Martin Sykes.

Lynette Kilmartin was a bodybuilder in peak physical condition until she was run down in a hit-and-run that changed her life.

The accident, on Ponsonby Rd in Auckland just over a year ago, left her "broken" physically and emotionally.

In recent months she'd learned to walk again and although she was physically improving, the emotional toll was as shattering as the injury to her leg which was almost severed from the knee down.

The 37-year-old was found dead on Sunday. Her death has been referred to the coroner.

When she was injured, Ms Kilmartin had just moved to Auckland for a new job and was out for a night celebrating with friends.

She had just got out of a taxi on Ponsonby Rd when she was hit by the car of representative hockey player Prasant Nathoo who was speeding away after assaulting a prostitute with his hockey stick.

As well as the leg injury, Ms Kilmartin's back and a shoulder were broken.

Nathoo was jailed for 3 years in September after pleading guilty to dangerous driving, failing to stop to check for injuries and possession of an offensive weapon.

Ms Kilmartin's mother, Melva Smith, last night told the Herald her daughter was on her own for much of the past year.

She had to be in Auckland for treatment and despite visits from her family - who live in Blenheim- she still felt alone.

"She has been very brave, but she was quite apprehensive about what the future held for her," Mrs Smith said.

After the accident she lost confidence.

"From being a bubbly, confident woman she became a recluse nearly ... She couldn't seem to see she would ever get back to what she was or feel good about herself."

As she recovered many people called on her, although the number of callers dwindled as the months passed, and her depression grew.

"It was devastating, absolutely, and we wanted to bring her down here."

Mrs Smith last saw her daughter at the end of October. "It was just awful to see the way she was. It just broke me up."

Ms Kilmartin had suffered from depression before but the "horrific injury didn't help, put it that way".

She had been using Facebook to communicate, but when her computer went down she lost that ability to reach out to people.

"That had an awful effect on her too," said Mrs Smith. "It's been a sad, unhappy time for her ..."

But she said she would remember her daughter's enthusiasm, quick wit and warm spirit, rather than those last sad months.

Friend Noelene Ryan met Ms Kilmartin after the accident.

"She just fought so hard to get back from that accident. Initially just to survive, but then to get her life back."

She was walking without an aid and making progress despite physical and emotional pain. At times she fainted during her physio treatments.

"What she achieved physically to get back out there without a walking stick or crutches or wheelchair ... but at the end she was just broken."

Another friend, Martin Leach, also met her after the accident. He said he got to know her well and thought she was doing all right.

"I saw her [last week] and she'd walked from Newton Rd where she lived ... to the service station on the corner of Ponsonby Rd and K Rd."

Mr Leach said she had regained a lot of mobility in the past 12 months.

"So I hoped she was just going to get on with life."

He'd been told she was in a good frame of mind last week, and there was no indication she was depressed.

Her physio work had gone as far as it could so she joined a gym.

"She really had, we thought, turned the corner."

He could understand why she harboured so much anger since her accident.

"If someone hit you out of the blue and left you for dead as he did, then there would be a lot of bitterness."

After Nathoo was sentenced, Ms Kilmartin said her leg "looked like something out of Jaws".

She told the NZ Woman's Weekly in July she wouldn't wish her ordeal on her worst enemy, not even on Nathoo.
By Andrew Koubaridis | Email Andrew

Very, very sad. Sad, people assume others are OK when in fact they are NOT OK.



Some people struggle and take enormous courage to ask for help and don't receive the support they need.

They often get further abused, including by those whom are in positions of power who are often in an ivory tower world of their own, far removed from reality.

Incidently we don't mean help from Mental Health Services but practical every day help.


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