[Ivan]

Wow!!!

This is the sort of info that we have been trying to find for years, to prove beyond any doubt that they are motivated simply by the number of exits, rather than rehabilitation outcomes that return injured people to sustainable employment and independence.

I take it you do not know what year this form was from, or whether this is still going on. I wonder if the highest ranking branch for exits each month got a trophy, as happened with Income Support in the 90s, when the office with the best debt recovery from beneficiaries for each month received an award.

Anyway, the Greens would be very happy to put in an OIA request for the raw data for evey month that this exit ranking operated. It will need to be worded carefully, because we also need to include the periods that tail management was assigned to Catalyst and to third-party providers.

[fairgo]

Awesome IDB! This is exactly what is needed to show the incentives (which we knew) and how targets are continually monitored.

[doppelganger]

just the days 7 nov fell on

99 sunday,
00 Tuesday,
01 Wednesday
02 Thursday
03 Friday
04 Sunday.

looks like that it could be 2003

[magnacarta]

For a full discussion on the type of document referred to by IDB see Albert 238/2000 Judge Middleton.

Judge Middleton quotes the whole process from a document entitled "Tail Management" dated 16 November 1998.

He says "It defines "tail" as being claimants who have been receiving weekly compensation for more than twelve months."

He then quotes the document in full and in particular says:

"This team structure allows for clear objectives and measurements to be in place for staff which impacts on their remuneration" (His Honour's emphasis)

and further he quotes:

" Branches now receive a fortnightly branch report on a 4-weekly stock and flow report. In addition they are now receiving quarterly reports showing branch rankings, serious injury and payment accuracy reports."

"There is a strong emphasis in all these reports on tail exit rates." (His Honours emphasis.

Under the heading Work Capacity His Honour quotes from the document: This assessment process was first available in November 1997 and the Corporation's approach was to stary carefully and devlop from there. Over the last three months the number of claimants entering and moving through the process has increased significantly." (His Honour emphasis)

Judge Middleton was not at all impressed.

This seems to tie-in with the document cited by IDB.

[Juscallin1]

This doco mentions Riccarton. Well, that branch closed before 2000!!!

Yes, EXITS are the main ACC function. nothing there about restoring and rehabilitating claimants to their max practicable extent. That is not a function of ACC's as we are all well aware.
Wonder what Winnie Peters is doing being so quiet on this??

[doppelganger]

note that the VIMA doc has nothing about rehabilitation in it either.

there are assessments an IRP but nothing about rehabilitation.

[doppelganger]

the earlist that I have found the corporation knowing that the WCAP was comming into force is a 1993 case were rehabilitation was refused because the staff knew that they would not have to provide rehabilitation after the 1992 Act came into force.

King V ACC 1993.

[Class Action]

Re: #1
November 7 2003 (?)
Christchurch - %
Karen Peoples (?)

[Spacecadet]

Class Action, on Oct 5 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

Re: #1
November 7 2003 (?)
Christchurch - %
Karen Peoples (?)

Well spotted! I don't believe in coincidence

[hukildaspida]

POST # 2 IS IVAN SOWRY FROM SUE BRADFORD'S GREENS AUCKLAND OFFICE ISN'T HE ?
Has sue bradford done anthing about this recently and is she aware of the PEOPLE'S CASE ?

[happy1]

No Sues ,been very quiet on ACC matters.
Now shes too busy chasing sixteen year olds for their votes to worry about injured workers!

[flowers]

Big bonuses paid bromleys wellington branch no doubt much to line the pockets of team mc millan sinclair millar et.al.

That was a bitter year for me.
shame shame shame and a cold cell to all who profit as has been done to me.

$ 1,ooo,ooo bucks will not repair the damage.

My curse upon them and as done unto let be done to.
and I got a big forky stick.

[BLURB]

' .... because we also need to include the periods that tail management was assigned to Catalyst and to third-party providers."

Aon was the last of these (bona fida) third party providers. Their contract wasn't renewed in June/July 2002.

Catalyst was really ACC as we know.

Takapuna

Catalyst changed its name during early 2003 (I stand to be corrected on that) and I believe is refered to in the above document as ACC Takapuna.

I say this because I believe there was no ACC branch (as such) in Takapuna during the ACC's "Stock Clearance" days of 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 / early 2003.

And as Aon was a "third party" service provider direct to Catalyst (Takapuna), not ACC (as such) it would be asummed their very successful exits of "Tail enders" would be incorperated within the Takapuna % rate as in the above document.

Now I'm confused .... not!

But I'm guessing "Class Action" would have had already firgued all that out.

[Tomcat]

Greetings,
Cant remember the name... But the facilitor at COGs (first 3 meetings before I opted out).was supposedly the Manager of catalyst... On leave from Catalyst. ? early to mid 2003...

[MG]

Unfortunately, there was a sequel in the High Court. Justice Ellen France, fresh from the Crown Law Office where she had spent a lot of her legal career defending governmental brutality, refused to accept the "Tail Claim Management Paper" as evidence that ACC had adopted a deliberate policy of paying its staff to shaft claimants because the paper was not on ACC letterhead.
There was also a sequel to the sequel. The "Sunday Star Times" reported that Murray McCully, the Minister for ACC at the time the paper was written, confirmed that it was indeed ACC policy. The judgment was never recalled and the rest, as they say, is history.

[flowers]

Foul Brood disease?
 beehive.gif (12.24K)
Number of downloads: 1

[MG]

Thanks for posting the High Court judgment - it's well worth a close read. I see that the reason Justice France gave for not accepting the 'tail claim management" report as conclusive evidence of apparent bias by ACC was that it did not appear to form part of its policy manual. IMHO, I think that amounts to the same thing as saying it was not on ACC letterhead but, in light of Mr McCully's reported comments to the "Sunday Star Times", I think it can be accepted that the report is "official" and ACC acted on it to the detriment of thousands of injured New Zealanders. My real concern about the "Albert" case is that it demonstrates our system of government is incapable of fixing its own mistakes. Because of this incapacity, and other systemic influences, I expect current injustices to get worse over the next decade or two.

[accvictim]

This is no surprise to me